Winners, losers and die-hards

First, congratulations to the Marlins. They were clearly the best team this October, and the Cubs ought to take some measure of consolation in the fact that they came much closer to beating them than anyone else did during the postseason. Josh Beckett’s complete-game shutout of the Yankees on only three days’ rest will go down as one of the all-time great World Series performances. He was amazing.

While it feels a little better to know the Cubs got beaten by the best, and that the Yankees have now gone a whole three years since a World Series title, there are still some people who insist that Cubs fans should be thankful their team failed again to win the big prize.

You see, the fans have so strongly identified with the Cubs as “lovable losers” that there’s no way they could recover from the tragedy of a championship — or, worse yet, a series of championships. This is the basis for an obnoxious Oct. 19 Chicago Tribune story by Rex W. Huppke.

The headline? “Back from the brink”:

Glenn Stout, a baseball historian and author, said a championship season could have forever changed the relationship of the team and its devoted followers.

“I think the identity would change, and I think expectations for the team would change,” said Stout, who has long chronicled baseball’s other premier losers, the Boston Red Sox.

“Since the Cubs haven’t been really even close for so long, that’s kind of allowed that lovable loser mentality to maintain. People think, `Who cares what happens? It’s nice to be at Wrigley Field.’ But once they win, I actually think that there would suddenly be expectations for them and losing would suddenly be not so acceptable.”

Do we expect the Cubs to win? No, we don’t. But that does not mean we don’t passionately thirst for a winning team. Losing, like death, is never “acceptable.” Both are inevitable, but if a person handles death well she’s praised for her calm in the face of mortality. Cubs fans, on the other hand, are patronized as suckers for their steadfastness in the face of losing.

Losing may have been the usual for a long time, but it’s not comfortable and it’s not lovable. There’s a rather large group of thumb-suckers out there who think Cubs fans can’t handle success, and are therefore somehow undeserving it. That’s just B.S.

It’s said that being a Cubs fan prepares you for life. Well, I feel comfortable speaking for most Cubs fans when I say that I have been more than adequately prepared for life. Now I am prepared to win.

It was a damn shame the Cubs-Red Sox World Series didn’t come off, and at least one person is paying the price for it: Grady Little won’t be back next year in Boston.

Loony libertarian watch

Another low-wattage celebrity has joined the Libertarian Party cavalcade of mediocrities: Dean Cameron.

“He made his name as a funnyman actor in lighthearted teenage comedies like ‘Ski School’ (1991), ‘Ski School 2’ (1994), and ‘Summer School’ (1987),” says the LP News.

Just wait ’til they promote this in their ads:

“Wow, honey, that guy from ‘Summer School’ is a Libertarian. This changes my whole outlook toward them. No, not Mark Harmon, honey. He was one of the two kids obsessed with splatter movies. Don’t you remember?”

Cameron “has been in the news more recently as the inventor of the ‘Bill of Rights, Security Edition’ for travelers — the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution printed on sturdy, playing card-sized pieces of metal. The product is designed to set off the metal detectors in airports and force airport security to ‘take away your Bill of Rights.'”

That’s actually not half bad.

Meanwhile, the news brings me yet another sign of my severe underachiever status. Jason Sorens, like me, is 26. Unlike me, he is leading a group of 20,000 libertarians who plan to move en masse to New Hampshire to tilt the state in a more freedom-friendly direction.

You see, his day job as a political science lecturer at Yale University just wasn’t enough to brag about; he had to become a libertarian social revolutionary as well.

This may or may not be a boon to liberty (I rather doubt it), but it’s doing nothing for my self-esteem.

I hate you, you hate me, we’re a happy family

The shocking news is in: Liberals hate Dubya.

Conservatives say this hatred is blinding them to Dubya’s good points and is making it impossible for liberals to rationally take part in the public discourse. Liberals say they aren’t any worse than conservatives were during the Clinton presidency.

I think back to those years and how I felt like a kindred spirit to all those Clinton-hating conservatives.

It seems that, in their turns, I’ve hated both Clinton and Dubya with a considerable degree of vigor. Perhaps I am blinded by my love of liberty.