Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Let's talk about Sox, baby

Let’s talk about Sox, baby

Welcome to the Holy Grail for Boston's baseball fanatics.

In the front office of Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, Barney (not his real name) is standing in front of me. He is a large, oafish man in his early fifties who possesses a hearty laugh and friendly smile, not too dissimilar to the late John Candy’s lovable character Uncle Buck in the 1989 film of the same name. I would learn that Barney’s first marriage ended in divorce after 15 years, one which he says interfered with his lifelong love, the Boston Red Sox.

“It’s hard to be married and not cheat by seeing a sweetheart who has stuck by me throughout all these years without asking for anything more than my company,” referring to his number one team. Being forced to choose between favourite team and domestic bliss presents an awkward dilemma for male sports lovers, and some habits are hard to break.

“My Dad arranged my marriage with the Red Sox. He took me to my first game when I was a kid. One of the first pieces of advice he gave to me was, ‘Be faithful to this lot no matter what you go through in life.’ Over the years, it has taken a lot out of me, but when you love something or someone so much, money becomes no object.”

I asked him what led to the end of his first marriage.

“That’s easy,” Barney said to me. “The 1986 World Series, Game 6.”

Raising my eyebrow, I let him elaborate further.


“When I got married the first time, my wife told me that she supported the New York Mets. I didn’t particularly like it, but for me it was the lesser of two evils because at least it was not the New York Yankees. However, when the ball went through Bill Buckner’s legs at first (base), which led to the Mets scoring the winning run, she changed. For her, the Mets winning was like a rite of passage to mock every single thing that I did. From that moment, our marriage started to fall apart.”

After the stock market crash of 1987 hit Wall Street, Barney lost thousands of dollars in investments, as well as his job. One of the first decisions he made was to sacrifice his baseball attendance for the sake of saving money, instead watching games on television. He missed the atmosphere and magic associated with being in the stands.

“Eventually, she confessed that she was not a Mets fan, but a New York Yankees fan. Considering everything else I had been through, hearing this was like having a final pile of horse manure being dumped on my head. I didn’t care about Game 6, about the name-calling, and even her admission about having a fling on the side when our marriage was on the rocks. But gees, a Yankees fan going undercover just to get under my skin was too much. She said I was cursed with bad luck, like my baseball team. Eventually she decided that the only way she could fix everything was to leave. So we parted company.”
Barney admitted that it upset him for a while and it put him off finding Miss Right. “I promised myself that I would only marry again when Boston won another World Series. Back in the 1990s, it was a safe bet that I would remain a bachelor forever.” Then in 2002, he went on a double date with a work colleague who fixed him up. “My first question to her was, ‘Are you a Boston Red Sox member or fan?’ When she said yes, I said, ‘prove it.’ She did, and we got married in 2005.”

Unconditional love and passion are traits readily associated with the Boston Red Sox fans. They have even been the subject of a reality television dating show, Sox Appeal, where devotees step up to the plate for a chance to increase their average and find true love, like speed dating at the ball park. Boston’s global legion of fans, known as Red Sox Nation, extends to countries as diverse as Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Israel, China and Albania.

It is said that a true supporter sticks by their team through thick and thin, and in Boston’s case, for too many years, patience was more of a curse rather than a virtue; an 86-year old drought between World Series victories known as The Curse of the Bambino (second to the Chicago Cubs current winless streak of 102 years). The curse, allegedly placed on Boston following the decision of Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to sell Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. Following his debut in 1920, Ruth would be part of a line-up that won the World Series 4 times. In that same period, Boston won nothing. For decades thereafter, whenever Boston failed, the curse seemed to come to life. Exact details of the curse’s origins and legitimacy have been covered by a number of baseball analysts and are prevalent in popular culture, with Leigh Montville writing about it in his 2006 book The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth.

There is an attraction to supporting the underdog, whether in fiction or real life. Neutrals love an unfashionable winner; witness Rocky Balboa overcoming insurmountable odds to defeat Ivan Drago in Rocky IV, or the ‘Crazy Gang’ of Wimbledon, led by Vinnie Jones, beating the all-conquering Liverpool in the 1988 English F.A. Cup thanks to goalkeeper Dave Beasant saving a late penalty from John Aldridge. There is something addictive about the sweet taste of success, but to fully enjoy this euphoria, you need to be a loyal fan, and devotion is a quality in abundance amongst the Fenway Park faithful. This probably explains how I found myself in Boston, eager to view this piece of sporting legend, standing behind Barney in the queue.
Suddenly his mobile phone rang. In an attempt to take the phone out of his pocket, Barney dropped his membership renewal bill. It landed by his feet. I bent down and grabbed it as quickly as I could, hoping that it would reap rewards in the form of a free ticket.

“Excuse me, mate,” I said. “You dropped this.”
He nodded at me appreciatively without losing track of his phone conversation, looked at the bill and clutched it tightly in his spare hand along with his credit card.

After he terminated his call and put the phone back in his pocket, he turned around.

“Do I detect an accent?” he added.

I told him that I was from Australia, visiting the city for a few days.

“Well, I’ll be – a kangaroo shagger. Sorry to say, but you picked the wrong time to visit us here in Boston. The weather is lousy and it’s off-season. We also failed to beat Tampa Bay and get the pennant. In the last 12 months, we went from being World Series winners to nothing. I paid $31,000 a season to see the Red Sox lose the American League to a bunch of cow-bell ringers.”

Did he just say $31,000? That’s insane,’ I thought.

“Are your seats covered in gold?”

Barney gave me a hefty laugh. “Not quite. What brings you to Boston anyway? If you’re a Yankees supporter, this is the last place you should be.”

I explained to Barney with a child-like innocence that I had spent only a day in New York City and had to take the bus from there to get to Boston for a five-day visit. I also mentioned about seeing Washington D.C.

He accepted my answer.

“What do you think of our nation’s capital? It’s an exciting place, right?”

“A bit bland,” I replied.

“A boring place for boring people – that’s Washington for you.”

“You mentioned something about a $31,000 membership bill,” I said.

“Oh yeah. I have 6 seats which I share amongst 15 friends during the season. Since my job involves travelling across the country, I find myself giving tickets away a few times during the season. Everybody chips in a few dollars for the membership, like a syndicate. I have three really good seats and three next to the Green Monster. You will learn about the Monster when you see the place."

“How do you decide who gets tickets to the play-offs? Do you have a competition amongst your friends, like in Survivor?” I asked.

He laughed heartily. “I might start doing that, but usually it’s first come, first served. Of course, they don’t get them for free. Sometimes they do favours for me.”

“Re-tiling your roof?” I chimed in.

“Nope, usually stuff that is done throughout the year. Of course, big favours do help,” he said with a grin.
I immediately jotted down my first idea, ‘get Australian visa’. That should earn me some good seats.
When I mentioned The Curse of the Bambino, Barney laughed it off and told me what he said was a more accurate description of what the Red Sox meant to him.

“Before 2004, generations of families in Boston had become used to the Red Sox missing out on so many occasions. It got to the point where we did not want to make it to the World Series.”

Barney went into considerable detail about just how deep baseball ran in his family. Every October when he was young, he said, his father would call the family around the dinner table and tell everyone to get supplies and enact their survival strategy; that is, head for the basement.

“Dad would say for a joke, ‘The Red Sox are going for the pennant – let’s go down to the attic, and don’t come out until a week after Boston has been beaten.’”

Did he follow these same instructions in 2004, the year that the Red Sox famously broke their drought?
“No, I watched the whole thing with my missus, our kids and Dad. He is in his eighties now. We talked about the drill and nowadays it seems funny, but we used to get a lot of stick from New York Yankees fans and we honestly thought we were cursed forever. Then the day we beat St. Louis, it was unbelievable.”

Pausing for a moment, he went on. “For us, waking up the following day and reading that we had won the World Series, just did not seem real.” If the world had ended the following day, Barney said, he would have left the planet a happy man seeing the Red Sox win a World Series in his lifetime.

“There were parties in the streets. Families flocked to cemeteries and visited their grandparents’ tombstones and just spent time talking about what happened to their grandfathers or grandmas,” Barney said. “Sons and grandsons gave thanks to giving birth to them and re-lived the thrill of watching Boston winning the World Series. All I can remember saying is, ‘We did it, the curse is gone. I wish you were here to see it with me, Pops.’”

“What happened if Fenway Park had been closed down and relocated?” I asked.

“The owners tried a few years ago, but a petition went up to save Fenway Park. For us this is a sacred spot. It’s our home. You can’t just build a new Green Monster or a new Fenway Park somewhere else in Boston.” Putting his index finger on the amount owing, he continued, waving his bill. “Well, you see this? This $31,000 bill is my ticket to attend this site where we stand right now. This ground is where I attended games as a kid with my Dad, it is where I bring my kids, and it is where they will continue to bring their children for as long as the Boston Red Sox exist.”

With that, we said our goodbyes. One hour later, I commenced my tour of Fenway Park. Our guide promised us “the ride of their lives.” The thing is, however, I had already learnt so much from one devoted member.

“Forget everything you know about New York Yankees and all of their success; history starts at Fenway Park,” our guide began. “By 1918, we had won 5 World Series championships and that obscure team to the south still had not opened their account. From now on, I will refer to the New York Yankees as The Evil Empire. D’yall understand?”

“Yes,” everybody said in unison.

“I can’t hear you!”

“YES!” we shouted back emphatically like a drilled army unit.

“What’s that other team we hate called?”

“THE EVIL EMPIRE!” we all shouted in unison, which the guide decided was good enough, so the show could commence.

“Here’s a brief history. In 1918, the Boston Red Sox decided that due to being so awesome, we would take an 86 year break from winning and let The Evil Empire (queue imitation of a spit denoting disgust at mentioning the Yankees’ name) win a few, just so they could stop whinging about everything that they do,” she continued. “Y’know what they talk about – bad traffic, overcrowded subways and streets, bad kawfee (sic), and anything else worth complaining about. But then we woke up and pulled off the greatest comeback in baseball history.”

It's been a long time between drinks, but the sweet taste of success was worth it, say Red Sox fans.


With a single click, highlights of the 2004 American League Championship League (ALCS) started playing. Our guide acted like a narrator, taking us through the emotions of what it was like to be a Red Sox fan 3 games down to the Evil Empire and facing immediate and inglorious elimination. With each subsequent victory, however, her husky voice changed, reflecting the elation of pulling off the near-impossible. By the time the last play of Game 7 had been called, I thought we were all expected to jump out of the glass window to celebrate. Nobody needed reminding of the results of the subsequent World Series in 2004, which Boston ultimately won; just a sentence from our guide saying that “Boston were back and loved the feeling of success so much, they repeated the achievement in 2007.”

When it came to the subject of dealing with the Bambino’s Curse, the explanation was simple. “Have you ever heard of a Broadway show called No, No, Nanette?” When none of us answered, she said, “Good. That is how much attention it deserves.” The speech then mentioned a few things about the owners’ commitment that Fenway Park would remain in its current location, but was in the midst of a facelift to enhance the experience for fans and guarantee that the rich traditions built over nearly 100 years would not be lost. Laughing off The Curse of the Bambino is a part of this tradition.

My visit was not discovering about facts, statistics and fixtures; it was about meeting the Barneys who epitomise the spirit of a true sports fan. Any team can put together an impressive run of victories and claim bragging rights, but it takes an eternity to craft a legion of fans whose faith will never waiver in the face of adversity.

In this city, Fenway Park is the temple, and the Boston Red Sox are the knights of Camelot that will soon deliver the Holy Grail known as the World Series once again.


Share/Bookmark

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Challenges facing Burma with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi

Challenges facing Burma with the release of Aung San Suu Kyi

4 December 2010


In Charlie Chaplin’s satirical look at World War 2, The Great Dictator, the comic genius lampoons Adolf Hitler in his memorable role as Adenoid Hynkel, leader of the Double Cross. More touching, however, is his character of a Jewish barber fleeing a German concentration camp for the Austrian border and getting mistaken as Hynkel. Refusing the title of emperor, all he wants is peace and an end to unnecessary fighting. His impassioned plea of asking everybody to stop fighting is not only a cinematic masterstroke for its time, but is still relevant today. Chaplin’s final call for everybody to lay down their arms for the true meaning of democracy is moving.

Wouldn’t it be great if such a storyline could be replicated so that a country like Burma could be rid of its tyrants and dictators? Imagine the country’s military leaders and armed forces agreeing to lay down their arms for the sake of peace, and begin talking openly with monks, civilians, and political opponents — particularly the recently freed Aung San Suu Kyi — about developing a real framework for democracy; one acceptable to all Burmese, where the constitution would allow for the military to serve Burma in the spirit intended by the nation’s founding father of independence, General Aung San, rather than have the national army fighting several wars at once with its own people. If Senior-General Than Shwe would take the time to watch The Great Dictator, he may just learn something about the consequences of his vanity and obsession with ruling with an iron fist.

Burma is a land with resolute, friendly residents who can do little more than watch as their once bountiful lands are stripped bare of its natural resources. Its ‘new’ parliament will be dominated by the pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP) after their emphatic victory in farcical circumstances, claiming more than 75 per cent of the votes.[1] The few parties representing ethnic minorities will not be able to forge an effective alliance, although the possibility of the USDP courting an ethnic party for token representation may yet still arise. A quarter of the seats in Burma’s parliament are reserved for the military, where a minimum of 75 per cent parliamentary majority must be secured for any changes to the constitution must be made. Yet there is one voice of hope that gives us all something to savor – the release of Aung San Suu Kyi on November 12.

We are all likely to have seen images beamed live around the world showing her supporters flocking to the gates of her residence in Rangoon, ready to hear the address of a woman they had been denied for so long. But at the same time she is aware of the threat posed by the military, with spies watching her every move. One guarantee is that Aung San Suu Kyi does not get fazed easily; she has a job to do and she will complete it. Her message for the crowd was to be brave and work together to achieve positive change, for she could not do it alone. The atmosphere surrounding her arrival, coupled with the massive weight of expectation, was a sight not seen since Nelson Mandela’s inaugural speech in Cape Town in 1990 following his release after 26 years imprisonment jail sentence. Like Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi is a wonderful orator, eloquent, brave and inspiring.

As much as we would like to think, Aung San Suu Kyi’s release from detention is not a “Mandela moment.” Firstly, the path to a true democracy in Burma has not been established. The military leadership’s “discipline-flourishing democracy” is little more than a smokescreen for their plans to remain in power. Individuals who have borne the brunt of poverty and suffering for enough years can easily tell the difference between window dressing and genuine reform. In South Africa, President F.W. De Klerk accepted the reality that black majority rule would eventuate, and negotiated for changes that went beyond window dressing. Secondly, the apartheid policy discrimination in South Africa had clearly segregated individuals along the clear lines of race, making it more obvious as to what laws needed redressing. Aung San Suu Kyi herself noted, “it is Burmese discriminating and oppressing Burmese.”[2]

In declaring her number 75 in their annual Top 100 Global Thinkers List, Foreign Policy noted that following her release, “(Aung San Suu Kyi) made a remarkably levelheaded call for long-term reform of the sort that comes from within: value change,” as she put it, “not regime change.”[3] This reflects the need for Burma and the rest of the world to take a deep breath, consult, and then get on with the job without resting on laurels. Like her father General Aung San, she is a leader who speaks of political unity and who speaks of Burma’s people like a large family, while recognizing the sensitivities facing ethnic minorities who have suffered immensely as a result of the junta’s war against them. The world’s longest ongoing civil war, between the junta and the Karen National Union (KNU) shows no sign of stopping, human rights abuses against the Shan people continue to occur at an alarming rate, and the Rohingya people in Arakan State are discriminated against as a consequence of not being allowed citizenship rights. Most of the estimated 200,000 Rohingya population in neighboring Bangladeshi camps such as Chittagong and Cox’s Bazaar Plaza are undocumented[4] and would only consider returning if Aung San Suu Kyi were leader of Burma, for they chances of more equitable treatment would be higher than compared to living under the military junta.

In an era where the fast dissemination of news and exiled communities transport details quickly, Aung San Suu Kyi finds herself speaking for the voiceless and stateless. She has lost none of her poise, eloquence and charm to inspire ordinary Burmese civilians and leaders worldwide. Her release comes at a time where multimedia and Internet technology is as its peak and will only continue to grow. This is an opportunity to spread her message calling for cooperation from all sides even further; to the Pentagon,
10 Downing Street
, and to the United Nations Security Council. What defines Aung San Suu Kyi as a visionary is her willingness to embrace new ideas from those who have known freedom during her incarceration, new ways to reach out to the younger generation, all the while keeping to her core message of working together for a common goal – achieving democracy without violence.[5] With the simple message of working together, she brings the international community into focus reminds to be part of a force for democracy, peace, reconciliation and genuine change; and it needs a peaceful army of millions, for one person cannot be so influential. She has extended this message of friendship to the military regime who kept her in house detention for 16 of the last 21 years. In an exclusive speech to the Washington D.C.-based periodical Foreign Policy, Aung San Suu Kyi added that her idea was not a new one but rather one as old as humanity itself – “working together to improve any situation”[6]. This will mean re-registering the National League for Democracy and having the right to investigate concerns about the electoral process. This is where the political will of the new administration will be tested. When asked what question she would pose to Senior-General Than Shwe, Burma’s reclusive military leader, Aung San Suu Kyi simply replied, “it would be good if we could talk to each other.”[7]

So how will the new administration respond? Will they play mind games or accept the invitation? In the days leading up to her release, USDP secretary-general U Htay Oo reportedly said that the military wants ”to co-operate (with the NLD and Aung San Suu Kyi) for the betterment of our country,”[8]. These words, while not a direct endorsement of for an all-inclusive roundtable discussion, at first glance appear to be the most positive statement delivered in some time. However, nothing has been heard from Senior-General Than Shwe on the matter, a man who seethes at the mention of Aung San Suu Kyi’s name and has never fully explained why. It is not clear whether his feelings are shared by the USDP or indeed other members of the military. Regardless of their personal feelings towards Aung San Suu Kyi, it will not stop officials from harassing civilians, in particular the most at risk, as typified by the recent targeting of HIV/AIDS patients at a clinic on Rangoon’s outskirts.

Just one day after Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to a health clinic highlighting the need to give greater attention to the issue of HIV/AIDS in Burma, authorities ordered the facilities to close and threatened residents and staff with eviction. Upon the surfacing of details that the clinic’s owner, Phyu Phyu Tin, was a colleague of Aung San Suu Kyi’s in the National League for Democracy, came calls of “political” motivation for the center’s closure. After international exposure, authorities relented, saying that the residents could stay on. This incident has become a source of embarrassment, for it demonstrates just how out of touch authorities are. The World Health Organization (WHO) have named Burma as one of 11 countries deemed “worst-affected” by HIV/AIDS, where 0.5 per cent of government spending is allocated for health care.[9] What does this say about the authorities’ attitude towards vulnerable people?  More importantly, what will become of the patients once they have moved? They will be added to the growing list of Burma’s forgotten people, whose lives will slip through the cracks of ill-equipped and understaffed government-run hospitals.

Despite all of this, the junta has failed to dampen her willingness and enthusiasm, and the joy of watching Aung San Suu Kyi undertake the role she undoubtedly misses the most; as a mother. One of the more wonderful moments since Aung San Suu Kyi’s freedom is the time she has spent catching up with her youngest son, Kim Aris. Mizzima Television showed footage of mother and son taking a stroll through Bogyoke (General) Aung San Market in downtown Rangoon last Monday, with hundreds or thousands of onlookers cheering her every step. In one poignant moment, a woman greeting Aung San Suu Kyi to fulfil a lifelong dream of meeting her idol, could not be spoiled even with the presence of the sign “Government Registered Jewelry Shop”, a sign that the presence of government is unshakable in Rangoon.[10] But this cannot take the gloss off the 5 minute visit that traders and customers alike, living in fear for so long, will treasure forever. In a world of political scandals, public relations stunts and seemingly pre-scripted interest by politicians worldwide, this one bit of footage is a reminder of what politics should really be about; connecting with the people.

Aung San Suu Kyi is regarded in a light that most leaders in western countries dare dream of. This is because she cares genuinely for the people who have stayed loyal to her, without casting aside anybody who has made life difficult. Her vision is simple; a peaceful, democratic and fair Burma where restoring the country’s past does not involve the use of force. The time has come to end this ongoing bickering, which innocent residents pay the ultimate price for. The ban on the National League for Democracy must be lifted so that representatives of Burma’s diverse community can hear what each other has to say without bias or fear. Aung San Suu Kyi needs to be present simply because she will always be the voice of hope, one that adds weight to the drive for national reconciliation and peace. And if the new administration really wants to, they can become part of a force of good and not evil by adhering to the words mentioned in The Great Dictator’s closing speech.

Notes
[1] Democratic Voice of Burma, Final election results announced, 18 November 2010, http://www.dvb.no/elections/final-election-results-announced/12942 Viewed on 21 November 2010.

[2] Doherty, B. (2010), Change to come from the people, The Age, Saturday 20 November 2010http://www.theage.com.au/world/change-to–come-from-the-people-20101119-18131.html Accessed 22 November 2010.

[3] Ibid

[4] Thai Burma Border Consortium, Burmese border refugee sites with population figures: September 2010http://www.tbbc.org/camps/2010-09-sep-map-tbbc-unhcr.pdf, Viewed on 20 November 2010

[5] Foreign Policy Top 100 Global Thinkers, December 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/29/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,42 Viewed on 1 December 2010.

[6] Ibid

[7] Interview with Zoe Daniel, Aung San Suu Kyi thanks Australia, ABC Radio – A.M. WITH TONY EASTLEY, Monday 15 November 2010, 8.03am AEST,   http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3066062.htm Viewed on 28 November 2010.

[8] Davies, J., Uneasy Burma awaits Suu Kyi, The Age, 9 November 2010,  http://www.theage.com.au/world/uneasy-burma-awaits-suu-kyi-20101108-17kgr.html Viewed on 18 November 2010.

[9] Kaew, Nang Khem and Wade, F., Children ‘most at risk’ from HIV/AIDS, Democratic Voice of Burma, 1 December 2010, http://www.dvb.no/news/children-%e2%80%98most-at-threat%e2%80%99-from-hivaids/13161 Viewed on 1 December 2010.

[10] Mizzima Television, Aung San Suu Kyi and her son take a stroll through Bogyoke Market, 30 November 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juFKtLSLrgg, Accessed 1 December 2010.
Share/Bookmark