Who’s the Vos?

Like many in Michigan, I recognize our desperation. It is during these times that politicians as gubernatorial hopeful, Dick DeVos, present themselves as messiahs—someone coming out of nowhere to rescue us and restore.

Our present situation reminds me of Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, where he says, “for men change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse.” DeVos is this type of politician trying to play off dissatisfaction. I question whether he has a viable alternative to offer Michigan.

If the debates were an indication of his competency, then DeVos is not our man. Through the three debates, he seemed stiff and unprepared. Without his scripted commercials, DeVos could not think on his feet. His answers consisted of attacking Governor Granholm and offered nothing that I could grasp onto. I thought that maybe in his eagerness, DeVos forgot that debates are about candidates answering questions to demonstrate their platform, which he has failed to do.

Besides the attacks, DeVos made some unreasonable statements. One of the worst was during the Tuesday, October 10^th debate. Following Gov. Granholm expressing her interest to provide affordable health care, DeVos said that people could obtain it by working. Granholm retorted that there are plenty of working people that are unable to do so. She followed up by accusing DeVos of contracting temporary workers at Amway so that he wouldn’t have to pay them insurance. His weak, poorly thought statement left his jugular open to Gov. Granholm.

I was surprised by DeVos’ failure to capitalize on Michigander’s unhappiness. The brunt of his earlier commercials was directed toward Gov. Granholm’s failure to “do her job.” His assertion that her failure to bring us out of these difficult times and his being the leading gubernatorial challenger should make him governor is unconvincing. Besides stating the obvious, I don’t feel that DeVos said new. So Gov. Granholm might have failed us, why should I vote for him? What will he do to not fail us? The allegation that she hasn’t done enough isn’t reason enough for me to vote for DeVos.

While Gov. Granholm might not have done everything possible, she has at least talked a good game. While DeVos maintained that people can get insurance through employment, Granholm mentioned MI First, her proposed plan modeled after one in Massachusetts, where lower-income people and other uninnsured could have access. Furthermore, she said that she would work to assist business in providing health care, since we are one of the few industrialized countries where manufacturers are obligated to cover their workers and not the government; thus, raising the prices on many goods—especially automobiles. Lastly, one of Granholm’s priorities is diversifying Michigan’s economy by focusing on four industries: life sciences, homeland security, advanced manufacturing and alternative fuel manufacturing. Toward this goal, community colleges and MI Works offices would work to certify workers and to further educate them. Also, she said that she looks to institute tax cuts for industries that would stay in Michigan.

All in all, DeVos has failed to live up to his potential as someone that I would voted for. I don’t buy into the propaganda that Gov. Granholm has failed. Michigan seems to forget that when gas prices rose, she held gas stations accountable for price gouging. Additionally, Granholm inherited a monstrous budget deficit from her predecessor, John Engler. Her budget cuts coupled with disappearing jobs resulted in a ripple effect. If nothing else, we are learning that manufacturing alone cannot be our sole salvation. DeVos’ commercials attacking Gov. Granholm has not addressed the issues, serving to illustrate how he does not truly understand Michigan’s problems. This above everything else shows me that he cannot be governor.

Na, na, na, na…Hey, hey, hey goodbye

There were few people in the Detroit area not succumbing to the collective elation at the Tiger’s sweeping the Oakland Athletics, which has now taken them to the World Series. However, the Tigers’ miraculous turnaround during the 2005-2006 baseball season was due to some of the most basic, overlooked elements of the game: teamwork and chemistry. Their battle against the Yankees is an example of this statement.

For much of the last 10 years during which they had a resurgence, the New York Yankees have endured the public’s dislike. Their perception as being one bought by George Steinbrenner is due to them having one of the highest payrolls (around $194 million). This payroll has allowed them to snap up free agents and star players from other teams such as pitchers David Wells, Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson; sluggers Jason Giambi and Alex Rodriguez; and, former Boston Red Sox centerfielder Johnny Damon. While Steinbrenner has been successful at recruiting players long enough to win championships (his sole intention), he has not kept them together in a cohesive unit. What is missing is commitment to the idea of being part of something bigger than themselves.

On the polar opposite are the Detroit Tigers. They differ from superstar teams in several ways. Except for maybe (catcher) Ivan “Pudge” Rodríguez, the Tigers didn’t acquire known superstars. At the beginning of 2005-2006 season, most of the key players on the team were relative unknowns or people written off by other teams. Every one of the Tigers acquisitions or trades was made with the intention of adding to a puzzle. While superstar teams’ strategy has been to acquire superstars and overwhelm opposing teams, the Tigers were about acquiring great players who, in the context of a team, became greater.

Another huge difference was manager Jim Leyland. His importance cannot be underestimated. Leyland started off as a Tigers catcher and spent six seasons as a minor leaguer until acquiring his first minor league coaching position in 1970. From then on, Leyland coached in the Tigers’ minor league system until 1982 and leaving to become Tony LaRussa’s third base coach (1982-1985) for the Chicago White Sox. Subsequently, he managed the Pittsburgh Pirates (1986-1996), became Manager of the Year (1990, 1992) and took them to the National League Championship Series (1990-1992) though losing all three times. In 1997, Leyland was hired to manage the Florida Marlins, leading them to their first championship though they were only around for five years. He stayed on until 1998 and left to coach the Colorado Rockies (1999). Leyland didn’t have another coaching position until being rehired into the Tigers’ organization in 2005 as manager. Many people, including the Tigers’ commentators have attributed his tough, no-nonsense coaching style to his 11 years as a minor league coach, which taught him the coaching fundamentals that other coaches learn along the way once reaching the major league level. While Leyland had successful with Pittsburgh and Colorado, it wasn’t recognized until he rejoined the Tigers

His strong relationship with the players allowed him to nurture many of the younger ones into confident athletes able to stare down much more recognized teams and removed their egos from the team equation and utilize the older players’ experience. Leyland was as able to chastise players not performing to his level of high excellence as to leave a troubled pitcher to extricate himself. To summarize up how the players regard him, Brandon Inge (third baseman) was quoted in the ESPN biography on Leyland, regarding his commenting on Kirby Puckett’s death, “This guy [Leyland] right here didn’t even know Kirby Puckett very well and is going to break down over him because he meant so much to the game. Then, you know he’s gonna care about every one of us in the clubhouse. That right there was the moment everybody in the clubhouse was like ‘Wow, we’ll play to our death for this guy.’ ” Players grew to know that Leyland always knew what he was doing and never questioned his decisions. The decisions as well as his and the players’ arrivals were part of bigger picture—achieving big success through building upon small ones.

While Tigers’ long-suffering fans might owe their team’s victory to a “miracle,” it was anything but that. The Tigers reaching the World Series was due to the fundamentals of sportsmanship: putting the team above the individual. When Sean Casey (first baseman) was on the disabled list because of a torn calf, Pudge Rodriguez volunteered to replace him. Leyland, though grateful for the gesture, told him that he would be much better as catcher. I cannot think of any such incident in recent sports memory.

Also, Leyland and his players finally came into their own. He found a group of players that were ripe with potential though it was not able to fully develop. Leyland’s gruff honesty yet quiet nurturing allowed his players to feel motivated enough to give nothing less than their best, complete effort and last and not least to just have fun. Hard work hardly seems worthwhile without enjoying its benefits.

It might have taken 22 years for the Tigers to reach the pinnacle but long overdue. Their victory can serve as nothing less but a lesson to managers on how to lead players and players to follow their manager’s direction. Teams not superstars achieve consistent victory. It cannot be prima donna players that call the shots but strong, competent management. If players and management forget these lessons, then they will find themselves in the seemingly bottomless pit of mediocrity and unable to get out of it unless they remember these lessons and hold them central to what they do.

Whatever Happened to Ellis Island?

For 62 years, Ellis Island, the first federal immigration station, served as a beacon drawing newly arrived immigrants to the United States. Second to the Statue of Liberty, it was one of the most recognized icons for immigrants.

Ellis Island helped to regulate the flow of immigrants through its screening process. First of all, immigrants needed to have the required papers in order. Then, they would go to the Registry Room, where they would submit to a medical inspection, as administered through doctors with the US Public Health Service. Their ship’s manifest would include their name as well as their answers to 29 questions. This information served to help the agents cross examine the immigrants. Only people that passed the health standards or demonstrated that they would not be a burden to the public or be an illegal laborer could pass through as US citizens. From this point forward, each incoming immigrant’s history would detail their point of origin and their subsequent date of entry.

So why is it now so complicated to track people coming into the country? Even after all of these years, there are numbers of Americans that can trace their ancestry to at least one person entering through Ellis Island. Can the same thing still be said about people coming into the United States? Do we still have that same ability to track them back to their specific point of entry and point of origin? Ellis Island helped to establish the paper trail, which began their new identity as Americans.

One of the major problems that the United States has is its inability to track everybody arriving in the United States, which includes those that would do harm. One of the things that the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist activities has shown is that not all of the terrorists entered here illegally. For example, Mohammed Atta (United Airlines 11-NYC) and Marwan Alshedhi (United Airlines 175-NYC) entered legally using visitor visas. After it became public that some of the terrorists entered with visas, then local, state and federal authorities started rounding up people who had overstayed their visas. It took 9/11 to motivate the government to start working on tracking people using visas to enter the United States.

Before anything else is done regarding immigration, policy changes start with regulating the flow of traffic. Whether the United States decides on deportation or amnesty, there is no way to do either without first of all cutting back on the people entering to allow us time to figure out what to do with current illegal immigrants. If they are to be deported, then the people that overstayed their visas or otherwise illegally entered must be located.