On Irish Basketball, Voting for Obama, and Hitler

by Ronald C. Burgandy, III

This post contains three things: some thoughts on the upcoming ND-U of L basketball game, a few comments about presidential primaries, and – if you are still with me by this point – some random musings on various topics.

First…this Thursday at 7:00 (ESPN), the Irish hoopsters travel to my homeland of mullets, attractive women who marry tattooed men with GREs before they realize they could do better, bourbon, and Barbaro (may his little equine soul rest in peace) to take on an athletic U of L squad that many are pegging as a Final Four team. I’m really looking forward to this one, both because I will be in attendance and because it should be a great matchup, one which shouldn’t hurt the Irish too badly if they do happen to lose.

I haven’t been optimistic about ND’s chances in this one, because U of L has not lost at home since they have been healthy, the Cardinals’ frenetic defense is fueled by their great depth, and their matchup zone, unlike Syracuse’s does a great job of getting out on perimeter shooters. They have length like Georgetown, which could cause the Irish problems.

But there are some reasons for optimism. One is that Kyle McAlarney turned in the greatest outside shooting performance I have ever witnessed on Sunday against Syracuse. 9 of 11 from 3-point range is a remarkable stat, especially when four of the shots were taken from well beyond the NBA line. If he can force U of L to extend its zone to cover him from 25+ feet out, that should allow some entry passes to Luke Harangody, who is the second reason I can hope for an Irish win. LFH has been less forceful than normal in two of the last three contests as teams have really focused on stopping him. He is due another fantastic performance, and despite U of L’s formidable depth and length in the post, Luke has a shot at going off – just look at the 32 points and 16 boards he put up against the shot blocking Tanzanian monster Hasheem Thabeet at UConn.

Last, but not least, is Tory Jackson, my new favorite point guard ever. Jackson basically plays with an enormous pair of brass balls hanging outside his shorts, yet he makes sound decisions and rarely turns the ball over. Although U of L will throw crazed Tazmanian Devil-like freshman Preston Knowles at him to harass him at times, Jackson should be able to create some looks for his teammates against the zone.

I won’t venture a prediction – my gut tells me ND won’t be able to pull it off – but it should be a fierce battle. I’ll do my part in Freedom Hall to cheer on the Irish against the mob of red-clad Cardinal fanatics.

Second…I’m going to vote for Barack Obama in Kentucky’s virtually-meaningless democratic primary, and if he wins the democratic nomination, I will vote for him for President. I have a few reasons for this.

The first is that sometimes in politics, perception is just as important as substance. I’m convinced that Obama is right when he says that nothing will get done in this country unless some of the strident partisanship can be set aside and the two parties can work together. Time and again this has proven to be true in the United States. Reagan was successful because his charisma – not necessarily his policy ideas – brought enough democrats across the fence to push important legislation through. In the same way, people seem to gravitate to Obama, and I feel that he, more so than any other candidate, has a real chance to foster bi-partisan reforms of any sort.

Even though I actually agree with many of Hillary Clinton’s policy stances, her crassness and willingness to stoop to mud slinging – even in this primary – are reflective of the typical partisan divide that results in legislative impasse. Plus, when she raises her voice, I simply can’t stand to listen to her. Enough other people feel that way that I don’t think she would have a prayer of getting elected against McCain.

Furthermore, even if Obama is inexperienced and some of his positions remain underdeveloped, he is smart. And intelligent, critical thinking is a more important skill for a POTUS than are ten more years of experience in Washington. Even where I disagree with Obama – such as on NAFTA – I am convinced that he, more than any of the other candidates, will make measured, well-reasoned decisions in office. His (unpopular at the time but doubtless correct in hindsight) decision to vote against the AUMF – although repeatedly trotted out by his campaign to illustrate a similar point – really did reflect the type of calculated, well-considered decision making that could have served Washington well over the past eight years.

Finally, electing Obama would do wonders for the perception of America abroad, which has obviously taken a huge hit in recent years. Like it or not, we are perceived as a nation run by an old white boys’ club of duck-hunting, ranching, good ole’ boys. Yeah, Obama went to Harvard Law. But, realistically, both his race and his personal charisma should aid in regaining the important international support for U.S. actions abroad.

There are a couple reasons why I will not vote for McCain even though I like him in many ways. The first is that, although I actually enjoy his bucking the conservative establishment, I fear that in his attempts to solidify the base he would feel compelled to surround himself with aides who do not share his independent streak. The second objection is that he – according to his own words – would promote to the Supreme Court the types of justices that Dubya has favored – Alito, Roberts, Thomas-types. Within the next five years, at least two of the more “liberal” justices are likely to step down or kick the bucket, while the conservative 4.5 justices (Kennedy counts as only a half conservative for my purposes) are young and should remain on the court for years provided Roberts gets over his epilepsy problems. The appointment of more so-called “constructionists” would result in the retraction of constitutional protection against various types of intolerant state laws that the Court has struck down over the past half-century. That’s not a risk I’m willing to take.

Third, and switching gears…Have you ever considered how rough it would be to have the surname Hitler? Surely, that was not a unique last name at the time Adolph rose to power in Germany. There were probably countless other Hitlers, most of whom weren’t even closely related to the moustachioed megalomaniacal menace. Did they all change their names, or are there still a bunch of Hitlers running around? Has anyone ever met a Hitler?

I heard on the radio this morning that Yellow Fever is making a comeback in parts of Latin America. This is not particularly good news, as this disease, spread by mosquitoes, used to run rampant in American cities way back in the day. It apparently causes your eyes to bleed, among many other bad things (like death). Sounds about as fun as the plague.

I’ll sign off with that pleasant thought.