Derek Lowe, an Imperfect Red Sox Player 1997-2004

Yesterday, Derek Lowe retired. He didn't say so explicitly but he effectively did after 17 seasons in baseball. I, like most Red Sox fans, cannot forget what Derek Lowe did for us, especially in that special 2004 season. His postseason, including winning all three clinching games of the playoffs, made him a legend. I viewed highlights from his victory in Game 7 of the ALCS at Yankee Stadium, which in my opinion is one of the most under-appreciated clutch pitching performances of all time. My words of praise, like those of other baseball journalists, cannot consecrate enough what Derek Lowe did for the Red Sox. I am glad his career continued strongly after he left the Red Sox in the 2004 offseason, and salute him for his many accomplishments from the 2002 no-hitter to the 2004 postseason.

Yet Lowe remains an imperfect individual that encapsulates all of us. During his playing days, he grew antsy and insecure about his role on the team. Relegated to the bullpen after a horrendous 2004 regular season, he showed the petulance of an immature player who did not take responsibility for his horrible season and the well-being of the team. He knew he was never going to be a star on a team with the likes of Pedro Martinez and Curt Schilling, but he often felt slighted by the team. However, the 2004 postseason offered him a chance of redemption, which he grasped. In many ways, that sums up a fact of life - for all of us, regardless the vocation or situation, life offers us second chances. Even when we err or underperform to the frustration of our colleagues or loved ones, they often offer us a second chance to make amends. Lowe grasped his and resurrected his career, and we can do the same when the occasion arises. 

Lauding Lowe for his baseball heroics cannot hide his personal story. In 2005, Lowe divorced his wife, with whom he had three children, because of an affair with a news broadcaster. Lowe and the broadcaster later married. Such behavior is typical of athletes and celebrities today. I am no longer so jaded to believe that athletes are heroes who cannot do wrong and exist on a different moral plane. Lowe, like other athlete heroes of mine and probably yours too, is human and subject to our usual foibles, including the temptation to cheat. Being rich perhaps makes the temptation stronger. As Lowe retires from baseball, I view him as a sports hero but I do not exalt him because I know he is human, just like all of us. He is imperfect, much like the Red Sox, but to me, that is good enough.

Taking Stock of Personal Responsibility

As I was growing up, I had a set path for going through school and college. Part of that was my parents, who brought me up in a supportive but somewhat coddled environment - study hard and the rest will take of itself. But I realize that this is not true - many aspects of growing up, such as finances, career choices, and relationships do not take care of themselves. The education system is grossly inadequate for preparing young adults for this challenging yet important part of our lives, and I felt that my family and background also did not do so. These last few years, going through two schoolings and arriving into my professional life, have given me more chances to take more responsibility for my choices and actions, and I expect myself to know more about the challenges of going through life and owning up to my choices and actions.

Personal responsibility can be politically dangerous, and is often associated with Republicans and/or Libertarians' agenda in disguise. But it should not be. It is more important than ever in these uncertain economic times, when young adults face an uncertain future for ourselves and our nation. Personal responsibility built our nation and its people from the beginning, and will continue to do so in the future. For me, it means taking more ownership for my actions, whether they be related to career, health, finances, love, and relationships. My parents, with deepest gratitude for them on this Father's Day, cannot guide me through my life henceforth - I must do so myself, for better or for worse. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BtqElO1OX4
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjA4MDU2NjQ=.html

Civil Liberties and Privacy in Peril

This week has been troubling for our nation's civil liberties, namely the people's right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted government intrusion. On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed police  to gather the DNA of arrestees to help them solve unrelated crimes. That decision drew justified dissension from Justice Scalia and civil liberties groups. Besides its unsound application of Fourth Amendment precedents, the opinion gave too much deference to the police, as if pretending that the State would not abuse its power to collect DNA for ulterior purposes, and minimized the loss of privacy, which surely was great for arrestees. We shouldn't be less sympathetic just because arrestees are involved - any of us can be arrested and what rights taken from some are taken from us all.

Compound that is this week's revealing of massive surveillance of American citizens by their government and collection of communications records by the NSA. It has drawn justified debate about the extent of government surveillance necessary to protect Americans from terrorism while maintaining their civil liberties. And finally, President Obama and the politicians have to be candid about what's going on. What is discouraging is the muted response from Congress, with many politicians (besides Rand Paul) too spineless to criticize the NSA's actions. While the intelligence community and politicians will try to muzzle the media and informants, this timely revelation advances our ideals of a transparent government and having the people (through the press) check on their government.

These happenings are not surprising and shows what happens what the government has too much power and lacks transparency. The checks and balances prescribed by the Constitution failed because Congress lacks the will to speak up and investigate, the Executive Branch predictably stretched their powers under the Patriot Act, and the judiciary fails to be an independent check on the powers of government. In fact, the judiciary has done the people disservice by trusting the government to not abuse its powers, whether under the Patriot Act or the Fourth Amendment, and by shielding activities of the FICA from meaningful review. What will ultimately drive change will be the people. It might not be easy to advance the cause of civil liberties, especially when terrorist threats remain, but it is necessary to safeguard our right to privacy and check on the power of government.

Thinking about Gideon and Same-Sex Marriage

Fifty years later, we cannot forget about the monumental case of Gideon v. Wainwright, which established that the right to an attorney for the indigent accused is fundamental and must be provided by states. I remember learning about Gideon even before law school, and its story continues to reverberate with me. Anthony Lewis, who passed away this week, wrote a remarkable book called Gideon's Trumpet, which I recommend to any American interested in learning about law, our government, and the special place constitutional rights play in our daily lives. Unfortunately, the promises of Gideon have not been realized across the country, where poor criminal defendants in many states do not have adequate legal representation. It is our duty, even for lawyers not working in criminal law, to make sure that Gideon is not confined to the Supreme Court reports made fifty years ago.

Thinking about Gideon makes me ponder the same sex marriages being argued these two days. I see the parallels: both times, the Court is asked to recognize and extend rights guaranteed under the Due Process Clauses to individuals disfavored by mainstream society: the poor criminally accused or same sex couples. The law is quite clear on both: Gideon was a slam-dunk case under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Perry and Windsor, with the procedural issues aside, are also clear-cut if we apply precedents that marriage is a fundamental right and the states are reserved the power to determine domestic relations. But the timing I feel is important and the two cases diverge. The time to decide Gideon was 1963, and not anytime later, whereas the time to declare a constitutional right to same-sex marriage has not yet arrived. The best course for the Court would be to strike down DOMA Section 3 under existing precedents, which does not require it to decide whether sexual orientation classifications deserve heightened scrutiny, and wait to tackle whether states must recognize same-sex marriage. The democratic process and public opinion should run its course, and I'm confident they will for the better.