The next time somebody says that the Democrats are for the little guy, throw this one at him.
Of course, Chrysler, GM, and all those Wall Street banks got federal money because they were, at least we were told, "too big to fail." Now it appears that all we little guys, those who had significant portions of our homes damaged by the floods here in Metro Detroit a couple of weeks ago, are just that "too little to help." If things play out the way they look, no federal money will be coming to assist all those common homeowners. Nope, even though they are taxpayers and they have, as Brooks Patterson said, "a need of expectation and support," they won't get it.
First, I 'm from Detroit. I worked for Fords (which I'm glad to say didn't take federal money), growing up practically in the backyard of the Rouge Plant. But I also opposed the federal bailout. "Too big to fail?" Bah! First, for years people around here knew that GM and Chrysler were making junk. And they were both arrogant about it, sort of an arrogant incompetence. Note their dealings with the UAW, which also bears much of the blame for the demise of the companies. Second, I really doubt those companies, esp GM, would have gone bankrupt. Someone somewhere would have come across with the money, loans rather than government handouts. After all, people are still investing in Detroit, aren't they?????? Third, even had they gone bankrupt, it's reasonable to assume that all that plant, all that equipment, all that capacity, etc. would have been bought by someone and retooled. Fourth, what a terrible precedent! Go ahead and mismanage, be malfeasant. That's OK, because if the feds like you you will get a bailout. There are not consequences (for the bad behavior and decisions of management and unions). Yeah, right, "a precedent." But there's likely no money coming for Detroiters who find their homeowners' insurance policies don't cover their water-damage losses.
In fact, what took FEMA more than two weeks to come here to assess the damage? I'm no fan of Gov. Snyder, but criticism of him for taking too long to request federal aid smacks of nothing more than politics, of shifting blame. He actually cut short a trip to the UP to assess storm damage, unlike our golf-playing, vacationing President.
And immigrants illegally coming into this country are getting government aid--schools, hospitals, food, and more--while our own citizens are getting the fickey-doo from their own government?????? Where are the confrontations with Levin, Stabenow, and our Michigan House delegation? Why aren't Michigan folks calling them on the carpet for this? After all, the ads all tout how much they do for Michigan. Yes, I do sent e-mails to all three of my members of Congress. One responds (but he has no clout, not even within his own party since he's not an Establishment Republican--that is a big-government Republican; besides, after the primary loss, he's a lame-duck), the two others (both Democrats) usually ignore my letters or, if they do answer, it's months later and often the replies have absolutely nothing to do with my original e-mail. Sometimes it's quite comical, sort of "What would your rather do, ride a bicycle or live in Michigan?
That the infrastructure broke down during the storm can't be blamed on one party--both Republicans and Democrats are responsible. They spend money where it shouldn't be spent and don't spend it where it should be spent.
I was thinking of this one the other day, too. So this Beyonce (I think that's how her name is spelled. I'm not sure. I surely wouldn't recognize any of her songs--isn't she a singer?--and probably not even a photo of her.) is claiming to be "a feminist." And, I guess, the feminist movement is jumping on board. Hmmm..... I always thought feminism was a movement that opposed the exploitation of women. What is it the Beyonce wears, from what I understand, not much! Oh, so she's taking advantage of her good looks by dressign in a skimpy manner? Isn't that anti-feminism?????? Ah, but what would one expect from a movement that embraces Bill Clinton as a feminist President? Right, not much.
BTW, more shootings and murders in Detroit the past few days. Several have been of young people and gangs have been targeted as the perpetrators. It certainly appears that outrage and even concern among our leaders is quite selective--once again.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Monday, August 25, 2014
Legal Persons?
The law says corporations are "legal persons." Hence the name/term "corporate," from the Latin corpus for body and corpare for to form a body. In essence, a corporation can act like a person in forming contracts, to sue or be sued, etc. Therein lies the problem.
There are lots of advantages to a corporation being held, in legal eyes, as a person. But it is also controversial. Is it any surprise that positions by the same persons are often contradictory? Two examples of this are "inversion" and "political speech."
Here in Michigan, voters just passed, by a wide margin, Proposal A. That eliminated a tax on business equipment, a tax which was levied annually. Corporate-types (and their magnificent propaganda machines!) were able to present a favorable picture of Proposal A. Of course, it benefited them, esp the giant corps, immensely--it cut their taxes. Their argument, as seen in several ads, was that "We paid a tax on this piece of equipment when we bought it. Why should we have to continue to pay a tax on it each year? That's not fair." (There's that word again, fair.) Well, wait a minute. I must pay taxes on, say, my house and property annually--each year! I paid the year(s) I bought them. Why should I have to pay property taxes every year? "Oh, that's different--you're a person." Wait a minute! Aren't corporations legal persons?????? So, then, why should they (and now in reality are) be treated any differently than we real persons? Hmmmmmm......
Of course, liberals opposed this Proposal A while conservatives favored it, both for obvious reasons. Conservatives don't want so much government spending (unless they are fake conservatives like Establishment Republicans) and liberals love spending other people's money. At the heart of the matter, for both groups, is the issue of the "personhood" of corporations.
Now let's go back to the Citizens United case, delivered by the Supremes. In it, the Supremes held that corporations (and other groups) also have the right of free speech because they are legal persons. Conservatives lauded the ruling, which they insist upholds the right of free speech of corporations, legal persons. Liberals lambasted the decision, of course, arguing that corporations aren't persons. (What is the old saying, "I'll believe corporations are persons when one of them gets the death penalty?")
So, which is it? If one supports Citizens United, one should oppose Proposal A and vice versa.
There are lots of advantages to a corporation being held, in legal eyes, as a person. But it is also controversial. Is it any surprise that positions by the same persons are often contradictory? Two examples of this are "inversion" and "political speech."
Here in Michigan, voters just passed, by a wide margin, Proposal A. That eliminated a tax on business equipment, a tax which was levied annually. Corporate-types (and their magnificent propaganda machines!) were able to present a favorable picture of Proposal A. Of course, it benefited them, esp the giant corps, immensely--it cut their taxes. Their argument, as seen in several ads, was that "We paid a tax on this piece of equipment when we bought it. Why should we have to continue to pay a tax on it each year? That's not fair." (There's that word again, fair.) Well, wait a minute. I must pay taxes on, say, my house and property annually--each year! I paid the year(s) I bought them. Why should I have to pay property taxes every year? "Oh, that's different--you're a person." Wait a minute! Aren't corporations legal persons?????? So, then, why should they (and now in reality are) be treated any differently than we real persons? Hmmmmmm......
Of course, liberals opposed this Proposal A while conservatives favored it, both for obvious reasons. Conservatives don't want so much government spending (unless they are fake conservatives like Establishment Republicans) and liberals love spending other people's money. At the heart of the matter, for both groups, is the issue of the "personhood" of corporations.
Now let's go back to the Citizens United case, delivered by the Supremes. In it, the Supremes held that corporations (and other groups) also have the right of free speech because they are legal persons. Conservatives lauded the ruling, which they insist upholds the right of free speech of corporations, legal persons. Liberals lambasted the decision, of course, arguing that corporations aren't persons. (What is the old saying, "I'll believe corporations are persons when one of them gets the death penalty?")
So, which is it? If one supports Citizens United, one should oppose Proposal A and vice versa.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Sometimes......
......I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits." I was reminded of this old cartoon caption the other day and wonder if the latter, "just sits," is often a better option. I know, from history, there have been times that have been real dark, almost as if humanity was being driven into a black hole. But, boy, today just seems as if we are once again heading in that direction.
There is that old adage/definition that insanity is continuing to do the same old failed things and expecting better results. That seems to be all around us. I note one of the Detroit newspapers, once again, vilifying a candidate for office as "lightly qualified." I suppose that's a slam at the guy. But what makes a candidate "well qualified" or, at least, "qualified?" The suggestion in this op-ed was experience as a politician. First, the Founders of this nation considered holding political office to be "citizen service," that ordinary citizens can and should serve in those capacities, but not for life. Note the greatness of George Washington, "The American Cincinnatus." The story goes that King George III asked John Adams after the war, the Continental Army still intact, what "your General Washington will do now." The expectation was that Washington would use his army to become another "King George." Adams knew he wouldn't and replied, "I expect he will return to his farm," Mount Vernon. George III must have shaken his head, saying, "If he does that he'll be the greatest man in the world." After all, that's what had always happened; a conquering general grabbed power. Note a decade or so later Napoleon had done that exact thing. And Washington gave up chances for monarchical power more than once. "Citizen service......" Apparently that's a concept foreign to many people, even those who frequently cite the Founders' intent as to the Constitution and its system of governance. The implication, no the assertion!, that political experience trumps all else is, perhaps, "insanity." First, what makes career politicians "well qualified" or even "qualified?" Don't we, as a rule of thumb, scorn "career politicians?" (Of course, it's always the other guy's "career politician." Ours is always "pretty good.") What makes them smarter or, at least, better able to handle problems we face? Frankly, nothing! And, second, who has put us in much of this mess?????? Politicians! Now, they might have had the best of intentions, but good intentions don't always translate to good politics, good policies, good results. And, what do these career politicians do, usually? Yep, they use government in the same old ways that caused problems in the first place. Of course, we all know that they are arrogant elitists; they know more than we do, are smarter than we are. Just listen to any of them on radio interviews, television sound bites, etc. And, one would think, the LameStream Media would know better than to claim "lightly qualified," then to give almost blanket endorsements to incumbent candidates.
I heard this term the other day, "the paralysis of hypersensitivity." I think it's a good one. We've become too concerned with political correctness and things like it. It seems like we must stop and think every time we think to make sure we aren't "offending" this group or that. For instance, the US Navy just implemented a policy that removes Bibles from all hotels under Naval jurisdiction (whatever those are). Let's see; I wonder who could have been "offended" by Bibles? Oh, I guess there's a big list. And, now that the Bibles have been removed, someone else is "offended." Now that the US Navy has caved into some atheist or other group is bad enough; but that some group thinks that somehow their rights have been trampled by the mere presence of a Bible confounds me.
And have you heard of Operation Choke Point? It's another overreach by the federal government to stifle those who disagree with the current administration. No, I wasn't surprised by this either. It appears that the feds have put pressure on banks and other lending institutions (investigations, fines, etc.) to stop them from lending money to groups, individuals, businesses, etc. that the administration doesn't like. For instance, a hardware store in Mass, with a perfect financial record and history, was denied a loan by a bank with which it has done business for years. The reason? The bank indicated it didn't want to run afoul of the feds who had hinted that a loan to the hardware store might bring the bank trouble--investigation, fines, etc. Well, what is wrong with the hardware store? Gee, it sells guns! Yep, that's it. It doesn't do anything remotely illegal or even unsavory. It merely engages in a legal business that the administration doesn't like. Am I the only one who finds that frightening?????? And Obama, for political reasons and to deflect any criticism or investigation of the illegal doings of his administration, sends Holder to Ferguson, MO to run some scam there.
Speaking of Ferguson, MO, it appears, as is often the case, the LameStreams have the story wrong--at least a good part of it is inaccurate. I'm still not sure, but the dead kid was 6' 4", 300 lbs, a behemoth. So that makes that video of him manhandling the store owner who was trying to stop him from stealing a bit more revealing. Again, he likely didn't deserve to die, but the rush to judgment of the media, the inciters, the out-of-towners, etc. was just that, a rush to judgment.
Another columnist was defending the corporate practice of inversions, that is, US firms merging with often smaller foreign firms in order to take advantage of the foreign tax laws and not pay US taxes. This columnist defends the practice as "sensible," that the only obligation of corporations is to maximize profits for their shareholders. Talk about "greed!" It's such an attitude that gives corporations a bad name, that leads to corporate leaders called "robber barons," among other things. Now, I agree that profits have to be number one on the list of objectives; if companies don't make money, they die. But there are other responsibilities, too. The columnist writes, "If businesses supposedly have other responsibilities, who decides what they are?" He then goes on to assume that government decides. That, I think, is a false premise. Why can't the businesses decide what their other responsibilities are? After all, think of all the decisions that are made. He belittles those who criticize the Citizens United case, those who claim corporations aren't "people." I happen to agree with him, the concept that corporations are legal persons. That said, shouldn't corporations also be held to a civic duty?
Last but not least, since the Codester wants to put together a jigsaw puzzle, what's going to happen with this radical Islamist group ISIS/ISIL? The President's comments were hardly a hallmark of condemnation--but, of course, he was only ten minutes away from the golf course. Where is the call from Amnesty International, the Red Cross/Crescent, the UN (OK it did pass something, of little or no consequence.), and all the other doo-gooders (and I do mean doo)? Isn't beheading children a crime against humanity? Isn't selling women into prostitution and slavery a crime against humanity? Isn't crucifying men a crime against humanity? The offense of these people? They refused to convert to Islam. Where is the world-wide condemnation--on a loud and daily basis? Why does our President not speak out in the loudest, most condemnatory language--every day? (I wonder how loudly he yells, "Fore!") ISIS/ISIL will not go away by itself, nope. And, as Winston Churchill said, "We cannot solve our problems by closing our eyes to them." Yet that seems to be the US reaction/policy to this genocide.
There is that old adage/definition that insanity is continuing to do the same old failed things and expecting better results. That seems to be all around us. I note one of the Detroit newspapers, once again, vilifying a candidate for office as "lightly qualified." I suppose that's a slam at the guy. But what makes a candidate "well qualified" or, at least, "qualified?" The suggestion in this op-ed was experience as a politician. First, the Founders of this nation considered holding political office to be "citizen service," that ordinary citizens can and should serve in those capacities, but not for life. Note the greatness of George Washington, "The American Cincinnatus." The story goes that King George III asked John Adams after the war, the Continental Army still intact, what "your General Washington will do now." The expectation was that Washington would use his army to become another "King George." Adams knew he wouldn't and replied, "I expect he will return to his farm," Mount Vernon. George III must have shaken his head, saying, "If he does that he'll be the greatest man in the world." After all, that's what had always happened; a conquering general grabbed power. Note a decade or so later Napoleon had done that exact thing. And Washington gave up chances for monarchical power more than once. "Citizen service......" Apparently that's a concept foreign to many people, even those who frequently cite the Founders' intent as to the Constitution and its system of governance. The implication, no the assertion!, that political experience trumps all else is, perhaps, "insanity." First, what makes career politicians "well qualified" or even "qualified?" Don't we, as a rule of thumb, scorn "career politicians?" (Of course, it's always the other guy's "career politician." Ours is always "pretty good.") What makes them smarter or, at least, better able to handle problems we face? Frankly, nothing! And, second, who has put us in much of this mess?????? Politicians! Now, they might have had the best of intentions, but good intentions don't always translate to good politics, good policies, good results. And, what do these career politicians do, usually? Yep, they use government in the same old ways that caused problems in the first place. Of course, we all know that they are arrogant elitists; they know more than we do, are smarter than we are. Just listen to any of them on radio interviews, television sound bites, etc. And, one would think, the LameStream Media would know better than to claim "lightly qualified," then to give almost blanket endorsements to incumbent candidates.
I heard this term the other day, "the paralysis of hypersensitivity." I think it's a good one. We've become too concerned with political correctness and things like it. It seems like we must stop and think every time we think to make sure we aren't "offending" this group or that. For instance, the US Navy just implemented a policy that removes Bibles from all hotels under Naval jurisdiction (whatever those are). Let's see; I wonder who could have been "offended" by Bibles? Oh, I guess there's a big list. And, now that the Bibles have been removed, someone else is "offended." Now that the US Navy has caved into some atheist or other group is bad enough; but that some group thinks that somehow their rights have been trampled by the mere presence of a Bible confounds me.
And have you heard of Operation Choke Point? It's another overreach by the federal government to stifle those who disagree with the current administration. No, I wasn't surprised by this either. It appears that the feds have put pressure on banks and other lending institutions (investigations, fines, etc.) to stop them from lending money to groups, individuals, businesses, etc. that the administration doesn't like. For instance, a hardware store in Mass, with a perfect financial record and history, was denied a loan by a bank with which it has done business for years. The reason? The bank indicated it didn't want to run afoul of the feds who had hinted that a loan to the hardware store might bring the bank trouble--investigation, fines, etc. Well, what is wrong with the hardware store? Gee, it sells guns! Yep, that's it. It doesn't do anything remotely illegal or even unsavory. It merely engages in a legal business that the administration doesn't like. Am I the only one who finds that frightening?????? And Obama, for political reasons and to deflect any criticism or investigation of the illegal doings of his administration, sends Holder to Ferguson, MO to run some scam there.
Speaking of Ferguson, MO, it appears, as is often the case, the LameStreams have the story wrong--at least a good part of it is inaccurate. I'm still not sure, but the dead kid was 6' 4", 300 lbs, a behemoth. So that makes that video of him manhandling the store owner who was trying to stop him from stealing a bit more revealing. Again, he likely didn't deserve to die, but the rush to judgment of the media, the inciters, the out-of-towners, etc. was just that, a rush to judgment.
Another columnist was defending the corporate practice of inversions, that is, US firms merging with often smaller foreign firms in order to take advantage of the foreign tax laws and not pay US taxes. This columnist defends the practice as "sensible," that the only obligation of corporations is to maximize profits for their shareholders. Talk about "greed!" It's such an attitude that gives corporations a bad name, that leads to corporate leaders called "robber barons," among other things. Now, I agree that profits have to be number one on the list of objectives; if companies don't make money, they die. But there are other responsibilities, too. The columnist writes, "If businesses supposedly have other responsibilities, who decides what they are?" He then goes on to assume that government decides. That, I think, is a false premise. Why can't the businesses decide what their other responsibilities are? After all, think of all the decisions that are made. He belittles those who criticize the Citizens United case, those who claim corporations aren't "people." I happen to agree with him, the concept that corporations are legal persons. That said, shouldn't corporations also be held to a civic duty?
Last but not least, since the Codester wants to put together a jigsaw puzzle, what's going to happen with this radical Islamist group ISIS/ISIL? The President's comments were hardly a hallmark of condemnation--but, of course, he was only ten minutes away from the golf course. Where is the call from Amnesty International, the Red Cross/Crescent, the UN (OK it did pass something, of little or no consequence.), and all the other doo-gooders (and I do mean doo)? Isn't beheading children a crime against humanity? Isn't selling women into prostitution and slavery a crime against humanity? Isn't crucifying men a crime against humanity? The offense of these people? They refused to convert to Islam. Where is the world-wide condemnation--on a loud and daily basis? Why does our President not speak out in the loudest, most condemnatory language--every day? (I wonder how loudly he yells, "Fore!") ISIS/ISIL will not go away by itself, nope. And, as Winston Churchill said, "We cannot solve our problems by closing our eyes to them." Yet that seems to be the US reaction/policy to this genocide.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Those "Robber Barons"
Yep, I've been thinking about this the past few days, since my post about the AP history standards and their biases.
If Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, James Hill, JP Morgan, etc. were "robber barons," can we fit that label, too, on the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, that Facebook founder (whose name I don't know), the guy who started Twitter/Tweets (whatever they are), etc.?
I think it's a relevant and important question to ask. Which wealthy guys were/are "robber barons" and which weren't/aren't--and, a second question, why not? My guess is any answer will reveal a prejudice, deliberate or otherwise, or ignorance.
As a corollary, I still haven't found anyone who can explain to me why CEOs and other corporate-types are "greedy" (and I might well agree that they are; how much is enough?), but professional athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy rock stars, etc. are not. C'mon, how many tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars did that Tiger pitcher turn down? "I have to think about taking care of my family" just doesn't wash. How did the rest of us manage to "take care of our families" on tiny fractions of those amounts? (And Hillary Clinton argued that we should be able to "chase our dreams" rather than take jobs we don't like, regardless if we have families for which to care. Grow up and act like adults? Who us?)
We have become a strange people......
If Henry Ford, John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, James Hill, JP Morgan, etc. were "robber barons," can we fit that label, too, on the likes of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, that Facebook founder (whose name I don't know), the guy who started Twitter/Tweets (whatever they are), etc.?
I think it's a relevant and important question to ask. Which wealthy guys were/are "robber barons" and which weren't/aren't--and, a second question, why not? My guess is any answer will reveal a prejudice, deliberate or otherwise, or ignorance.
As a corollary, I still haven't found anyone who can explain to me why CEOs and other corporate-types are "greedy" (and I might well agree that they are; how much is enough?), but professional athletes, Hollywood-types, hippy rock stars, etc. are not. C'mon, how many tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars did that Tiger pitcher turn down? "I have to think about taking care of my family" just doesn't wash. How did the rest of us manage to "take care of our families" on tiny fractions of those amounts? (And Hillary Clinton argued that we should be able to "chase our dreams" rather than take jobs we don't like, regardless if we have families for which to care. Grow up and act like adults? Who us?)
We have become a strange people......
Friday, August 15, 2014
"Outrage" Again
Just a couple of thoughts:
In no way do I diminish the tragedy of losing a young man's life in Ferguson, MO. I don't know much about the situation, not having been there and not following too closely in the newspapers. But it's a sad, sad situation. But the protests?
I understand the protests, but I don't understand why there are no such protests when thugs, drug dealers, and their ilk murder others. Where are the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons when half a dozen or more of our kids are shot and killed in Detroit every week? Why doesn't the President hold press conferences or at least make some statements when our own children are being murdered? Where is the community "outrage," other than a single night's vigil? Where are the marches, the protests? Where are the community members who should be stepping up to identify the thugs and drug dealers to the authorities? Only when that happens can I take such "outrage" seriously, although my feelings of sadness over the needless deaths continues.
Interesting how ObamaCare is getting less and less popular. The most recent poll shows that more and more people are dissatisfied with it and that the dissatisfaction is widespread, covering all age-groups, all ethnic and racial groups, and all income groups. As more and more people are experiencing ObamaCare, they also experience its bad, undesirable effects. What the numbers are beginning to show is exactly what ObamaCare was intended to do. Satisfaction with it comes from about 12-15% of the people while 60% are unhappy with it. The others, according to the poll, haven't yet dealt with it. And that was exactly the design of ObamaCare, to increase costs and/or reduce benefits for the overwhelming majority of Americans who had and liked their health insurance to pay for insurance for the small number of Americans who didn't have it, regardless if they didn't want it, didn't want to pay for it, etc. We should hold Gary Peters' feet to the fire for voting for ObamaCare and not send him to the US Senate.
How odd it is to find a baseball player hitting .310 and leading the league in RBIs and still have folks consider him to be having an off-year. Such is the situation with the league's best hitter, Miguel Cabrera. I have my theories on why his BA is so "low" and his HR number is down. But I realize that nobody listens to me, so...... I just continue to follow him and marvel at one of the very, very best hitters I have ever seen (and I saw Ted Williams).
In no way do I diminish the tragedy of losing a young man's life in Ferguson, MO. I don't know much about the situation, not having been there and not following too closely in the newspapers. But it's a sad, sad situation. But the protests?
I understand the protests, but I don't understand why there are no such protests when thugs, drug dealers, and their ilk murder others. Where are the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons when half a dozen or more of our kids are shot and killed in Detroit every week? Why doesn't the President hold press conferences or at least make some statements when our own children are being murdered? Where is the community "outrage," other than a single night's vigil? Where are the marches, the protests? Where are the community members who should be stepping up to identify the thugs and drug dealers to the authorities? Only when that happens can I take such "outrage" seriously, although my feelings of sadness over the needless deaths continues.
Interesting how ObamaCare is getting less and less popular. The most recent poll shows that more and more people are dissatisfied with it and that the dissatisfaction is widespread, covering all age-groups, all ethnic and racial groups, and all income groups. As more and more people are experiencing ObamaCare, they also experience its bad, undesirable effects. What the numbers are beginning to show is exactly what ObamaCare was intended to do. Satisfaction with it comes from about 12-15% of the people while 60% are unhappy with it. The others, according to the poll, haven't yet dealt with it. And that was exactly the design of ObamaCare, to increase costs and/or reduce benefits for the overwhelming majority of Americans who had and liked their health insurance to pay for insurance for the small number of Americans who didn't have it, regardless if they didn't want it, didn't want to pay for it, etc. We should hold Gary Peters' feet to the fire for voting for ObamaCare and not send him to the US Senate.
How odd it is to find a baseball player hitting .310 and leading the league in RBIs and still have folks consider him to be having an off-year. Such is the situation with the league's best hitter, Miguel Cabrera. I have my theories on why his BA is so "low" and his HR number is down. But I realize that nobody listens to me, so...... I just continue to follow him and marvel at one of the very, very best hitters I have ever seen (and I saw Ted Williams).
Thursday, August 14, 2014
The Great Virginia Triumvirate!
I just finished reading biographies of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. What incredible individuals! All of them certainly deserve to be in the American Pantheon. The more history I read, after all these years, the fewer and fewer people I think are worth to be there. Of course, like in many things (even in evaluating myself!), my standards are higher than most.
Washington stands out, of these three and the other Founding Fathers. This isn't at all to diminish the significance and greatness of the others; not at all. They, Jefferson and Madison, earned their exalted positions. But Washington rises above.
I think it was Joseph Ellis who wrote, "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior. He was the Foundingest Father of them all." Yep...... I think it's important to ask why that was so.
Again, I don't at all diminish the Superstar status of the others. For instance, Jefferson wrote our American Creed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those are the words by which we live. They form the basis for American Exceptionalism. (Sorry you Obama fans; he's wrong, very wrong.) Madison was the architect of the US Constitutional System. Oh, he had some help, but mostly the work is his.
But Washington was their "unquestioned superior." I think the primary reason for that is something that seems to have gone out of style, if I may put it so tritely, today. That is, character. Of course Washington wasn't perfect. He owned slaves, for one thing (a big thing). And he wrestled with the contradiction of that vis-a-vis the American Revolution and early nation. Yet, he refused to emancipate his slaves, until after his and Martha's deaths. Why was that?
I think his character was acknowledged most during the potential Newburgh Mutiny. The early nation faced a real challenge, not from the British, but officers in its own Continental Army. They weren't getting paid and hadn't been getting paid and, if this is what the United States meant, maybe it was time to march on the Confederation Congress and change things, perhaps to a monarchy. Washington tried to nip the mutiny in the bud. He first made a speech to his officers, one that likely didn't persuade any of the potential mutineers. He realized that and then asked the angry and frustrated veterans of war if he could read them a letter. Never really good as a public speaker, Washington fumbled over the words as he began reading. He halted and pulled out a pair of glasses. This startled the officers, grabbing their immediate attention. Washington had never been seen wearing glass in public! As he put them on, he apologized (at least an apology of sorts), "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." According to many accounts, these words, from the bravest man any of them knew!, brought tears and even open crying from these war-hardened officers. And, the mutiny ended right then and there. Such was the respect men had for Washington and his character.
Hmmm...... I've never made a complete list of Americans I would put in a Pantheon, but as I noted, there wouldn't be many. The Pantheon would be for great Americans, not merely pretty good ones. Those who know me at all realize Abraham Lincoln would be included, the first inductee. But others.....? Maybe I can start a list.
Washington stands out, of these three and the other Founding Fathers. This isn't at all to diminish the significance and greatness of the others; not at all. They, Jefferson and Madison, earned their exalted positions. But Washington rises above.
I think it was Joseph Ellis who wrote, "Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of these prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior. He was the Foundingest Father of them all." Yep...... I think it's important to ask why that was so.
Again, I don't at all diminish the Superstar status of the others. For instance, Jefferson wrote our American Creed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable right; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those are the words by which we live. They form the basis for American Exceptionalism. (Sorry you Obama fans; he's wrong, very wrong.) Madison was the architect of the US Constitutional System. Oh, he had some help, but mostly the work is his.
But Washington was their "unquestioned superior." I think the primary reason for that is something that seems to have gone out of style, if I may put it so tritely, today. That is, character. Of course Washington wasn't perfect. He owned slaves, for one thing (a big thing). And he wrestled with the contradiction of that vis-a-vis the American Revolution and early nation. Yet, he refused to emancipate his slaves, until after his and Martha's deaths. Why was that?
I think his character was acknowledged most during the potential Newburgh Mutiny. The early nation faced a real challenge, not from the British, but officers in its own Continental Army. They weren't getting paid and hadn't been getting paid and, if this is what the United States meant, maybe it was time to march on the Confederation Congress and change things, perhaps to a monarchy. Washington tried to nip the mutiny in the bud. He first made a speech to his officers, one that likely didn't persuade any of the potential mutineers. He realized that and then asked the angry and frustrated veterans of war if he could read them a letter. Never really good as a public speaker, Washington fumbled over the words as he began reading. He halted and pulled out a pair of glasses. This startled the officers, grabbing their immediate attention. Washington had never been seen wearing glass in public! As he put them on, he apologized (at least an apology of sorts), "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." According to many accounts, these words, from the bravest man any of them knew!, brought tears and even open crying from these war-hardened officers. And, the mutiny ended right then and there. Such was the respect men had for Washington and his character.
Hmmm...... I've never made a complete list of Americans I would put in a Pantheon, but as I noted, there wouldn't be many. The Pantheon would be for great Americans, not merely pretty good ones. Those who know me at all realize Abraham Lincoln would be included, the first inductee. But others.....? Maybe I can start a list.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Random Tue Thoughts
The deer are proliferating. The fawns are all over the place. The other day, out running, I saw eleven or twelve deer--I ran out of fingers so I'm not sure how many. All but two were fawns. Several were by themselves, without their parents. "Oh, see the little fawn. Does it have any doe? Yeah, two bucks!"
What a rainstorm! It must have hit east and south of us, although we had rain most of the day--yesterday. I guess many roads were flooded out, including parts of most of the freeways. One of the interchanges (I 75 and I 696) I use to go run with my blind buddy was apparently under "15 or 20 feet" of water this AM, according to a radio report. One of the reporters called it, "Lake I 696/75." I hope it's not damaged or, if it is, repairs are done by Sat. Driving the long way--actually it's shorter in miles, but longer in time--is an extra 10 or 15 minutes depending on traffic. Couple that with the hailstorm from a couple of weeks ago. Friends had more than $30,000 worth of damage done to their house and cars--preliminary estimates from their insurance adjuster. It could go higher. And lots of folks were in the same boat. We were spared the hail (She had pictures of baseball-sized hail in her hands!), but had hard rain and some strong winds. But we escaped most of the bad stuff.
I know baseball, at least at the Major League level, isn't about fundamentals. It's about physical ability--bigger, faster, stronger. I wonder, in the end, how many more games a team could win if it stressed fundamentals and practiced them. For instance, I saw a play the other day where an outfielder went after a ball off the wall correctly--meat-hand in first. Not a great play by any means, certainly not one to make Sports Center, it was the proper one, good fundamental outfield play. It saved him a couple of steps, some time. He threw to a base where the runner was not expecting a close play and, although called safe initially, was called out upon review. It was a key play in the game. Now, if that stuff happened all season long......
Speaking of Sports Center (or whatever show Bopper was watching), highlights of "great" outfield plays from the previous were shown. Some of them were very, very good plays, worthy of "highlights." But some of the others were good, not great plays. Aren't Major Leaguers supposed to make good plays routinely? I have notice one play few Big Leaguers make. On foul pops, near the stands, rarely do they go to the wall, find it with their hand, and then locate the ball. That way they don't have to worry about crashing into the wall and can concentrate on the ball. All it takes is a little practice......
I'm still geeked about The Great Pizza Challenge from last week. Bopper ran it with me, his first race, his first 5K. He found it "harder than I thought," but finished much better than I thought. He showed some real guts! Now, if we can keep the momentum going...... I'm planning on devoting my Sept column at www.runmichigan.com to my Great Pizza Challenge run with Bopp.
The results of last week's primary elections were disheartening, as I've noted. When I feel like maybe there's no hope, I read. Usually, to get my spirits back up, I read biogs. Often it's yet another book about Lincoln, but not always. This time I opened a Washington sketch. He, too, is inspiring, in a different way, but still inspiring. And, in any good book about Washington, the fact that he owned slaves, more than 200 of them, is raised and confronted. It's good to confront such questions.
What a rainstorm! It must have hit east and south of us, although we had rain most of the day--yesterday. I guess many roads were flooded out, including parts of most of the freeways. One of the interchanges (I 75 and I 696) I use to go run with my blind buddy was apparently under "15 or 20 feet" of water this AM, according to a radio report. One of the reporters called it, "Lake I 696/75." I hope it's not damaged or, if it is, repairs are done by Sat. Driving the long way--actually it's shorter in miles, but longer in time--is an extra 10 or 15 minutes depending on traffic. Couple that with the hailstorm from a couple of weeks ago. Friends had more than $30,000 worth of damage done to their house and cars--preliminary estimates from their insurance adjuster. It could go higher. And lots of folks were in the same boat. We were spared the hail (She had pictures of baseball-sized hail in her hands!), but had hard rain and some strong winds. But we escaped most of the bad stuff.
I know baseball, at least at the Major League level, isn't about fundamentals. It's about physical ability--bigger, faster, stronger. I wonder, in the end, how many more games a team could win if it stressed fundamentals and practiced them. For instance, I saw a play the other day where an outfielder went after a ball off the wall correctly--meat-hand in first. Not a great play by any means, certainly not one to make Sports Center, it was the proper one, good fundamental outfield play. It saved him a couple of steps, some time. He threw to a base where the runner was not expecting a close play and, although called safe initially, was called out upon review. It was a key play in the game. Now, if that stuff happened all season long......
Speaking of Sports Center (or whatever show Bopper was watching), highlights of "great" outfield plays from the previous were shown. Some of them were very, very good plays, worthy of "highlights." But some of the others were good, not great plays. Aren't Major Leaguers supposed to make good plays routinely? I have notice one play few Big Leaguers make. On foul pops, near the stands, rarely do they go to the wall, find it with their hand, and then locate the ball. That way they don't have to worry about crashing into the wall and can concentrate on the ball. All it takes is a little practice......
I'm still geeked about The Great Pizza Challenge from last week. Bopper ran it with me, his first race, his first 5K. He found it "harder than I thought," but finished much better than I thought. He showed some real guts! Now, if we can keep the momentum going...... I'm planning on devoting my Sept column at www.runmichigan.com to my Great Pizza Challenge run with Bopp.
The results of last week's primary elections were disheartening, as I've noted. When I feel like maybe there's no hope, I read. Usually, to get my spirits back up, I read biogs. Often it's yet another book about Lincoln, but not always. This time I opened a Washington sketch. He, too, is inspiring, in a different way, but still inspiring. And, in any good book about Washington, the fact that he owned slaves, more than 200 of them, is raised and confronted. It's good to confront such questions.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Recovery?
I know we hear, from politicians of both parties, from DC and Lansing as well as more local places, that we've turned the corner, that the economy is improving. I guess my question is this, "Why should we believe these guys now?"
Let's discount what one of my students asked of me several years ago. "How can you tell if a politician is lying?" I didn't know, thinking the question was serious. "When his lips are moving," she replied. And the more I have thought about it, the question is serious. But let's discount that.
I have a great deal of anecdotal evidence that this so-called "recovery" is hogwash. In the past month or so, a couple of my neighbors have lost their jobs. Local strip malls still appear to have the same number of vacant storefronts. In fact, what K and I thought were some pretty popular local eateries have closed their doors since the first of the year.
Anyone who does grocery shopping and pays attention knows how much prices have skyrocketed. Ground beef, the chuck stuff, not sirloin or round, can be found on sale at $2.99 a pound--that's on sale. Milk, a gallon, was on sale this AM at $2.89--down from the regular $3.29, at least according to the listed price label. Bread? We can get the store brand for $1 on sale every so often, but plan on paying about double that on a more normal basis. When was the last time you paid $1 for a dozen eggs? If you like honey, the way I do, kiss those 40 oz for $4.99 days away--now, if lucky, the sale price is $7.99 and the sales are far and few between. Gasoline prices have fluctuated, down to $3.59 a gallon since the $3.99 a gallon of a couple of months ago. Still, $3.59 is a lot higher than it was in 2010. I bought the kids each a small cone yesterday at an ice cream stand. I had a BOGO coupon and I still paid $3.80--for a small cone!
And now there's more than just this anecdotal evidence. A recent report indicated that the top income earners in the US are holding their own or doing better in this "recovery." But the upper and lower middle classes are taking a beating. They have lost a great deal of their income, annual, and net worth. It's not just that they are losing pay (Local teachers have taken more than $20,000 in pay cuts over the past several years!), but they are paying more for their insurance premiums, health co-pays, etc. Personally, to keep my same coverage, in January I faced about a $24-2500 annual increase, $200 a month. The middle classes are losing to inflation, to increased insurance costs, to taxes.
And still, last Tue Michigan voters and, it appears, voters throughout the US decided to send the same people or people just like them back to state legislatures, Washington, DC, and local offices. What is that old line about the definition of insanity, "Doing the same thing over and over again and just hoping for a better result."
I got a kick out of a Detroit "community organizer" this week insisting that the Detroit water crisis won't be solved until "water is more affordable." It's too expensive, he ranted and raved. Well, yeah, water probably does cost a lot more than it could or should. I wonder if so many people, half or more in Detroit alone, not paying their bills drives up the cost for others. Let's see, using our trusty calculator, if we divide a big number (the cost of water) by another number (the number of people who actually pay their bills) we get a quotient, an answer. Try dividing that same big number by another number, a bigger one (the number of people who should be paying their bills) and what happens to the quotient, answer? Heh Heh Heh. Community organizer, yeah......
As disheartened as I've been this week, I returned as I always do to reading. I will read another book about Abraham Lincoln or some other American hero. This week I opened yet another biog of George Washington. I continue to be moved by the same stories, ones with which I am usually quite familiar. This one concerned Washington's actions at the Newburgh Mutiny Conspiracy, when some officers were bent on marching on the new US government in 1783 because they hadn't been paid. Washington's initial speech didn't move them much, so he asked the potential mutineers if he could read them a letter. He opened the missive and began to read, stumbling at the beginning. The officers were startled to see The General pull out a pair of glasses so he could read the words. Nobody had seen Washington wear glasses in public before! As he put them on, he asked his audience for forbearance, saying, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." Eyes watered and tears flowed from these war-hardened officers. And the potential mutiny was quashed then and there. And, of course, other aspects of Washington's life are very inspiring--his character, that is honesty and integrity, was second to none. Like Lincoln, Washington wasn't perfect, but that is what makes him so inspirational.
Let's discount what one of my students asked of me several years ago. "How can you tell if a politician is lying?" I didn't know, thinking the question was serious. "When his lips are moving," she replied. And the more I have thought about it, the question is serious. But let's discount that.
I have a great deal of anecdotal evidence that this so-called "recovery" is hogwash. In the past month or so, a couple of my neighbors have lost their jobs. Local strip malls still appear to have the same number of vacant storefronts. In fact, what K and I thought were some pretty popular local eateries have closed their doors since the first of the year.
Anyone who does grocery shopping and pays attention knows how much prices have skyrocketed. Ground beef, the chuck stuff, not sirloin or round, can be found on sale at $2.99 a pound--that's on sale. Milk, a gallon, was on sale this AM at $2.89--down from the regular $3.29, at least according to the listed price label. Bread? We can get the store brand for $1 on sale every so often, but plan on paying about double that on a more normal basis. When was the last time you paid $1 for a dozen eggs? If you like honey, the way I do, kiss those 40 oz for $4.99 days away--now, if lucky, the sale price is $7.99 and the sales are far and few between. Gasoline prices have fluctuated, down to $3.59 a gallon since the $3.99 a gallon of a couple of months ago. Still, $3.59 is a lot higher than it was in 2010. I bought the kids each a small cone yesterday at an ice cream stand. I had a BOGO coupon and I still paid $3.80--for a small cone!
And now there's more than just this anecdotal evidence. A recent report indicated that the top income earners in the US are holding their own or doing better in this "recovery." But the upper and lower middle classes are taking a beating. They have lost a great deal of their income, annual, and net worth. It's not just that they are losing pay (Local teachers have taken more than $20,000 in pay cuts over the past several years!), but they are paying more for their insurance premiums, health co-pays, etc. Personally, to keep my same coverage, in January I faced about a $24-2500 annual increase, $200 a month. The middle classes are losing to inflation, to increased insurance costs, to taxes.
And still, last Tue Michigan voters and, it appears, voters throughout the US decided to send the same people or people just like them back to state legislatures, Washington, DC, and local offices. What is that old line about the definition of insanity, "Doing the same thing over and over again and just hoping for a better result."
I got a kick out of a Detroit "community organizer" this week insisting that the Detroit water crisis won't be solved until "water is more affordable." It's too expensive, he ranted and raved. Well, yeah, water probably does cost a lot more than it could or should. I wonder if so many people, half or more in Detroit alone, not paying their bills drives up the cost for others. Let's see, using our trusty calculator, if we divide a big number (the cost of water) by another number (the number of people who actually pay their bills) we get a quotient, an answer. Try dividing that same big number by another number, a bigger one (the number of people who should be paying their bills) and what happens to the quotient, answer? Heh Heh Heh. Community organizer, yeah......
As disheartened as I've been this week, I returned as I always do to reading. I will read another book about Abraham Lincoln or some other American hero. This week I opened yet another biog of George Washington. I continue to be moved by the same stories, ones with which I am usually quite familiar. This one concerned Washington's actions at the Newburgh Mutiny Conspiracy, when some officers were bent on marching on the new US government in 1783 because they hadn't been paid. Washington's initial speech didn't move them much, so he asked the potential mutineers if he could read them a letter. He opened the missive and began to read, stumbling at the beginning. The officers were startled to see The General pull out a pair of glasses so he could read the words. Nobody had seen Washington wear glasses in public before! As he put them on, he asked his audience for forbearance, saying, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country." Eyes watered and tears flowed from these war-hardened officers. And the potential mutiny was quashed then and there. And, of course, other aspects of Washington's life are very inspiring--his character, that is honesty and integrity, was second to none. Like Lincoln, Washington wasn't perfect, but that is what makes him so inspirational.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Disheartened
I recent poll taken by NBC/WSJ shows that people are sick and tired of Washington, DC politics. This goes for Dems and Reps, the President and Congress--it's everyone and everything. Supposedly, those arrogant elitists in DC are apoplectic over the results. I firmly doubt that.
These polls, well, there is something wrong with them. Either people are lying, deliberately or otherwise, or the wrong people are being canvassed or the wrong questions are asked. Something is wrong.
With this latest poll in mind, how then to explain yesterday's primary results in Michigan? I'm mostly talking about the Republican primary. The Democrats are all pretty much the same--they want to take some people's money (certainly not theirs!) and give it to others. They believe that big government, that is, the Democrats, knows everything better than anyone else and is the only solution. They, because they are smarter than the rest of us (and, of course, they aren't, not at all, but think they are) they think they should tell us how to live, what to do and what not to do in more and more aspects of our lives--through big government.
No, I'm talking about the Republican primary. Here in Michigan at least, there were a lot of real opportunities to do something different, to nominate candidates who will change things--or at least try. But, voters didn't do that. Looking up and down the results, esp in my districts, the winners were incumbents (the ones who are responsible for the current mess) or those running with the support of the Establishment Republicans, that is, the Republicans who more and more also believe in big government; the statists. Why didn't voters reject the incumbents and throw out the Establishment Republicans, esp if, as this poll suggests, American voters are sick and tired of the status quo in DC? There can be only one or two answers. One has to do with a flawed poll and the other has to do with people saying one thing and doing quite another.
Let's toss in another thing that people grouse about politics--money. Oh, is there anyone (other than the big spenders) who hasn't bemoaned the recent Supreme Court rulings on campaign spending? No, there aren't many. "They are buying our elections, our government...." So, who was nominated yesterday, from both parties? You guessed it, the ones who spent the most on the primaries. If we were really upset about having our government "bought and paid for," we'd vote for those who spent the least. But, again, we say one thing and do another.
Of course, I must take yet another shot at the LameStreams. Even if the Reps take the Senate in the fall, they'll be happy. Either way, Dem-control or Rep-control, the LameStreams win. They are no longer independent, serving as beacons or watchdogs. They are in bed with the status quo. They can't stand the idea of shrinking big government. They, like the Dems and Establishment Reps, expect big government to do something. And making government smaller isn't doing something, not to the LameStreams. Here's a case in point, something about which I've written many times. The losing Rep candidate for the US House, sort of a Tea Partier, was today again identified as "reindeer farmer" who "plays Santa Claus." I saw none of the incumbents from either party, anywhere in the state, similarly identified as "career politicians, sucking at the teat of taxpayers." In fact, the LameStreams celebrate the long-termers, even when they are so old they just babble on incoherently. (OK many of them babble like that even before they are too old.)
How disheartening to me, in many ways. I supposed I knew, deep down, that there would be no difference, that voters and parties and candidates wouldn't change. I guess I hoped against hope. But I'm not really surprised; after all, I have worked with teachers for 44 years and they are the same way--say one thing and do another. They complain and criticize (most often justifiably), but they are too afraid to do anything to really make things better. That's what yesterday's primary results mean to me.
These polls, well, there is something wrong with them. Either people are lying, deliberately or otherwise, or the wrong people are being canvassed or the wrong questions are asked. Something is wrong.
With this latest poll in mind, how then to explain yesterday's primary results in Michigan? I'm mostly talking about the Republican primary. The Democrats are all pretty much the same--they want to take some people's money (certainly not theirs!) and give it to others. They believe that big government, that is, the Democrats, knows everything better than anyone else and is the only solution. They, because they are smarter than the rest of us (and, of course, they aren't, not at all, but think they are) they think they should tell us how to live, what to do and what not to do in more and more aspects of our lives--through big government.
No, I'm talking about the Republican primary. Here in Michigan at least, there were a lot of real opportunities to do something different, to nominate candidates who will change things--or at least try. But, voters didn't do that. Looking up and down the results, esp in my districts, the winners were incumbents (the ones who are responsible for the current mess) or those running with the support of the Establishment Republicans, that is, the Republicans who more and more also believe in big government; the statists. Why didn't voters reject the incumbents and throw out the Establishment Republicans, esp if, as this poll suggests, American voters are sick and tired of the status quo in DC? There can be only one or two answers. One has to do with a flawed poll and the other has to do with people saying one thing and doing quite another.
Let's toss in another thing that people grouse about politics--money. Oh, is there anyone (other than the big spenders) who hasn't bemoaned the recent Supreme Court rulings on campaign spending? No, there aren't many. "They are buying our elections, our government...." So, who was nominated yesterday, from both parties? You guessed it, the ones who spent the most on the primaries. If we were really upset about having our government "bought and paid for," we'd vote for those who spent the least. But, again, we say one thing and do another.
Of course, I must take yet another shot at the LameStreams. Even if the Reps take the Senate in the fall, they'll be happy. Either way, Dem-control or Rep-control, the LameStreams win. They are no longer independent, serving as beacons or watchdogs. They are in bed with the status quo. They can't stand the idea of shrinking big government. They, like the Dems and Establishment Reps, expect big government to do something. And making government smaller isn't doing something, not to the LameStreams. Here's a case in point, something about which I've written many times. The losing Rep candidate for the US House, sort of a Tea Partier, was today again identified as "reindeer farmer" who "plays Santa Claus." I saw none of the incumbents from either party, anywhere in the state, similarly identified as "career politicians, sucking at the teat of taxpayers." In fact, the LameStreams celebrate the long-termers, even when they are so old they just babble on incoherently. (OK many of them babble like that even before they are too old.)
How disheartening to me, in many ways. I supposed I knew, deep down, that there would be no difference, that voters and parties and candidates wouldn't change. I guess I hoped against hope. But I'm not really surprised; after all, I have worked with teachers for 44 years and they are the same way--say one thing and do another. They complain and criticize (most often justifiably), but they are too afraid to do anything to really make things better. That's what yesterday's primary results mean to me.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Getting It Right?
Can't they ever get it right? Can't they even come close? Of course they do, sometimes. But one would reasonably think, with all the high-tech equipment now available, the weathermen/ladies (Oops! Should I have written "meteorologists?" But that seems to give too much credit, too much of a scientific air, to them.) could be more accurate than they are.
Again, maybe I'm too harsh on them. But today seemed all too frequent. I woke a little after 5 AM, as usual, for my run, bike, and workout. It was cloudy, very dark, and obviously had rained a bit overnight, but not much. I checked two weather forecasts for this AM. One read, "Expect rain and possible thunderstorms to move into your area by 8:30 AM." OK, that gives me two or more hours. The other indicated "0%" chance of rain for the next three hours, then "10%" for an hour, then back to "0%" until about noon. "Good, I can at least get in my 7 or 8 miles, but the bike ride looks iffy," I thought to myself.
Off I went, but not far when a bit of a sprinkle (My late mother, whose birthday was Sunday, used to call light rain "sprinkles.") began. That's fine. I've been clammy for a few days and the mist felt pretty good. A couple miles into my run, I saw lightning. But it was off in the distance and I thought I had time to get back home before any real trouble. So around I turned and headed back. Wrong!
With about two miles to go, the rain picked up and came down in buckets. The roads began to flood a bit and I sloshed around the rest of the way. And, worse, the thunder and lightning began. I run in just about anything--rain, hard and otherwise, cold as low as 10 or 12 below zero, snow--but I draw the line at thunder and lightning. But here I was out in the middle of nowhere with no shelter around, other than trees. Nope, don't take shelter under trees in a thunderstorm. What options did I have? I continued to run home, faster than usual, and figured I'd chalk it in my running log as "speed work." Yep, I was worried, but what else could I do? Hide under a tree? Just stand there? Walk?
I kept thinking to myself, "They did it again. How can they be so wrong so often, esp with the high-cost technology they are always bragging about?" OK, I know they get it right, sometimes. One of my math buddies said his brother figured that if we merely predict tomorrow will be just like today, we'd be right about 80% of the time. That seems far for accurate than what we get, but I might be wrong. I don't know how meteorologists measure accuracy. Does it count as being accurate when they say, "There's a chance of rain." or "It might right." or "There's a possibility of rain." or when they post "5% chance of precipitation?" Technically they are right, but that doesn't do us a whole lot of good.
Still, although I'll miss my bike ride (It's still raining with thunder dunders out there.), I did manage to get in a little more than five miles. I did take the liner out of my running shoes and stuff them with newspapers to help them dry out. And my tee shirt, shorts, and socks went immediately into the laundairy [sic]. And maybe I can then spend a few more minutes stretching and doing some core exercises (I don't know why, but I just don't like using that term, "core exercises." But I do, both the exercises and use the term.) Ashley likes to do "our exercises" with me, so that's a plus.
While I'm at it, I read a wonderful article in the Amherst Alumni Magazine last night. It's not online yet, but I really enjoyed it. Written by one of my professors, William Pritchard, it was titled "Life After Amherst," a really appropriate title. Professor Pritchard was an Amherst student in the '50s and after graduation stayed to teach, where he still has emeritus status, teaching one course a term. He's been there, in what I consider "Heaven on Earth," for about 60 years! Yet, "Life After Amherst......" That's what his life has been. Although a philosophy major, he taught English when I was there. This essay demonstrates what a great teacher he was and still is. In it he addresses, "the secret horror of the last," that is wondering what comes next, after life. He takes that quotation, fittingly, from Samuel Johnson, "The secret horror of the last is inseparable from a thinking being whose life is limited and to whom death is dreadful." (It calls to mind another great piece of writing, a book, by former Amherst president Peter Pouncy, Rules for Old Men Dying, just a brilliant book that I've read a couple of times.) That's what Professor Pritchard did in class, read aloud to students from a novel or a poem to teach them to become "ear readers."
Some of what Professor Pritchard writes seems curmudgeonly (a term Karen often uses to refer to me, which I will now wear proudly!), esp about technology and its deleterious effects on personal relationships and interaction. He still hand writes his grades and walks them over to the registrar, something almost all other professors now do by computer. The workers at the registrar's office are appreciative "We miss seeing people," one said to him. Fellow Amherst professors, he laments, are no longer in the library "browsing for books." He doesn't accuse them of slacking or being lazy, oh no. He notes that they are at home or in their offices using the computer to do what used to be done (or still is, by him) in the library. But, they aren't "seeing people." He laments, "The digital world has triumphed." Gee, I wonder if that's where I got it??????
But, in the end, it's a fun, insightful article. And, despite what impression I may have given above, it's quite uplifting. We were lucky indeed to have teachers like Professor Pritchard.
Again, maybe I'm too harsh on them. But today seemed all too frequent. I woke a little after 5 AM, as usual, for my run, bike, and workout. It was cloudy, very dark, and obviously had rained a bit overnight, but not much. I checked two weather forecasts for this AM. One read, "Expect rain and possible thunderstorms to move into your area by 8:30 AM." OK, that gives me two or more hours. The other indicated "0%" chance of rain for the next three hours, then "10%" for an hour, then back to "0%" until about noon. "Good, I can at least get in my 7 or 8 miles, but the bike ride looks iffy," I thought to myself.
Off I went, but not far when a bit of a sprinkle (My late mother, whose birthday was Sunday, used to call light rain "sprinkles.") began. That's fine. I've been clammy for a few days and the mist felt pretty good. A couple miles into my run, I saw lightning. But it was off in the distance and I thought I had time to get back home before any real trouble. So around I turned and headed back. Wrong!
With about two miles to go, the rain picked up and came down in buckets. The roads began to flood a bit and I sloshed around the rest of the way. And, worse, the thunder and lightning began. I run in just about anything--rain, hard and otherwise, cold as low as 10 or 12 below zero, snow--but I draw the line at thunder and lightning. But here I was out in the middle of nowhere with no shelter around, other than trees. Nope, don't take shelter under trees in a thunderstorm. What options did I have? I continued to run home, faster than usual, and figured I'd chalk it in my running log as "speed work." Yep, I was worried, but what else could I do? Hide under a tree? Just stand there? Walk?
I kept thinking to myself, "They did it again. How can they be so wrong so often, esp with the high-cost technology they are always bragging about?" OK, I know they get it right, sometimes. One of my math buddies said his brother figured that if we merely predict tomorrow will be just like today, we'd be right about 80% of the time. That seems far for accurate than what we get, but I might be wrong. I don't know how meteorologists measure accuracy. Does it count as being accurate when they say, "There's a chance of rain." or "It might right." or "There's a possibility of rain." or when they post "5% chance of precipitation?" Technically they are right, but that doesn't do us a whole lot of good.
Still, although I'll miss my bike ride (It's still raining with thunder dunders out there.), I did manage to get in a little more than five miles. I did take the liner out of my running shoes and stuff them with newspapers to help them dry out. And my tee shirt, shorts, and socks went immediately into the laundairy [sic]. And maybe I can then spend a few more minutes stretching and doing some core exercises (I don't know why, but I just don't like using that term, "core exercises." But I do, both the exercises and use the term.) Ashley likes to do "our exercises" with me, so that's a plus.
While I'm at it, I read a wonderful article in the Amherst Alumni Magazine last night. It's not online yet, but I really enjoyed it. Written by one of my professors, William Pritchard, it was titled "Life After Amherst," a really appropriate title. Professor Pritchard was an Amherst student in the '50s and after graduation stayed to teach, where he still has emeritus status, teaching one course a term. He's been there, in what I consider "Heaven on Earth," for about 60 years! Yet, "Life After Amherst......" That's what his life has been. Although a philosophy major, he taught English when I was there. This essay demonstrates what a great teacher he was and still is. In it he addresses, "the secret horror of the last," that is wondering what comes next, after life. He takes that quotation, fittingly, from Samuel Johnson, "The secret horror of the last is inseparable from a thinking being whose life is limited and to whom death is dreadful." (It calls to mind another great piece of writing, a book, by former Amherst president Peter Pouncy, Rules for Old Men Dying, just a brilliant book that I've read a couple of times.) That's what Professor Pritchard did in class, read aloud to students from a novel or a poem to teach them to become "ear readers."
Some of what Professor Pritchard writes seems curmudgeonly (a term Karen often uses to refer to me, which I will now wear proudly!), esp about technology and its deleterious effects on personal relationships and interaction. He still hand writes his grades and walks them over to the registrar, something almost all other professors now do by computer. The workers at the registrar's office are appreciative "We miss seeing people," one said to him. Fellow Amherst professors, he laments, are no longer in the library "browsing for books." He doesn't accuse them of slacking or being lazy, oh no. He notes that they are at home or in their offices using the computer to do what used to be done (or still is, by him) in the library. But, they aren't "seeing people." He laments, "The digital world has triumphed." Gee, I wonder if that's where I got it??????
But, in the end, it's a fun, insightful article. And, despite what impression I may have given above, it's quite uplifting. We were lucky indeed to have teachers like Professor Pritchard.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Validation
It was nice to read Charles Krauthammer's column in this AM's newspaper. I think he's one of the most intelligent writers out there, almost always with brilliant insights and solutions. Oh, he's critical, too, but not just to be critical. He identifies what is wrong, what is stupid, etc.
It was esp nice to see him validate something I wrote the other day. I think it was last Wed or Thur. Krauthammer takes aim at Sec of State John Kerry, calling him "the clueless secretary." Although I didn't identify Kerry by name, I did have the same concerns and criticisms Krauthammer has about our "clueless" policy toward the current Gaza violence.
Krauthammer has more specifics; he has access to more sources than I do and he's a whole lot smarter than I am. Still, he hammers at Kerry (and, in essence, the Obama Administration) for not only appeasing terrorists, that is, Hamas, but for rewarding them for terrorism. He cites several cease-fires brokered by Arab states, ones that are amenable to them and to the PLA. What those proposals don't do is cave in to all of the demands made by Hamas. (Need I beat home the point again, a terrorist organization?) In fact, Hamas wouldn't receive anything--no rewards--for starting this latest of their wars.
As I noted last week, Hamas has very perceptively figured out that, if it plays the victim card (even if it is the instigator, hardly the victim) the US and many others in the West will side with it and demand that Israel meet what Hamas wants. That the Israelis are merely defending themselves is rarely recognized (or even considered) by Americans in Washington. Victims! That's the key word and Hamas plays many Americans like a fiddle.
"Clueless?" Krauthammer doesn't address why Kerry (and the Obama Adminsitration) is "clueless." I guess that it's not because they are stupid, but they might be. (Remember how the Dems and Left made fun of W. Bush, calling him stupid for having just a C or so average at Yale? Well, Kerry's GPA was the same at Harvard. Having had an Ivy League education myself, I'm not willing to call either man stupid. I know, again from personal experience, how seeing a "C" on a paper often evoked a sigh of relief on my--and many others students I knew--face. Whew!) But I really don't think so. That, then, just leaves one other explanation. Kerry (and Clinton before him) and the Obama Administration are deliberately caving in to Hamas. They are deliberately rewarding terrorists and their terrorist actions.
It reminds me of years ago, when Yasir ("That's My Baby") Arafat made all these outlandish demands of the Israelis. He was nonplussed when each of his demands were met. It actually took him a couple of days to reject the Israeli concessions--to his own demands! Getting concessions, of course, was not the objective of the PLO. And, that's not the objective of Hamas, either, although the Obama Administration (and, well, most recent American Presidents) seem more than willing to see Hamas get concessions.
So, why is American foreign policy so blind to this strategy, this ploy, first by the PLO, now Hamas, then.....?
It was esp nice to see him validate something I wrote the other day. I think it was last Wed or Thur. Krauthammer takes aim at Sec of State John Kerry, calling him "the clueless secretary." Although I didn't identify Kerry by name, I did have the same concerns and criticisms Krauthammer has about our "clueless" policy toward the current Gaza violence.
Krauthammer has more specifics; he has access to more sources than I do and he's a whole lot smarter than I am. Still, he hammers at Kerry (and, in essence, the Obama Administration) for not only appeasing terrorists, that is, Hamas, but for rewarding them for terrorism. He cites several cease-fires brokered by Arab states, ones that are amenable to them and to the PLA. What those proposals don't do is cave in to all of the demands made by Hamas. (Need I beat home the point again, a terrorist organization?) In fact, Hamas wouldn't receive anything--no rewards--for starting this latest of their wars.
As I noted last week, Hamas has very perceptively figured out that, if it plays the victim card (even if it is the instigator, hardly the victim) the US and many others in the West will side with it and demand that Israel meet what Hamas wants. That the Israelis are merely defending themselves is rarely recognized (or even considered) by Americans in Washington. Victims! That's the key word and Hamas plays many Americans like a fiddle.
"Clueless?" Krauthammer doesn't address why Kerry (and the Obama Adminsitration) is "clueless." I guess that it's not because they are stupid, but they might be. (Remember how the Dems and Left made fun of W. Bush, calling him stupid for having just a C or so average at Yale? Well, Kerry's GPA was the same at Harvard. Having had an Ivy League education myself, I'm not willing to call either man stupid. I know, again from personal experience, how seeing a "C" on a paper often evoked a sigh of relief on my--and many others students I knew--face. Whew!) But I really don't think so. That, then, just leaves one other explanation. Kerry (and Clinton before him) and the Obama Administration are deliberately caving in to Hamas. They are deliberately rewarding terrorists and their terrorist actions.
It reminds me of years ago, when Yasir ("That's My Baby") Arafat made all these outlandish demands of the Israelis. He was nonplussed when each of his demands were met. It actually took him a couple of days to reject the Israeli concessions--to his own demands! Getting concessions, of course, was not the objective of the PLO. And, that's not the objective of Hamas, either, although the Obama Administration (and, well, most recent American Presidents) seem more than willing to see Hamas get concessions.
So, why is American foreign policy so blind to this strategy, this ploy, first by the PLO, now Hamas, then.....?
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Thoughts on Baseball
Is any sport better than baseball? There's action. There's thought. There's debate. There's the unquestioned skill top-flight players possess.
I was at a Tiger game last night. (Thanks, Wes!) It reminded me of how much more there is to see in a live game than in merely watching it on the boob tube. There's almost too much for one person to see--almost.
I am struck by how very talented Major League players are. From 60' 6" away, try to hit a small spheroid less than 3" in diameter that is thrown at more than 90 mph. Oh, use a rounded object, a bat, and remember that the ball isn't just going fast, it's moving--up and down, in and out, often sharply. From the pitchers' side, not only do they throw the ball that fast, but they make it move. It's not overly difficult to hit a fast pitch, well, OK, it's not easy, but the key to getting MLB players out is often trickery, "trickeration." The speed of the pitch, its location, and the direction it ends of going all are determined by the pitcher. I remember batting against Billy Hoeft, a former Tiger pitcher. He was a left-hander and I batted left-handed. He started a curve ball behind me and I bailed out, then saw the break, the late break, and fully expected the pitch to be called a strike. Nope, the umpire said ball. Somewhat perplexed, I asked him where the pitch was. "Outside," he said. Whoa!
I noted to a buddy last night at how quick, so very quick, MLB players turn the double play. Very routine ground balls, slow rollers even, become two outs just like that. And it all looks so easy. I know it's not, not at all.
Their physical abilities astound me, having played a bit myself. I think, above all, what impresses me are their arms, their throwing abilities. Most of them have cannons for arms; they just rifle the ball. Watch the best of the throwers. Their throws take off and, instead of beginning to die halfway to their destinations, they get added zip.
I played with and against some very, very good baseball players. I think I once tried to remember how many of them eventually made the Major Leagues, if only for a cup of coffee. I came up with more than two dozen! One team I played on had not one, not two, but three number one draft choices! Another sandlot team, if we include the four players we picked up for the national championship series/playoffs, had 15 of 19 play college ball or were drafted by Big League teams. But what I think about most, of those past days, is those who didn't make it. In fact, some of them didn't get signed or drafted at all. I wonder why they didn't. A couple in particular stand out. We always had really good pitching, but we never seemed to get these guys out. And they always hit ropes, in BP, in games, in my dreams (nightmares?). When I think of these guys, how good they were, and that they didn't make it, I realize just how good Major League players are. And I remember that when fans get on the worst of the MLB players.
That said, that I marvel at how these guys can throw, hit, pitch, run, etc., I don't think that they are necessarily better at playing the game than players of previous times, even back to when I played. I was reminded of that last night. For guys making millions of dollars, whose jobs are, frankly, playing baseball, they sure don't play it right. There are lots of blunders. I'm not talking about physical errors; everyone can see those. I'm talking about not doing the right things, very rudimentary things, that maybe five or six people in the stadium last night saw. I'm not even sure the managers saw them; if they did, they didn't let on.
I'm not talking about differences in philosophy, no. That's part of the game and part of its allure. For instance, the Tigers had two on and nobody out in the fourth inning (I think) of a scoreless game. Why not bunt? I surely would have, but the Tiger manager opted not to do so. I'm not at all saying he was stupid or even that he was wrong. It is just that I would have done something different. As it turned out, the one I would have had bunt struck out and the next batter hit into a double play--inning and threat over. I'm sure, at other times, big hits and even home runs were hit in similar situations. I just prefer playing things a bit differently. I'm also not a big fan of "pitch counts." I know managers are not only worried about winning games, esp the one at hand, but also have to consider pitchers throwing out their arms, shortening careers and whatnot. Still 100 pitches or so seems very arbitrary to me, esp with some of these big, strong guys who pitch today. One might argue that with the specialized bullpens, pulling a starter after 100 or so pitches is the way to go. OK, I understand. But as a batter, I'd rather face anyone in the Tiger bullpen than, say, Max Scherzer in the 7th or 8th or 9th inning.
In being somewhat critical, I'm talking about playing the game. Here are just some, some, examples from last night. I wonder how many people even saw them. The Tigers had runners on first and second, a different time than above. This time they held a small lead, but a small one. A deep fly ball was lifted to the corner in right field, which the right fielder caught before crashing into the wall. I noticed the runner on first tagging to head to second, but he had to stop and head back to first. Why? The runner on second was playing it halfway, not tagging. Huh? So, now it's still first and second, but with one out, instead of second and third with one out. Earlier, the Rockies pulled in their infield to cut down a runner at the plate. (I once read that a hitter's BA goes up .100 points with the infield drawn in; I don't know if that's true, but it makes a lot of sense.) Now they don't have to and, of course, a ground ball up the middle is turned into a double play, ending the inning, again. Now, at the least, had the runner tagged and gone to third, he would have scored. With the likelihood of a drawn-in infield, perhaps a second run would have scored, opening a four-run lead. Nope.
Earlier, still in a game with no score, a Rockies' hitter smacked one to left center, a sure single. But no, it turned into a stand-up double. The Tiger center fielder was playing so deep, by the time he reached the ball, the batter was able to easily take another base, putting himself in scoring position. Why play so deep? Fear of the ball going over the fielder's head? Bah. But, it gets worse. The runner didn't advance to third with a swinging bunt the pitcher had to scramble to get the batter at first. I looked up and the runner was still on second, not third. What was he thinking--or not thinking? The next batter lifted a medium-deep fly ball, easily deep enough to score a runner from third, but there was no runner on third. It was just and out and the runner didn't score--in a 0-0 game at the time.
Later, with the Tigers holding a slim lead in the late innings, a Rockies' batter hit a ground ball down the third base line for a double. It wasn't a rocket, but a hard-hit ground ball. Wait a minute! Why wasn't the third baseman guarding the line, to force the Rockies to get two hits, not one, to put someone in scoring position in a close game? Hmmm...... My buddy asked if that wasn't the manager's (or one of the myriad coaches') fault; after all, there is an infield coach! Good point, but...... Even though the Tigers' third baseman is a rookie, why didn't he know this? Why didn't he know to guard the line? Where has he been, playing all this baseball in little league, high school, college, the minor leagues, and now the Major Leagues? Now, the ball might well have still been a double; I don't know. But the third baseman should have been closely guarding the line to try to prevent that.
Another time, an outfielder took a ball off the wall with his glove hand, not his meat hand. There wasn't a close play, but there could have been. Going with the meat hand would have saved two or three steps, which might have spelled the difference on a close play in a close game. It didn't last night, but in the course of a season, it might affect a few games.
Again, I'm not running down the players, whose ability I respect a great deal. I just wonder how, if a team really stressed fundamentally sound baseball, much better it could be, even relative to more talented, but less sound teams.
I was at a Tiger game last night. (Thanks, Wes!) It reminded me of how much more there is to see in a live game than in merely watching it on the boob tube. There's almost too much for one person to see--almost.
I am struck by how very talented Major League players are. From 60' 6" away, try to hit a small spheroid less than 3" in diameter that is thrown at more than 90 mph. Oh, use a rounded object, a bat, and remember that the ball isn't just going fast, it's moving--up and down, in and out, often sharply. From the pitchers' side, not only do they throw the ball that fast, but they make it move. It's not overly difficult to hit a fast pitch, well, OK, it's not easy, but the key to getting MLB players out is often trickery, "trickeration." The speed of the pitch, its location, and the direction it ends of going all are determined by the pitcher. I remember batting against Billy Hoeft, a former Tiger pitcher. He was a left-hander and I batted left-handed. He started a curve ball behind me and I bailed out, then saw the break, the late break, and fully expected the pitch to be called a strike. Nope, the umpire said ball. Somewhat perplexed, I asked him where the pitch was. "Outside," he said. Whoa!
I noted to a buddy last night at how quick, so very quick, MLB players turn the double play. Very routine ground balls, slow rollers even, become two outs just like that. And it all looks so easy. I know it's not, not at all.
Their physical abilities astound me, having played a bit myself. I think, above all, what impresses me are their arms, their throwing abilities. Most of them have cannons for arms; they just rifle the ball. Watch the best of the throwers. Their throws take off and, instead of beginning to die halfway to their destinations, they get added zip.
I played with and against some very, very good baseball players. I think I once tried to remember how many of them eventually made the Major Leagues, if only for a cup of coffee. I came up with more than two dozen! One team I played on had not one, not two, but three number one draft choices! Another sandlot team, if we include the four players we picked up for the national championship series/playoffs, had 15 of 19 play college ball or were drafted by Big League teams. But what I think about most, of those past days, is those who didn't make it. In fact, some of them didn't get signed or drafted at all. I wonder why they didn't. A couple in particular stand out. We always had really good pitching, but we never seemed to get these guys out. And they always hit ropes, in BP, in games, in my dreams (nightmares?). When I think of these guys, how good they were, and that they didn't make it, I realize just how good Major League players are. And I remember that when fans get on the worst of the MLB players.
That said, that I marvel at how these guys can throw, hit, pitch, run, etc., I don't think that they are necessarily better at playing the game than players of previous times, even back to when I played. I was reminded of that last night. For guys making millions of dollars, whose jobs are, frankly, playing baseball, they sure don't play it right. There are lots of blunders. I'm not talking about physical errors; everyone can see those. I'm talking about not doing the right things, very rudimentary things, that maybe five or six people in the stadium last night saw. I'm not even sure the managers saw them; if they did, they didn't let on.
I'm not talking about differences in philosophy, no. That's part of the game and part of its allure. For instance, the Tigers had two on and nobody out in the fourth inning (I think) of a scoreless game. Why not bunt? I surely would have, but the Tiger manager opted not to do so. I'm not at all saying he was stupid or even that he was wrong. It is just that I would have done something different. As it turned out, the one I would have had bunt struck out and the next batter hit into a double play--inning and threat over. I'm sure, at other times, big hits and even home runs were hit in similar situations. I just prefer playing things a bit differently. I'm also not a big fan of "pitch counts." I know managers are not only worried about winning games, esp the one at hand, but also have to consider pitchers throwing out their arms, shortening careers and whatnot. Still 100 pitches or so seems very arbitrary to me, esp with some of these big, strong guys who pitch today. One might argue that with the specialized bullpens, pulling a starter after 100 or so pitches is the way to go. OK, I understand. But as a batter, I'd rather face anyone in the Tiger bullpen than, say, Max Scherzer in the 7th or 8th or 9th inning.
In being somewhat critical, I'm talking about playing the game. Here are just some, some, examples from last night. I wonder how many people even saw them. The Tigers had runners on first and second, a different time than above. This time they held a small lead, but a small one. A deep fly ball was lifted to the corner in right field, which the right fielder caught before crashing into the wall. I noticed the runner on first tagging to head to second, but he had to stop and head back to first. Why? The runner on second was playing it halfway, not tagging. Huh? So, now it's still first and second, but with one out, instead of second and third with one out. Earlier, the Rockies pulled in their infield to cut down a runner at the plate. (I once read that a hitter's BA goes up .100 points with the infield drawn in; I don't know if that's true, but it makes a lot of sense.) Now they don't have to and, of course, a ground ball up the middle is turned into a double play, ending the inning, again. Now, at the least, had the runner tagged and gone to third, he would have scored. With the likelihood of a drawn-in infield, perhaps a second run would have scored, opening a four-run lead. Nope.
Earlier, still in a game with no score, a Rockies' hitter smacked one to left center, a sure single. But no, it turned into a stand-up double. The Tiger center fielder was playing so deep, by the time he reached the ball, the batter was able to easily take another base, putting himself in scoring position. Why play so deep? Fear of the ball going over the fielder's head? Bah. But, it gets worse. The runner didn't advance to third with a swinging bunt the pitcher had to scramble to get the batter at first. I looked up and the runner was still on second, not third. What was he thinking--or not thinking? The next batter lifted a medium-deep fly ball, easily deep enough to score a runner from third, but there was no runner on third. It was just and out and the runner didn't score--in a 0-0 game at the time.
Later, with the Tigers holding a slim lead in the late innings, a Rockies' batter hit a ground ball down the third base line for a double. It wasn't a rocket, but a hard-hit ground ball. Wait a minute! Why wasn't the third baseman guarding the line, to force the Rockies to get two hits, not one, to put someone in scoring position in a close game? Hmmm...... My buddy asked if that wasn't the manager's (or one of the myriad coaches') fault; after all, there is an infield coach! Good point, but...... Even though the Tigers' third baseman is a rookie, why didn't he know this? Why didn't he know to guard the line? Where has he been, playing all this baseball in little league, high school, college, the minor leagues, and now the Major Leagues? Now, the ball might well have still been a double; I don't know. But the third baseman should have been closely guarding the line to try to prevent that.
Another time, an outfielder took a ball off the wall with his glove hand, not his meat hand. There wasn't a close play, but there could have been. Going with the meat hand would have saved two or three steps, which might have spelled the difference on a close play in a close game. It didn't last night, but in the course of a season, it might affect a few games.
Again, I'm not running down the players, whose ability I respect a great deal. I just wonder how, if a team really stressed fundamentally sound baseball, much better it could be, even relative to more talented, but less sound teams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
