Category Archives: diversity

blog, diversity, Linceblog: Following Tim Lincecum, race, SF Giants, sports

Linceblog: Tim Lincecum says it’s not a make or break year for him

OK, this is no April Fool’s joke.  Our half-Filipino/true Asian American Major League Baseball superstar, a winner of two Cy Young awards, and two World Series rings, takes the mound against the  Los Angeles Dodgers tonight in his season opener. But he’s no longer the San Francisco Giants best player.  Not even the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th best player.

What has happened to Tim Lincecum?

Here was the guy they called the “Franchise,” and for a time he was the “Face,” as he adorned everything from soda cups to ducats. And it was all due to being the improbable athlete with the unusual delivery and the unhittable pitches. Those were also the main reasons he was called the “Freak,” though there were likely other recreational activities that could have earned him that moniker.

But now, the freakishness has normalized for Lincecum, and while still a fan favorite–especially among Filipino Americans–he  is neither “Franchise” nor “Face.” He’s gone from high-test to regular, just like his fast-ball.  And now the question is whether he’s lost the chance to get one of those long-term lockups recently awarded teammates Buster Posey, Matt Cain and Madison Bumgarner  that essentially make them forever Giants in their prime.

And after all he’s done for the Giants?  I mean, we’re not talking Aubrey Huff here.

After following the Giants as a fan all these years, I’m writing this blog more regularly this season (Call it the Linceblog on Amok.com) because of what Lincecum has meant for the Giants and to the Filipino American community. When there’s a dearth of high-profile Filipino Americans in anything, a star baseball player does more than you think to a community’s self-esteem. His troubles on the mound make this a critical year for Lincecum watchers. It’s hard to imagine him not being a Giant for life.

In the clubhouse after his last pre-season start against Oakland at AT&T Park, I got a chance to ask him about the start of the season.

What you notice about Lincecum is that while he’s often referred to as “short” at 5-feet-11 inches, he’s tall for a half-Filipino guy, though still fairly slight. He’s also more pensive and thoughtful in his answers than most jocks.

I didn’t want to ask him if he regrets not taking the big payday when it was in front of him (reportedly a five-year $100 million dollar deal after 2011).  Instead,  he signed a two-year $40.5 million deal (that still puts him in the top ten among all baseball stars), and makes him a free agent at the end of this year.

But he may not be in position to command $15 million, let alone $20 million a year, unless his performance dramatically improves.

So I asked him as the season begins,  if this was a “make or break year” for him:

“Not really, that concern is the last worry, the last emotion on my mind, it’s more excitement and obviously ..ah.. conviction. This year is going to be a big, big year for me, but I don’t look at it as a make or break year, I look at it as an opportunity to make myself better and come out at the end of the season on top.

“You never want to take a negative approach to anything in baseball or anything in this profession, so just to be able to stay positive after coming off a rough year last year is good for me. I’m carrying all the positives I can into this year.”

The positives are the relief performances in the post-season last year. And maybe even the flashes he showed last week against the A’s. Forget about having an ERA that was the highest in the Majors for any active starter. Forget about a Spring training shortened by blister and an ERA over 10. The guy’s  staying optimistic, and he’s certainly not thinking about things like the deal that goat away.

This week in Los Angeles, CSN Bay Area Andrew Baggarly asked him more directly about why he turned down the big deal contract. Once again, Lincecum showed he’s slightly different than your basic capitalistic jock.

“It was a time where I was in my life, I wasn’t exactly ready to commit that kind of time over something that I was still learning about, by that meaning just being in this business of baseball,” Lincecum told Baggarly, then expounded further. “It’s hard for me personally to just commit years of my life ahead of time. What I’m focusing on is what I want to do now. I just don’t want to get ahead of myself.

“I’ve never been a guy who thinks too far ahead with my future. I think I’ve made that clear with my contracts. I’m still that same guy. It doesn’t mean I don’t want to be a Giant any less or anything like that. I just like to see where I am at the end of the year.”

So Lincecum is positive and he’s motivated.  It’s the kind of thing that helps star performers elevate their game. We’ll see if that happens this year. But if Lincecum performs like he did early on in that game against the A’s last week, the Giants could win the rubber match in this opening series against the Dodger.

Lincecum looked sharp the first three innings of that Bay Bridge Series exhibition game. He started with a nine-pitch first inning that ended with slugger Yoenis Cespedes striking out swinging on three pitches.

It was kind of the ideal Lincecum inning: A flyout, a  single, a great defensive play by Crawford to get a second out, and the big K.  If all his innings this year are like that, it would definitely mark a return to form.

The next two innings were almost as good with a nine- pitch duel against Josh Donaldson that ended with a strikeout in the second. And there was another defensive gem by Crawford.

At one point Lincecum was 20 strikes for his first 24 pitches with his fastball working the best.  He said he was just throwing what catcher Buster Posey was calling for. But then admitted afterwards he was getting a little “change-up happy.”

In the fourth inning , the second time through the line-up, the A’s caught up with Lincecum including Cespedes who homered a 2-1 pitch. Lincecum fought back and struck out the next hitter (BrandonMoss), and got the tough  Donaldson out on a fly. But his elusiveness was gone, and control became an issue. By the time Lincecum was around 70 pitches in the fifth, he was done for the night.

That has been the typical arc of a Lincecum game (with or without a pitch limit). It‘s also the reason why he’s gone from “The Franchise,” to “The Concern.”

We won’t talk yet whether the future for Lincecum is as a middle reliever. That for sure would be a shock to his bank account. 

But if Lincecum wants to remain in people’s eyes as an effective, if not dominating starter, he needs more strong innings like that first one against the A’s.

That will go a long way to end a sense that at the start of this new season he’s one of  the Giants’ biggest question marks in 2013.

 

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) blog, blog, diversity, news, politics, race

On DOMA and Ginsburg’s dairy metaphor: Coconut milk marriages anyone?

I think my initial predictions will hold up. Prop. 8 goes back, and same-sex marriage resumes in California only. DOMA however goes dormant, if not totally dead.  DOMA doesn’t make sense, but to predict exactly how SCOTUS will come down on it isn’t really clear. Kennedy talking states’ rights and against Federalism could sway the conservatives, who may want to do nothing and let the Obama Administration have the courage of their convictions, i.e., if it’s a bad law, don’t enforce it. But who wants to deal with principles in Washington?

Then again, SCOTUS  can’t not do something. As Kennedy pointed out there is a definite victim with the estate tax burden on the plaintiff.

The court can be so stuffy that anytime someone shows some humanity or levity, it brings oxygen to the brain. That makes Justice Ginsburg  high-point scorer for the Wednesday session by pointing out the problem with denying same-sex couples the basic rights afforded to other marrieds under federal law.  The two-tiered, second class argument works here. But as Ginsburg put in dairy terms, that’s “skimmed milk marriage.” 

She totally skipped 2 percent marriage.

And then, what about the vegans?   

Do I have a coconut milk marriage? (You can have non-dairy, no-sugar, good fat Coconut Milk, Trader Joe makes the best one I’ve tasted. We’re talking alternatives that complete the metaphor).

See my original predictions at www.aaldef.org/blog

 

blog, diversity, politics, race

Some thoughts after SCOTUS – Prop.8 hearing

Prop. 8, that slimy, disingenuous constitution-block to same-sex marriage in the nation’s most Asian American state, is crawling back from the U.S. Supreme Court, not quite totally defeated but certainly with its tail between its legs.

It now waits for a decision by the High Court’s June recess. But from all appearances Prop. 8 will likely be sent back to California with the lower court ruling that declared it unconstitutional intact.

If my crystal ball is correct, same-sex marriages should continue again in the Golden State, but just in California. It doesn’t appear there’s five votes on the court to go whole hog for same-sex marriage nationwide quite yet.

But the trend is here. And if you’re for Prop.8 and anti-same-sex marriage, then you are akin to the proverbial Dutch boy with his finger you know where.

The flood of same-sex marriage support is about to overwhelm you.

Which is why, if you have a problem with same-sex marriage (maybe it’s a Catholic thing), I suggest you get thee to a gay marriage ceremony once they resume.

Stand in the back, by the organ — the big one that makes all the joyous noise. Or, if you’re crashing the party and feel uncomfortable, hide behind a rubber tree. Just go. You’ll be amazed.

In 2003, I attended my family’s big, fat gay wedding last weekend — my cousin Pauline’s, to be exact.

Forget about the legal contortions and gobbledygook you’ll hear from the lawyers on both sides of the issue. When you go to a gay wedding, one thing becomes apparent: The ceremony is so fundamentally American — as American as free speech — that it’s hard to imagine how anyone can fail to recognize a marriage based on such an unabashed public declaration of love.

The power of it all is undeniable. When the politics get personal, the matter is as clear as wedding-gift Lalique.

Before going further, I must say that while the function was big and fat, with nearly 400 people, I questioned whether it was really all that gay.

After all, this was a wedding where two brides made a pair — a lesbian pair. And that’s fine by me. As a straight male, I have definite lesbian tendencies. That is, I really like women, too.

At the wedding, author and former Ms. magazine Executive Editor Helen Zia helped make the distinction for me and schooled me on the lingo.

She said that I could use the term gay for a general description, but that lesbian was more appropriate, because it is more specific for my cousin.

“Queer would be the inclusive term,” Zia told me. “Or you could say GLBT, for “gay lesbian bisexual transgender.'”

So be it. The whole affair was really my family’s big, fat queer wedding.

But the pressing questions straight people tend to ask are these: Are these really weddings? Are the participants really married?

No question in my mind. It was a celebration of love and diversity.

Some conservative religious folk keep bringing up children and procreation as the reason there’s a state interest to define marriage as between man and woman. But since that wedding, my cousin has raised a lovely daughter, in a family filled with love.

The truth is there is no good reason to ban LGBT marriages. Period. The change–for equality–is coming.

Addendum: Just heard the audio on the exchange between Justice Kagan and attorney Cooper on 55-year-olds. It’s a good way to refute the procreation idea as the deal breaker on same-sex marriage. Adoption and artificial insemination already diminish the point about procreation,  but using straight 55-year-olds drives the point home. Kagan’s right, most 55-year-olds who want to get married have no interest in kids. Not a lot of kids coming out of those marriages? Probably. But she never met my friend’s 80-something uncle who sired a son. But maybe that’s a Filipino thing. Most of the time, Kagan’s right. Marriage for the AARP crowd isn’t about kids, but no Prop.8 advocate in his right mind would think to try to block those marriages.

Procreation and the preservation of  family are the main points for those who hang on to traditional definitions of marriage. But they’re weak arguments that simply don’t hold up.

blog, diversity, news, politics

By his name, may we overcome: Francis I

In a huge surprise, it didn’t take long for the Sistine Chapel to emit white smoke from its chimney.

In fairly short order, the cardinals ended the conclave and reached what appears to be an easy two-thirds majority, if not a unanimous consensus, as if it were a congenial parish council.

And then came the pronouncement over St.Peter’s Square:  “Habemus Papam,” (we have a new pope), and indeed we did.

He is Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of  Buenos Aires, Argentina, 76, described as a “simple man,” who like his abdicating predecessor became a pope of firsts.

Bergoglio is the first non-European, from Latin America, a Jesuit who didn’t choose Ignatius, but the revered saint’s name, Francis–the first pope ever to take the name of St. Francis de Assisi, the patron saint of the poor and the humbled, who rebuilt the church.

And isn’t that just what the Catholic Church riddled with accusations concerning sex, money, and inequality needs right now.

“Here I am,” he said in Latin, as he addressed the crowd at St. Peter’s Square. He then thanked Benedict, the Pope Emeritus and led the crowd in the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary.

Pope John Paul II made him cardinal in 2001, and at the last conclave, Bergoglio was said to be the runner-up to Benedict.

But in pope handicapping this time around, Bergoglio was hardly mentioned among the favorites.

Indeed, the questions remain as Francis I takes over. He’s known as a simple man. But is he charismatic? An administrator? A communicator? Does he tweet?

Did we get someone who recognizes the need for reform? Or did we get someone all too willing to let the faithful believe that indeed God works in mysterious ways.

The church will lose members either way.

Surely, the conclave could not go with a traditional man of Rome. That would be like leaving “not so good” alone, and flash a green light to the smart, cunning men (and unfortunately in the Catholic Church, men is all that we mean),  who will  continue to do what men do, all be it in the name of God.

Considering the sheer mass of alleged wrongdoing by Church leaders, some that’s only recently come to light, this was a critical moment for the cardinals.

There’s been no better case for reform in the Catholic Church since Vatican II.

It would be great if someone just plopped out of the sky, or appeared at a mountaintop in a flash of light. But that only happens in the presence of God, and the election of a pope is purely political and in the realm of man. It’s not a matter of liturgy.

If the choice was to be a Rome outsider, I thought Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, who seemed to have impressed many with his linguistic ability and charm, might have been a good choice.

That would have made a great St. Patrick’s Day story in America. O’Malley knows the politics of sex scandals, and would have lifted the American church.

But with Bergoglio, the cardinals seem to have picked the right person based on demographics. As a Latin American, the new pope is  someone who represents where the church is presently. There are 501 million Catholics in Latin America,  the largest group of followers in the world. Bergoglio appears to be the right choice just on the makeup of the modern church.

His politics is more traditional and conservative, but let’s not forget, Catholics also believe in virgin births.  Should it be a surprise that Bergoglio has been fervently against gay marriage, not to mention against contraception. Well, how do you suppose Catholicism reaches 1.2 billion people in the world. Not with condoms.

As his past is dredged over, no doubt people will find some things that might make one wish there was a better vetting process. Ratzinger/Benedict  withstood his connection with the Hitler Youth Corp.  But will Bergoglio/Francis live down his past actions where he hid from a Human Rights Committee the political prisoners of the Argentinian dictatorship?

Is the explanation compassion? Or complicity? If so, maybe this is an opportunity for a little public penance and contrition, though the preference for the simple life and embrace of the poor is already a signifcant display of  Bergoglio’s humility.

In the end, that may have been the reason for his selection. It wasn’t his penchant to bring the church into the 21st Century so much, but to bring back the simple values on which the church was built. When the debate rages within the church,  Bergoglio’s humble, spiritual style is a winning one.

To see him elevated is truly a “first will be last, last will be first” moment.

One wonders if Bergoglio, the bus rider would have shunned the papal helicopter to the papal retirement resort.  That’s the common touch that makes Bergoglio’s papacy most hopeful.

Observers and lay members of the church who may want to see all the sex issues resolved in the church, may not see the kind of reform they’d like to see in their lifetime.

But at this time, more than ever, is there a question that the Catholic Church could use a pope named Francis?

 

His politics is more traditional and conservative, but let’s not forget, Catholics also believe in virgin births.

Still, it’s Bergoglio’s humble,  spiritual style that I find more interesting. And hopeful.

At this time, more than ever, is there a question that the Catholic Church could use a Francis?