Public Service Announcement

Regular readers of this blog -- the three of you -- might remember that I wrote about Marjorie Chase's passing back in August. You can find it here. I was hoping that someone would do a permanent tribute to Ma Chase in Clarence, and now apparently that is happening.

A group of her friends are attempting to establish a scholarship in her name at Clarence Central High School, with plans to grant the first scholarship award in 2010. The scholarship must be established by March 1 to provide time for the faculty to select a student.

The title of the scholarship will be "The Marjorie Chase Scholarship to be awarded to a student with highest integrity entering the field of education."

It's a fine idea. If you are interested in donating, checks should be made payable to "Marjorie Chase Scholarship Fund." Mail it to Richard Mancuso, Business Administrator, Clarence Central Schools, 9625 Main St., Clarence, NY 14031.

Thanks.

Misinterpretation

At the halfway point of the current National Hockey League season, the Buffalo Sabres had a 13-1-4 record in one-goal games.

Fans -- and probably more than a few players, coaches and executives -- pointed to that statistic and said that the Sabres were showing their grit and character by winning the close ones, that it was a good omen for the postseason.

Me, I knew better.

The Sabres had been lucky. Really lucky.

I've looked over all sorts of sports statistics over the years, and one fact continues to be driven home, year after year. Good hockey teams don't win a large share of one-goal games. They win a large share of five-goal games.

In other words, you let a bad team hang around for 60 minutes, there's a good chance that every once in a while a puck will bounce in a funny way and complete an upset. That's happened to the Sabres a few times lately. A good team pounds you into the ground.

The Sabres have hit a flat spot lately, going 2-7-1 in their last 10. Most of their lead in the Northeast Division is about gone, as Ottawa has been hot. According to the NHL standings of the moment, the Sabres have scored 14 more goals than they have allowed. That is behind Washington, New Jersey and Pittsburgh. You'd think that would be about right. (By the way, the Senators are -1 for the season, which means you'd expect them to fade a bit in the won-loss department soon.)

Still, the Sabres figure to win their division once they get their current woes straightened out. What's more, they'd better. If the Sabres finish second in the Northeast, they'd probably have to play either New Jersey or Pittsburgh in the first round. Anyone in Buffalo feel good about their chances there?

I didn't think so.

A good column, Thank God

A commentary popped up in the Wall Street Journal on Friday about a subject that I've never seen discussed anywhere before: religion and the sports media. You can read the column by clicking here.

Over the years, I haven't touched on a player's faith much at all, and then only in passing. I'm a firm believer in trying to report on the events themselves, and why things happened the way they did. Even with feature stories, I haven't gone in a religious direction very often; I'm sure I wouldn't bring it up first.

If I were writing longer stories on certain athletes, I'm sure it would come up in a story. For example, any story on Tim Tebow -- by all accounts the nicest college student on the planet -- probably has to include his missionary work. Tony Dungy also comes to mind.

But ... but ... but ...

If I'm being honest with myself, I'd have to admit that one of the reasons I wouldn't bring it up is that I'm not particularly interested in the subject. I'm not religious and I don't believe God is playing favorites in sports events. At least, He'd better not be. There are bigger things in Haiti that need help.

I recently read a book in which a fan used to say a prayer for his favorite team before every game. He explained a Bills' comeback win as an example of power of prayer. When it was pointed out that the other team might have fans praying too, he scoffed and said, "These athiests have an answer for everything." To which I was tempted to say, "Sometimes it's a good answer, too."

This attitude toward faith comes out in a couple of ways. Let me give you an example. Many years ago, I remember interviewing a pitcher with the Buffalo Bisons who had just won a game. I said something like, "Lee, that was a nice game. What was working for you today?" And he replied, "I just put my game in the hands of the Lord. I didn't even feel like I was doing anything out there. He was doing all the work for me."

Which prompted me to wonder, did God hang that slider that was hit about three miles over the fence in the fourth inning? But I didn't ask.

So I can be a little cynical about such answers. I've also seen plenty of athletes who profess a religious approach to life, and then engage in all sorts of unGodly behavior.

I tend to censor such material out of my stories, unless there's some sort of direct connection that might move the story along. Real life example -- when Frank Reich led the comeback by the Bills over the Oilers in the playoffs 17 years ago, he said a little poem of faith before starting his news conference. I'd have used that had I been writing.

The funny part is, traditionally I have gotten along better with more religious athletes than others. I'm basically polite and friendly in reporting situations, and that seems to mesh nicely with such athletes. I also understand that for many, some sort of faith can help an individual cope with the pressures of high-level sporting events.

I'm not sure the story from the WSJ will change my approach at all; in fact, I'm sure it won't. But, it has gotten me to think about the issue a little bit, and that can only help me.

Name game

William Buckley was asked once if he had trouble writing newspaper columns on a regular basis. No, he said, he got annoyed at least three times a week.

Me, I got annoyed just the other day. The subject was the name of the stadium where the Super Bowl will be played on Sunday. It's going from Land Shark Stadium to Sun Life Stadium, as of Sunday. This stadium used to be known as Joe Robbie Stadium and Dolphins Stadium, and I'm probably missing three or four other names off the top of my head.

Now, I'm of two minds when it comes to stadium names. As a sports fan, the idea of selling naming rights still comes across as a little tacky, even though they've been doing it since I was in high school.

However, the taxpayer and football fan in my has other ideas. Here in Buffalo, the stadium is named after owner Ralph Wilson. The building was called Rich Stadium when it was built in 1973, and it stayed that way for 25 years. Rich Products bought the rights to it. Bob Rich was quoted in the Wall Street Journal the other day, saying that the Bills tried to bury the name during that era -- surprising since it wasn't a case of renaming the Louvre.

If the naming rights were sold now, they certainly would generate some income. I'm not sure under the current lease where the money would go. Would it land in the county's accounting department? It's fair to say Erie County could use some extra dollars without providing any services for it.

And if the money went to the Bills, that would be money that could close the revenue gap between the Bills and the big-market teams of the National Football League. Maybe an extra million dollars could get the Bills a starter somewhere and make the team more competitive.

Either way, it's left me ... annoyed.

A deficit in common sense

When it comes to finances, I'll bet you were taught the same points I was. Live within your means. Save your money for the proverbial rainy day. Borrow money when you absolutely need to do so. If there are more problems than dollars, make tough choices.

So if I run my checkbook like that, and you do it like that, and most people do it like that, why doesn't Congress do it that way?

Because it can do it another way. The government can either borrow money like crazy or print more money; the former is better because it's less inflationary, but either method is not exactly a prescription to long-term economic health.

There has been a great deal of talk about the national debt and government deficits lately, some of it coming from the politicians themselves. And it really does make me a little ill to hear it. Since when do most of these people care?

The only recent President to manage a surplus in recent decades was Bill Clinton, who left office with one. As you recall, Ronald Reagan cut taxes in the early 1980's and then, as David Stockman pointed out right away, counted on some sort of magic to fill in the gap. It never came. The economy improved, but the excess federal spending throughout the Reagan years provided some of the reason why -- thus passing along the burden to the next fellow in office, and the one after him. That's in spite of the fact that even Reagan raised some taxes while in office, no matter what the image holds.

I had to laugh recently when Peggy Noonan wrote about how many of her friends and acquaintances, mostly Republican we assume, were worried about the current budget deficit and "hidden taxes." Where were those people from 2001 to 2009? During that time, the Bush Administration had to deal with the effects of 9/11, plus it fought two wars and put in a costly prescription drug benefit to health care. What was the response to that? Lowering taxes. (Indeed, the Republicans seem to want to lower taxes when times are good too, even while passing programs that cost money along the way. So when do we pay for anything?)

But there are no heroes here on either side of the aisle. The Democrats have charted a course that has us running billions of dollars in the red each year for the rest of the decade, which is only 29 days old. And they traditionally have been the bigger spenders of the two parties. In Robert Reich's book about life in the Clinton cabinet, he writes about how a little deficit spending wouldn't hurt too badly if it could fund some pet projects to help people. And the current health care reform debate sure could be sharpened if we had a much better idea what this might all cost.

Sometimes a crisis comes along that requires borrowing, and fast. The bank/housing meltdown of 2008 certainly qualified. An immediate response to 9/11 fits that standard too. We didn't need General Motors going under when unemployment was destined to hit double digits. And so forth. But the economic crunch is easing, and there's no sign of any more fiscal restraint on the way.

The same problem exists on a smaller basis on the state and local level. Here in New York, which has quite a net of social programs, paying for everything has become a problem -- based on the budget shortfall that is in the billions. And when a leader puts away some money for rainy days in "fund balances," he or she is criticized for hording the taxpayers' money.

A balanced budget is at a tactical disadvantage in Washington these days. Particular bills have an army of supporters, including lobbyists and supporting groups. And there is sometimes a political price to pay for a particular vote. Remember when some were criticized for slashing school lunch aid -- even though it was merely the rate of the increase that was slashed, and not the amount of aid itself?

This doesn't represent an endorsement for the "tea party" crowd either, who seem to want to say "no" to practically all government expenditures. We do need the government to take some actions. The question is, which ones?

You'd think someone would be willing to make some of the so-called hard decisions. Let's figure out what we need to do, and then come up with a way to pay for it. Should that be so hard?

After all, that's what the rest of us do every single day.

Still marching...

Whenever I get the chance to hear an interesting person talk, I try to do it. Heck, I might learn something.

Such was the case when Diane Nash spoke at Canisius College tonight. The name might not be familiar to everyone, especially under 50. But Nash is a relatively important figure in the history of civil rights of this country.

Nash happened to be at Fisk University in Nashville around 1960 or so. She was an active participant in the first sit-ins and protests at segregated lunch counters there. Who would have thought that not eating the less-than-delicious food at a Woolworth's for lunch would have started a revolution? Nash later became one of the famous Freedom Riders, who helped desegregate the interstate bus lines. Heck, she called out reinforcements after the first wave ran into problems. Oh, she called them from jail after she and her friends were arrested.

Nash has a relatively big role in David Halberstam's book on the Movement, "The Children." She was so pretty in her college days that she was practically a recruiting poster for the local Movement; most of the male volunteers supposedly found love at first sight. (See the 1960 picture) She married, and eventually divorced, one of the other workers.

There aren't many people like this left, people who lived through history, so a friend and I headed off to see her. It wasn't what I was expecting.

The first question about such a person is along the lines of, "How did you get involved?" Basically, she was a Chicago girl, a city where the racism was much less overt. She wondered why someone wasn't upset about it in Nashville, and went searching for people who were. She found them. Right person, right place, right time.

But from there, Nash went into a rather abstract discussion of the principles of non-violent protest. It would have been a fine classroom lecture in a class, but this wasn't a classroom. I saw no need to take notes. One aside was devoted to her belief that the North Vietnamese put up a noble fight against American imperialist aggressors in the Sixties and Seventies; she sounded ready to enlist again in Hanoi right now. Well, Nash hasn't lost her fury.

I wasn't expecting "What Did You Do in the Movement, Mommy? A light-hearted romp through the Old South" as a speech. But a little more "What was it like?" would have been useful. That's particularly true for a college audience, which no doubt thinks of segregated water fountains as ancient history. For a representative of a group that acted to try to help future generations, some background for those generations on the experience from her would have been useful.

I also hoping for a few good questions after the formal speech. Maybe something like, "What were your emotions on the days that Obama was elected or inaugurated?" Or, "When did you know you were going to ultimately triumph?" Or, "Can you guess how many times you thought to yourself, 'It sure would have been easier to do nothing.'?"

But there wasn't much of that. One question was asking for more detail on her Vietnam experience, and another was about the influence of Pan-African thought.

I didn't pay to get in -- they even had free cookies -- so I can't complain too loudly. Still, perhaps the best part of the night came at the beginning. That's when Nash might have looked around at the crowd of maybe 250 people or so, and saw all sorts of people in a variety of hues gathered together. Fifty years ago, such a group in Nashville might have led to a call to the police department.

We have made some progress. It's good to stop and notice it sometimes.

Skeleton in the closet

One of the best parts of genealogy is the chance to read good stories. I came across this one the other day about my great-great-great-great grandfather, James Barnaby.

The version I had originally heard about his life was that Barnaby was an orphan who had grown up, essentially, in a barn -- and was called "Barn Boy." That eventually adapted into Barnaby -- no relation to ex-Sabre Matthew.

Then I got a note through ancestry.com from another branch of the Barnaby clan, who obviously had kept better track of the situation. One of James' granddaughters sat down at an elderly age (this was early in the 1900's) and typed out a note about what she knew about Grandpa.

Not much was ever discussed in the Barnaby household when it came to family origins. It was believed by the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, neighborhood, though, that someone in an upper-class Quaker household had an illegitimate child in 1781 (the horror!). The child was raised as a servant, or "bound boy." The other children apparently treated him well, although he had to sit by himself in the back of the church when the family went to services.

Supposedly James agreed to a "contract" in which he would keep forever silent about the circumstances, and lived up to his side of the bargain. He never told any of his children about it, and they apparently never asked.

James went on to marry Ann White, who saw both parents die at a very young age. Ann and her sister were raised by neighbors. They are both buried in Mount Union, Ohio, apparently taking some secrets with them.

I'm just askin' ...

I went to a wedding yesterday. The priest started his sermon in the middle of the service along these lines (I wasn't taking notes, but you'll get the idea):

"This is a special day, and it's also a little unusual. It's unusual because this ceremony has become somewhat unusual. A lot of couples don't even bother to get married these days. They live together, or have some other arrangement. Then if they do get married, they do it in a hot air balloon or under a waterfall or something. But in this case, this couple has decided to come to this church and pledge before God and their friends and family that they love each other. That's quite a commitment, so we celebrate the step that Jack and Jill are taking today."

Which prompts a question:

Couldn't you substitute "Jack and Murray" or "Ellen and Jill" in the above paragraph, and have it maintain its full meaning?