T'was the week before Christmas and all through the air,
Were concerns of the Democrats about passing health care,
The President called in his elves Nancy and Harry,
It's my signature initiative, the bill you must carry,
Nancy went back to the House and got her job done
Over in the Senate, for Harry less fun,
He needed sixty to make a bill go,
not just fifty plus vice President Joe,
Lieberman was a pill,
Byrd was out ill,
the Republicans wanted a filibuster fight,
It was a cold winter's night,
In to Harry's office came a Senator named Ben,
"I'll make him an offer" Harry thought, "I'll get his vote then",
O.K. Ben, your President needs a good deed,
come sit by the fire, what do you need?
"The states must pay more for Medicaid on this bill for health care,
I don't want my state to pay its share"
"Ho, Ho, Ho" said Harry, "consider it done",
"Hmm" thought Senator Ben "this could be fun"
"Wait" said Ben "there is something more,
You know it is abortion that I abhor
For the procedure I don't want the government to pay,
That's what I want for my vote, otherwise no way,
So give me the amendment, make the language tight
and you'll have my vote on this cold winter's night"
Harry said "that will be hard"
"Abortion is Barbara Boxer's calling card,
But she is here tonight, standing under the tree,
I will talk to her and we shall see"
Barbara exclaimed, "You have my vote Harry
I'll give it for free,
I am a Democrat from California,
I'll get re-elected easily"
Boomed Harry "call the White House, we have a deal!"
They setup the podium, hung the presidential seal,
Obama would announce it, who knows if they got it right,
The important thing is Harry had sixty votes on this cold winter's night,
The President proclaimed "I don't want to taunt,
I know this is a reform you don't really want
Incremental reforms, sure we had the capacity,
but did you read my book, I'm all about audacity,
So thanks to Harry, Nancy and me,
we have fixed health care, oh it's not free,
Your premiums will go up, your company may shut down,
that will just mean more work for us in this government town,
For now the government takeover is within our sight,
we have passed health care, Merry Christmas and good night."
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
When is it time?
Just as Stephen Strasburg signs a record deal with the Nationals, two sure fire Hall of Famers seem near the end. One looks like he has accepted it, the other no. Whether it is the money or just the competitive juices, it is hard to know when it is time to say goodbye.
Tom Glavine has won over 300 games. He is a class act. He was not overpowering, just effective. Despite an injury he was attempting one last comeback with the Atlanta Braves. He pitched well in a minor league rehab start, but the Braves released him. To date he has not been picked up. This may mean a lack of interest, although I doubt that, or that Glavine has realized it is time to start running that five year clock on the Hall of Fame.
His former teammate, John Smoltz is not going so quietly into the night. A comeback with the Red Sox was a disaster, producing an E.R.A. of over 8.00. He was released and is apparently out there looking for another team to pitch for. Baseball being in desperate need of pitching, witness giving a college kid $15 million before he throws a professional pitch, I imagine someone will pick him up. What will be different? With a 2 or three week layoff will that fastball suddenly return to form? Will the slider remind us of the mid 1990s John Smoltz? Doubtful.
Knowing when to say goodbye is tough. The money seems to make it even harder. I remember Dave Winfield ending his career in a Twins or Indians uniform and Steve Carlton pitching middle relief for the Twins. Even before the really big money however, Babe Ruth suited up for the Boston Braves, Warren Spahn wound down with the mid 1960s Mets and Willie Mays stumbled in the outfield for the Mets.
Maybe Stephen Strasburg will be a Hall of Famer. With his signing bonus he should never have to worry about working again. Let's hope that whenever the times comes, he knows how to say goodbye.
Tom Glavine has won over 300 games. He is a class act. He was not overpowering, just effective. Despite an injury he was attempting one last comeback with the Atlanta Braves. He pitched well in a minor league rehab start, but the Braves released him. To date he has not been picked up. This may mean a lack of interest, although I doubt that, or that Glavine has realized it is time to start running that five year clock on the Hall of Fame.
His former teammate, John Smoltz is not going so quietly into the night. A comeback with the Red Sox was a disaster, producing an E.R.A. of over 8.00. He was released and is apparently out there looking for another team to pitch for. Baseball being in desperate need of pitching, witness giving a college kid $15 million before he throws a professional pitch, I imagine someone will pick him up. What will be different? With a 2 or three week layoff will that fastball suddenly return to form? Will the slider remind us of the mid 1990s John Smoltz? Doubtful.
Knowing when to say goodbye is tough. The money seems to make it even harder. I remember Dave Winfield ending his career in a Twins or Indians uniform and Steve Carlton pitching middle relief for the Twins. Even before the really big money however, Babe Ruth suited up for the Boston Braves, Warren Spahn wound down with the mid 1960s Mets and Willie Mays stumbled in the outfield for the Mets.
Maybe Stephen Strasburg will be a Hall of Famer. With his signing bonus he should never have to worry about working again. Let's hope that whenever the times comes, he knows how to say goodbye.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
No Greater Joy
Obviously I love the game of baseball. I played it as a kid up through high school. Limited height, lack of speed, in other words reality; shut down the dreams of a major league career, but did not sour my love of the game.
I have now discovered an even greater thrill: watching my son play the game. This week my eight year old son attended a baseball camp. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend some time at the ballpark watching. There is nothing better.
I always worry about being one of those "Little League dads" we read about: obsessive about the development of my son's skills, pushing him and eventually taking all of the fun out of the game. I try really hard to make sure it stays fun. After camp I don't ask how he did, but whether he had fun. I also try to focus on whether he liked the coaches and the other kids. The answer to both questions is yes.
The high point of the week was his competitive pitching debut in the camp games. He wants to pitch. I think he is a middle infielder, but life is about trying things out, so he goes for it. Unexpectedly he took the mound to start the first camp game. I happened to stop by just in time.
I must admit my stomach was a little nervous. My son is hard on himself and I feared that not pitching well might spoil his whole week. No problem. He struck out two and retired the third on a comebacker with an easy flip to first base.
After the inning he came up to fill his water bottle and I tried to congratulate him with a high five or fist bump (I am at least smart enough to know a hug would be so uncool!). He barely acknowledged me (he is too cool), but I could tell he felt about six feet tall.
His later pitching performances were not as strong as the first outing, but his bat came around. The best part however, was the smiles and watching him interact with his fellow ballplayers. The kids seem to bond over the week and really form a ball club. The great things is it is a ball club with no big contracts, no holdouts and no prima donnas. Just a bunch of kids learning the game and loving it.
Who knows whether any of these kids will play pro ball, or even college ball. Who cares? The important thing is that they are out there for love of the game.
I don't need my son to pitch a perfect inning or get a big hit to validate me as a parent. I do need him to do what he loves to do, and if baseball is that wonderful. If it is something else, equally wonderful. For now, watching your own flesh and blood play the game you love, there is no greater joy.
I have now discovered an even greater thrill: watching my son play the game. This week my eight year old son attended a baseball camp. I was fortunate enough to be able to spend some time at the ballpark watching. There is nothing better.
I always worry about being one of those "Little League dads" we read about: obsessive about the development of my son's skills, pushing him and eventually taking all of the fun out of the game. I try really hard to make sure it stays fun. After camp I don't ask how he did, but whether he had fun. I also try to focus on whether he liked the coaches and the other kids. The answer to both questions is yes.
The high point of the week was his competitive pitching debut in the camp games. He wants to pitch. I think he is a middle infielder, but life is about trying things out, so he goes for it. Unexpectedly he took the mound to start the first camp game. I happened to stop by just in time.
I must admit my stomach was a little nervous. My son is hard on himself and I feared that not pitching well might spoil his whole week. No problem. He struck out two and retired the third on a comebacker with an easy flip to first base.
After the inning he came up to fill his water bottle and I tried to congratulate him with a high five or fist bump (I am at least smart enough to know a hug would be so uncool!). He barely acknowledged me (he is too cool), but I could tell he felt about six feet tall.
His later pitching performances were not as strong as the first outing, but his bat came around. The best part however, was the smiles and watching him interact with his fellow ballplayers. The kids seem to bond over the week and really form a ball club. The great things is it is a ball club with no big contracts, no holdouts and no prima donnas. Just a bunch of kids learning the game and loving it.
Who knows whether any of these kids will play pro ball, or even college ball. Who cares? The important thing is that they are out there for love of the game.
I don't need my son to pitch a perfect inning or get a big hit to validate me as a parent. I do need him to do what he loves to do, and if baseball is that wonderful. If it is something else, equally wonderful. For now, watching your own flesh and blood play the game you love, there is no greater joy.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Isn't it Time?
There was a story this week, quickly shot down by the Commissioner's office, that Pete Rose's reinstatement was imminent.
I say it's time and the Commissioner should do it.
It has been 20 years since Rose was banned "for life" from baseball. I don't think anyone really thought it would be a lifetime ban. Some stories were that he would be out one, maybe two years and then reinstated. Then Bart Giamatti, the Commissioner who imposed the ban, died. Many of his allies blamed the stress of the Rose situation for his fatal heart attack. It began to appear that only Giamatti had the power to reinstate Rose and with Giamatti gone...
Rose certainly has not helped himself over the past 20 years. First, his insistence on his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary. Second, he only made the admission of guilt in a book and gladly accepted the receipts from book sales. Third, he continued to taunt baseball by showing up and selling memorabilia near the Hall of Fame on induction weekend. Yes, Rose managed to make himself an unsympathetic figure.
But he has served more time for his "crime" than many have for far worse. Gambling on baseball is the unpardonable sin due to the 1919 White Sox fixing a World Series. There has never been a charge that Rose bet against his team or tried to fix games. It appears that he bet on his team, when he was a manager, to win. Yes, if he had money riding on the game he may have managed differently. He might go to his closer earlier than normal. He might adjust his strategy to try and get that win today without regard for the rest of the series or season. Still, it does not appear that he ever tried to throw games. I think that is a distinction worth noting.
By banning Rose however, baseball has tried to pretend he does not exist. Those 4256 hits make that impossible. Any highlight reel from the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s has to include Rose. An All Star at five different positions, leader of the Big Red Machine and member of a Phillies championship team (and who can forget that memorable half season in Montreal?). He was baseball's biggest star for 20 years. Baseball cannot pretend it never happened.
The Hall of Fame voters, now limited to the Veteran's Committee, should have the chance to vote on Rose. Give him a limited reinstatement. Ban him from major league clubhouses. require him to do community service work on behalf of Major League baseball and include a notation on his Hall of Fame plaque (should he be voted in) about the 20 year ban for gambling.
That Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule should not be expunged from the history of the game, but neither should he. It has been 20 years. It is time.
I say it's time and the Commissioner should do it.
It has been 20 years since Rose was banned "for life" from baseball. I don't think anyone really thought it would be a lifetime ban. Some stories were that he would be out one, maybe two years and then reinstated. Then Bart Giamatti, the Commissioner who imposed the ban, died. Many of his allies blamed the stress of the Rose situation for his fatal heart attack. It began to appear that only Giamatti had the power to reinstate Rose and with Giamatti gone...
Rose certainly has not helped himself over the past 20 years. First, his insistence on his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary. Second, he only made the admission of guilt in a book and gladly accepted the receipts from book sales. Third, he continued to taunt baseball by showing up and selling memorabilia near the Hall of Fame on induction weekend. Yes, Rose managed to make himself an unsympathetic figure.
But he has served more time for his "crime" than many have for far worse. Gambling on baseball is the unpardonable sin due to the 1919 White Sox fixing a World Series. There has never been a charge that Rose bet against his team or tried to fix games. It appears that he bet on his team, when he was a manager, to win. Yes, if he had money riding on the game he may have managed differently. He might go to his closer earlier than normal. He might adjust his strategy to try and get that win today without regard for the rest of the series or season. Still, it does not appear that he ever tried to throw games. I think that is a distinction worth noting.
By banning Rose however, baseball has tried to pretend he does not exist. Those 4256 hits make that impossible. Any highlight reel from the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s has to include Rose. An All Star at five different positions, leader of the Big Red Machine and member of a Phillies championship team (and who can forget that memorable half season in Montreal?). He was baseball's biggest star for 20 years. Baseball cannot pretend it never happened.
The Hall of Fame voters, now limited to the Veteran's Committee, should have the chance to vote on Rose. Give him a limited reinstatement. Ban him from major league clubhouses. require him to do community service work on behalf of Major League baseball and include a notation on his Hall of Fame plaque (should he be voted in) about the 20 year ban for gambling.
That Rose broke baseball's cardinal rule should not be expunged from the history of the game, but neither should he. It has been 20 years. It is time.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Baseball Odds and Ends
As we near the end of July and the trading deadline approaches, a few thoughts on the 2009 season.
First, boy was I was off on the Oakland A's. I had them picked to go to the World Series. They are locked on last place in the A.L. West and just made the inevitable trade of their best player to a contender. I said it was an "odd hunch". Frankly it was just nuts.
I seem a little off on the A.L. Central where I had Minnesota. While not dead yet, this race looks like the Twins watching the Tigers and White Sox battle it out.
I seem to have the A.L. East and N.L. West right (Dodgers and Yankees). I clearly underestimated the Cardinals in the N.L. Central, but this is still a good four team race.
Now on to the trading deadline. The big players is Roy Halladay. As of tonight the Blue Jays G.M. says he is not going anywhere which means he'll be traded tomorrow. I don't like the idea of the Dodgers ripping apart their roster to get him. Minor leaguers, fine, but when I start hearing Billingsley, Martin or Loney, I get nervous. The Dodgers are in first place by eight games, don't try to reinvent your lineup and clubhouse in late July.
The Blue Jays however, may be overplaying their hand. Yes, they don't have to trade him. They can have this same auction next July and still do pretty well, but by waiting they risk injury to Halladay and a dropping price tag. A few years ago the Washington Nationals tried to gut several teams' farm system in a trade for Alfonso Soriano and ended up blowing all of their leverage. The Blue Jays might do that here.
Speaking of big time pitchers (well, former big time pitchers) Jason Schmidt returned to the mound for the Dodgers. Schmidt, with his $47 million contract, has not pitched in the majors since 2007. He had a reasonably effective start first time out, then got knocked around today.
I will say this for Schmidt, it would have been real easy to coast through rehabilitation and collect the checks. The guys has worked his way back and pitched at such outposts as San Bernardino and Albuquerque. I tip my hat to him for staying with it. He will never be the pitcher he was, but he did not just take the money and mail it in.
Finally, Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice went into the Hall of Fame today. Two great players, one great quote machine (Rickey). Congratulations.
First, boy was I was off on the Oakland A's. I had them picked to go to the World Series. They are locked on last place in the A.L. West and just made the inevitable trade of their best player to a contender. I said it was an "odd hunch". Frankly it was just nuts.
I seem a little off on the A.L. Central where I had Minnesota. While not dead yet, this race looks like the Twins watching the Tigers and White Sox battle it out.
I seem to have the A.L. East and N.L. West right (Dodgers and Yankees). I clearly underestimated the Cardinals in the N.L. Central, but this is still a good four team race.
Now on to the trading deadline. The big players is Roy Halladay. As of tonight the Blue Jays G.M. says he is not going anywhere which means he'll be traded tomorrow. I don't like the idea of the Dodgers ripping apart their roster to get him. Minor leaguers, fine, but when I start hearing Billingsley, Martin or Loney, I get nervous. The Dodgers are in first place by eight games, don't try to reinvent your lineup and clubhouse in late July.
The Blue Jays however, may be overplaying their hand. Yes, they don't have to trade him. They can have this same auction next July and still do pretty well, but by waiting they risk injury to Halladay and a dropping price tag. A few years ago the Washington Nationals tried to gut several teams' farm system in a trade for Alfonso Soriano and ended up blowing all of their leverage. The Blue Jays might do that here.
Speaking of big time pitchers (well, former big time pitchers) Jason Schmidt returned to the mound for the Dodgers. Schmidt, with his $47 million contract, has not pitched in the majors since 2007. He had a reasonably effective start first time out, then got knocked around today.
I will say this for Schmidt, it would have been real easy to coast through rehabilitation and collect the checks. The guys has worked his way back and pitched at such outposts as San Bernardino and Albuquerque. I tip my hat to him for staying with it. He will never be the pitcher he was, but he did not just take the money and mail it in.
Finally, Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice went into the Hall of Fame today. Two great players, one great quote machine (Rickey). Congratulations.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
All Stars
The baseball All Star game is still the best of all professional all star games. The Pro Bowl in football is glorified touch football which mostly serves as an excuse to use the remaining nachos and beer left from Super Bowl Sunday. The N.B.A. all star game is certainly flashier, but the ridiculously high scores and lack of defense make it a dunk exhibition.
The baseball All Star game is real baseball. Yes, they probably don't go as hard into second base to break up the double play and, Pete Rose excepted, they don't take out the catcher on a play at the plate, but the pitches are real and the swings are true.
Last night baseball really scored. They got the President to throw out the first pitch. As an aside, I admire his willingness to wear his favorite team's (White Sox) colors. Some politicians seem to lose their allegiance in the name of "broadening their base". The President seems willing to lose the votes of Cubs fans to stay true to his team.
Baseball also got a tight 4-3 game played in two hours and thirty one minutes. Yes, some kids on the East Coast probably still had to go to bed before the final out, but I bet more kids across the country got to see the whole game. That is good for baseball.
The game also showcased a lot of good young talent. As we leave the steroids era, the shadows of Bonds, Clemens and Sosa seem to fade, at least from the All Star game. Also, while it is nice to see guys nearing the end of their careers get one last turn in the midsummer's classic, it is better to see the rising stars of the game and last night featured a lot of them. The vets who were there, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera come to mind, were there on merit. Otherwise, fans get to see Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, Chad Billingsley, Ryan Braun and a host of others who should rule the game for the next 5-10 years.
The winning run scored in a fashion that a true fan loves. A triple by a speedy Curtis Granderson and a sacrifice fly to bring him home. Classic baseball. A game decided not by a 450 foot blast setting off fireworks, but by a guy doing what needed to be done to get the run across.
Baseball had a good night last night.
The baseball All Star game is real baseball. Yes, they probably don't go as hard into second base to break up the double play and, Pete Rose excepted, they don't take out the catcher on a play at the plate, but the pitches are real and the swings are true.
Last night baseball really scored. They got the President to throw out the first pitch. As an aside, I admire his willingness to wear his favorite team's (White Sox) colors. Some politicians seem to lose their allegiance in the name of "broadening their base". The President seems willing to lose the votes of Cubs fans to stay true to his team.
Baseball also got a tight 4-3 game played in two hours and thirty one minutes. Yes, some kids on the East Coast probably still had to go to bed before the final out, but I bet more kids across the country got to see the whole game. That is good for baseball.
The game also showcased a lot of good young talent. As we leave the steroids era, the shadows of Bonds, Clemens and Sosa seem to fade, at least from the All Star game. Also, while it is nice to see guys nearing the end of their careers get one last turn in the midsummer's classic, it is better to see the rising stars of the game and last night featured a lot of them. The vets who were there, Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera come to mind, were there on merit. Otherwise, fans get to see Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, Chad Billingsley, Ryan Braun and a host of others who should rule the game for the next 5-10 years.
The winning run scored in a fashion that a true fan loves. A triple by a speedy Curtis Granderson and a sacrifice fly to bring him home. Classic baseball. A game decided not by a 450 foot blast setting off fireworks, but by a guy doing what needed to be done to get the run across.
Baseball had a good night last night.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Ditching work, Part 2
And the other shoe fell.
Turns out Governor Sanford was not just playing hooky, he was off visiting a "dear friend" i.e. girlfriend in Argentina. He and his wife are sort of separated, although it is hard to tell from their public statements where things stand. We seem to have another of those ironic situations where the Governor has moved out of the Governor's mansion. He may not be back until his successor unveils the official portrait.
Running for President is out of the question. The question I have is: did he think he could break it off with the mistress, reconcile with the wife and then run for President of the United States and nobody would notice? I do not know whether that is arrogance of the highest degree or sheer cluelessness. Either way, those "Sanford for President" buttons are now officially collector's items.
Turns out Governor Sanford was not just playing hooky, he was off visiting a "dear friend" i.e. girlfriend in Argentina. He and his wife are sort of separated, although it is hard to tell from their public statements where things stand. We seem to have another of those ironic situations where the Governor has moved out of the Governor's mansion. He may not be back until his successor unveils the official portrait.
Running for President is out of the question. The question I have is: did he think he could break it off with the mistress, reconcile with the wife and then run for President of the United States and nobody would notice? I do not know whether that is arrogance of the highest degree or sheer cluelessness. Either way, those "Sanford for President" buttons are now officially collector's items.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ditching Work
I admit it: I have occasionally slipped out of the office to go play golf or maybe just hang out with the kids. When I do that however, I still have my cell phone with me and I usually check for messages a couple of times. The really important thing is however: I am not the governor of an entire state (or any part of one for that matter).
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford apparently took a five day "break" from his duties to go to South America this week. He did not tell anyone where he was going. His wife and family apparently did not know where he was, nor did his staff or security detail. Poof, the Governor was gone.
Most states have provisions for the temporary transfer of power when the governor is out of the state. Usually the Lieutenant Governor can exercise power and run the show, but what if nobody really knows the governor is gone? In South Carolina the trip became a story when people started to realize that they had not seen the Governor in a few days. His staff initially said he was hiking here in the U.S., but that has turned out to be untrue. His wife said she did not know where he was.
Stories started to emerge that he likes to "get away" at the end of the legislative session. Fair enough, but it is not too much to ask that the Governor let his staff and security detail know where he is going. Just disappearing is a little strange at best, erratic at worst.
Governor Sanford has been talked up as a potential presidential candidate in 2012. Before he runs, somebody better explain that the President doesn't get to just ditch work for a few days at a time. He cannot go off to clear his head and leave the Vice President in charge. He cannot hop on a commercial flight to South America to hang out for a few days.
Public service is admirable and I am certain it is trying at times. Having reporters follow you around 24/7 has got to be stressful. Still, it is no secret when you run for office that this is the way it is. You don't get to ditch work for a few days.
Next time I take off to play golf however, I might leave the cell phone behind.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford apparently took a five day "break" from his duties to go to South America this week. He did not tell anyone where he was going. His wife and family apparently did not know where he was, nor did his staff or security detail. Poof, the Governor was gone.
Most states have provisions for the temporary transfer of power when the governor is out of the state. Usually the Lieutenant Governor can exercise power and run the show, but what if nobody really knows the governor is gone? In South Carolina the trip became a story when people started to realize that they had not seen the Governor in a few days. His staff initially said he was hiking here in the U.S., but that has turned out to be untrue. His wife said she did not know where he was.
Stories started to emerge that he likes to "get away" at the end of the legislative session. Fair enough, but it is not too much to ask that the Governor let his staff and security detail know where he is going. Just disappearing is a little strange at best, erratic at worst.
Governor Sanford has been talked up as a potential presidential candidate in 2012. Before he runs, somebody better explain that the President doesn't get to just ditch work for a few days at a time. He cannot go off to clear his head and leave the Vice President in charge. He cannot hop on a commercial flight to South America to hang out for a few days.
Public service is admirable and I am certain it is trying at times. Having reporters follow you around 24/7 has got to be stressful. Still, it is no secret when you run for office that this is the way it is. You don't get to ditch work for a few days.
Next time I take off to play golf however, I might leave the cell phone behind.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Dave v. Sarah
I have always found David Letterman to be quite funny. His original 12:30 show was new, inventive and incredibly funny. He has been a little more tame since moving to 11:30, but generally still a pretty funny guy.
Unfortunately his spat with Sarah Palin over inappropriate jokes at her daughter's expense reveals a certain arrogance, but it is not just Dave. Many entertainers seem to be of a mind that they just elected a President and now, having saved the country from George W. Bush and the Republicans, they can do and say no wrong. In their minds, their values and tastes have prevailed and the rest of us just need to get used to it.
I believe that is what led David Letterman and his writers to think that sexual jokes about a 14 year old, or even an 18 year old, were funny and appropriate. It was not so much the content of the joke that they approved of, but the idea that because Sarah Palin is a strong conservative, anything about her is fair game. Before you disagree with me, take a step back and ask yourself what would be happening if a talk show host made any joke, sexual or otherwise, about either of the Obama daughters or suggested that the First Lady looked "slutty"? How many hours do you think it would take before that person was fired?
This is all about what Sarah Palin stands for and the arrogance of those public figures who supported Obama (even as they pretended to be "objective").
Now for Sarah Palin. As a parent she should be outraged at her teenage daughter being the object of crude jokes on national television. As a woman she should be offended by the commentary on her appearance. That said, she should not overplay it.
Remember the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown debate? While then Vice President Quayle was making a valid point about lifestyle choices and the de-emphasizing of the importance of fatherhood in some circles, it got lost in the fact that he was having the debate with a fictional character.
David Letterman is at least a real person. That said, he is an entertainer and a comedian. He tells jokes for a living and interviews movie stars. Nothing wrong with that, but when you are a political figure trying to build credibility for a possible presidential campaign, a drawn out debate with Letterman, while keeping the Governor in the news, does little to convince everyone that she can handle North Korea and Iran. Those two countries are lead by individuals who are a lot wackier than David Letterman (although not as funny).
Sarah Palin's supporters also do her no favors by perpetuating this controversy. It seems to be a way for a few folks to get themselves interviewed on the Today show and/or Fox News, but what it is doing is elongating a debate between a would be presidential candidate and a comic.
Sarah Palin needs to be talking, in depth, about the runaway growth of government in this Administration, about how extending a hand to these regimes has only emboldened them to continue their mischief and what she thinks ought to be done about it. That is how you get people to see you as a potential President, not by scoring points against Letterman.
Unfortunately his spat with Sarah Palin over inappropriate jokes at her daughter's expense reveals a certain arrogance, but it is not just Dave. Many entertainers seem to be of a mind that they just elected a President and now, having saved the country from George W. Bush and the Republicans, they can do and say no wrong. In their minds, their values and tastes have prevailed and the rest of us just need to get used to it.
I believe that is what led David Letterman and his writers to think that sexual jokes about a 14 year old, or even an 18 year old, were funny and appropriate. It was not so much the content of the joke that they approved of, but the idea that because Sarah Palin is a strong conservative, anything about her is fair game. Before you disagree with me, take a step back and ask yourself what would be happening if a talk show host made any joke, sexual or otherwise, about either of the Obama daughters or suggested that the First Lady looked "slutty"? How many hours do you think it would take before that person was fired?
This is all about what Sarah Palin stands for and the arrogance of those public figures who supported Obama (even as they pretended to be "objective").
Now for Sarah Palin. As a parent she should be outraged at her teenage daughter being the object of crude jokes on national television. As a woman she should be offended by the commentary on her appearance. That said, she should not overplay it.
Remember the Dan Quayle-Murphy Brown debate? While then Vice President Quayle was making a valid point about lifestyle choices and the de-emphasizing of the importance of fatherhood in some circles, it got lost in the fact that he was having the debate with a fictional character.
David Letterman is at least a real person. That said, he is an entertainer and a comedian. He tells jokes for a living and interviews movie stars. Nothing wrong with that, but when you are a political figure trying to build credibility for a possible presidential campaign, a drawn out debate with Letterman, while keeping the Governor in the news, does little to convince everyone that she can handle North Korea and Iran. Those two countries are lead by individuals who are a lot wackier than David Letterman (although not as funny).
Sarah Palin's supporters also do her no favors by perpetuating this controversy. It seems to be a way for a few folks to get themselves interviewed on the Today show and/or Fox News, but what it is doing is elongating a debate between a would be presidential candidate and a comic.
Sarah Palin needs to be talking, in depth, about the runaway growth of government in this Administration, about how extending a hand to these regimes has only emboldened them to continue their mischief and what she thinks ought to be done about it. That is how you get people to see you as a potential President, not by scoring points against Letterman.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Inexact Science
Major League Baseball held its draft yesterday. The baseball draft is the least watched of all of the major sports. Fans do not paint there faces and go the arenas to watch the draft on television (that is probably a good thing) and the draftees do not appear on stage wearing $5000 suits in colors never before imagined.
The main difference is it will still be two to three years before most of the players drafted are playing in the majors. Assuming they sign in the next few weeks, they will likely go to a rookie league level team or possibly Class A ball, then begin working their way up. One, maybe two, of the high draftees may make a major league cameo in September, but that is rare.
The baseball draft is the most inexact science of all sports' drafts. In football, many of the players have already played on big stages against big time competition. Although basketball has had a flirtation with taking high school kids, seven feet tall is still seven feet tall no matter your age. In other words, football and basketball can reasonably project performance in the league. There are some busts and some late round surprises who have success, but for the most part success can be forecast on draft day.
Not so with baseball. Baseball drafts many more players. The N.B.A. draft is now two rounds. The N.F.L. draft is eight. The baseball draft is many more rounds. A bigger pool of players turns professional in a given year.
When they turn pro, there are big changes. For the position players they go from hitting with aluminum bats, to wood bats. Suddenly those 420 foot bombs on the high school or college field are long fly balls. Hitters struggle with the transition, and confidence gets shaken as a player goes from hitting .600 in high school ball to hitting .240 in the minors.
For the pitchers, suddenly they are facing the equivalent of their high school or college opponents clean up hitter every at bat. Some pitchers, especially at the high school level, find they can rely on one overpowering pitch to get through a lineup. Once they turn pro they have to start learning how to hit spots and out think the batters, something they have not had to do before. College pitchers have often spent years pitching away from contact (to avoid those rockets off of aluminum bats) and have to learn not to be afraid of contact.
Then there is the lifestyle change. Often the players are now far away from home with a group of new teammates. They are not the big man on campus that they were in high school or college. Unlike the N.F.L. or N.B.A., they are not flying first class and staying in five star hotels. It is long bus rides and motels. If they played for a big time college program, or even some high school and/or travel programs, the travel and accommodations of pro ball can be a step (or several) down.
With all of these factors working against success, the money payed high draftees is approaching the early salaries of N.B.A. and N.F.L. draftees. Teams are taking great risks. They are being asked to invest $5-10 million or even more in a player who may never see a big league stadium except when he buys a ticket. It is the most inexact science of all sports.
The main difference is it will still be two to three years before most of the players drafted are playing in the majors. Assuming they sign in the next few weeks, they will likely go to a rookie league level team or possibly Class A ball, then begin working their way up. One, maybe two, of the high draftees may make a major league cameo in September, but that is rare.
The baseball draft is the most inexact science of all sports' drafts. In football, many of the players have already played on big stages against big time competition. Although basketball has had a flirtation with taking high school kids, seven feet tall is still seven feet tall no matter your age. In other words, football and basketball can reasonably project performance in the league. There are some busts and some late round surprises who have success, but for the most part success can be forecast on draft day.
Not so with baseball. Baseball drafts many more players. The N.B.A. draft is now two rounds. The N.F.L. draft is eight. The baseball draft is many more rounds. A bigger pool of players turns professional in a given year.
When they turn pro, there are big changes. For the position players they go from hitting with aluminum bats, to wood bats. Suddenly those 420 foot bombs on the high school or college field are long fly balls. Hitters struggle with the transition, and confidence gets shaken as a player goes from hitting .600 in high school ball to hitting .240 in the minors.
For the pitchers, suddenly they are facing the equivalent of their high school or college opponents clean up hitter every at bat. Some pitchers, especially at the high school level, find they can rely on one overpowering pitch to get through a lineup. Once they turn pro they have to start learning how to hit spots and out think the batters, something they have not had to do before. College pitchers have often spent years pitching away from contact (to avoid those rockets off of aluminum bats) and have to learn not to be afraid of contact.
Then there is the lifestyle change. Often the players are now far away from home with a group of new teammates. They are not the big man on campus that they were in high school or college. Unlike the N.F.L. or N.B.A., they are not flying first class and staying in five star hotels. It is long bus rides and motels. If they played for a big time college program, or even some high school and/or travel programs, the travel and accommodations of pro ball can be a step (or several) down.
With all of these factors working against success, the money payed high draftees is approaching the early salaries of N.B.A. and N.F.L. draftees. Teams are taking great risks. They are being asked to invest $5-10 million or even more in a player who may never see a big league stadium except when he buys a ticket. It is the most inexact science of all sports.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
300
There are some numbers in baseball that are truly amazing. 300 wins by a pitcher is one of them. Randy Johnson hit that magic number this week.
I started out with the idea that I wanted to write about aging players hanging around into their mid-forties chasing milestones. Randy Johnson is 44 years old and certainly not the pitcher he was a decade ago.
As I thought about it, I realized I could not diminish the achievement and Johnson is not just hanging on. To win 300 games a pitcher would have to average 20 wins a year for 15 years. In this day and age of middle relievers and six inning quality starts, there are fewer 20 game winners, so realistically you are looking at averaging 15 wins over 20 years. That may be even more amazing.
Randy Johnson won his fifth game of the season to get to 300 the other night. The league leaders in the National league have seven wins and pitch for better teams. Johnson leads his team in wins. He is hardly hanging around. Johnson's season so far projects to 12-14 wins and in this day and age that is a solid number. Maybe not the Cy Young award numbers of years gone by, but good enough to be a number three starter for most teams and a one or two for others.
Also, he has not reinvented himself. He is not hanging around throwing slow curves and change ups. Yes, he is not the power pitcher that he once was, with a fastball touching 100 miles per hour, but he is still a power pitcher.
Injuries slowed Johnson in the middle of his career or we would have been talking about this milestone two years ago. After major back surgery he racked up 5 Cy Young awards and a World Series MVP. He pitched in relief in the 7th game of a World Series after being the starting pitcher in game six. That is unheard of in the modern era. Starting pitchers normally are not seen or heard from until five days after their last start. You certainly don't find them in the bullpen getting ready to go another two or three the next day.
He is not a warm and fuzzy personality and sometimes that diminishes the appreciation for an achievement, but he has never thrown sawed off bats at anyone and there are no allegations of performance enhancing drugs. He has simply been the most dominant left handed pitcher of the past 20 years.
Having reached 300, I hope he will consider retirement over another year of multi-million dollar salaries. I do not want to watch Randy Johnson doing mop up work for the A's or the Orioles in two years. Right now however, he is a legitimate a quality starter as anyone else and he has achieved a milestone that, when you think about it, is mind boggling.
I started out with the idea that I wanted to write about aging players hanging around into their mid-forties chasing milestones. Randy Johnson is 44 years old and certainly not the pitcher he was a decade ago.
As I thought about it, I realized I could not diminish the achievement and Johnson is not just hanging on. To win 300 games a pitcher would have to average 20 wins a year for 15 years. In this day and age of middle relievers and six inning quality starts, there are fewer 20 game winners, so realistically you are looking at averaging 15 wins over 20 years. That may be even more amazing.
Randy Johnson won his fifth game of the season to get to 300 the other night. The league leaders in the National league have seven wins and pitch for better teams. Johnson leads his team in wins. He is hardly hanging around. Johnson's season so far projects to 12-14 wins and in this day and age that is a solid number. Maybe not the Cy Young award numbers of years gone by, but good enough to be a number three starter for most teams and a one or two for others.
Also, he has not reinvented himself. He is not hanging around throwing slow curves and change ups. Yes, he is not the power pitcher that he once was, with a fastball touching 100 miles per hour, but he is still a power pitcher.
Injuries slowed Johnson in the middle of his career or we would have been talking about this milestone two years ago. After major back surgery he racked up 5 Cy Young awards and a World Series MVP. He pitched in relief in the 7th game of a World Series after being the starting pitcher in game six. That is unheard of in the modern era. Starting pitchers normally are not seen or heard from until five days after their last start. You certainly don't find them in the bullpen getting ready to go another two or three the next day.
He is not a warm and fuzzy personality and sometimes that diminishes the appreciation for an achievement, but he has never thrown sawed off bats at anyone and there are no allegations of performance enhancing drugs. He has simply been the most dominant left handed pitcher of the past 20 years.
Having reached 300, I hope he will consider retirement over another year of multi-million dollar salaries. I do not want to watch Randy Johnson doing mop up work for the A's or the Orioles in two years. Right now however, he is a legitimate a quality starter as anyone else and he has achieved a milestone that, when you think about it, is mind boggling.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Bankruptcy
"Bankruptcy" is in the news a lot these days. GM and Chrysler have filed. The process allows a company or an individual to either restructure their debt or liquidate what they own and pay off as much of the debt as possible. Apparently the administration does not consider liquidation to be a viable means to resolve the car companies' problems. Perhaps they should reconsider.
The real problem is admitting mistakes and correcting them, something everyone is trying to avoid. The car companies and the government have made huge promises to the unions and they are not able to fulfill them. They pay literally millions, if not billions, to people who no longer work, no longer produce. They pay billions more to people who are working, but they cannot sell enough product to meet those obligations. Now it has become unsustainable.
The UAW will tell you, rather loudly, that they have made significant concessions and maybe they have. The problem is, unless you can find a way to sell the cars, it will not be enough.
Still, the focus seems to be on how we preserve the auto industry "as is" rather than how it should look in the future. This is the difference between government intervention to prop up a structure and allowing the market to set the direction.
Why does there have to be a "big three" automakers? Because there always has been? What happened to "change"? Maybe the market would create a "medium size six". We don't know. What we do know is that the Administration is tying itself up in knots to preserve the big three and more importantly to them, protect the U.A.W.'s perogatives.
After the bankruptcy however, we still have the problem of selling cars. Can the companies make cars people want to buy? We hear noises about fuel efficiency standards and other bells and whistles the Administration now wants to put on new cars. Some even suggest taxing certain types of "non preferred" i.e. S.U.V.s cars more, to force us to buy the more fuel efficient models. We have the makings of an unholy alliance between the auto makers and the government to force us to buy certain cars in the interest of saving the big three.
If you are a fan of centralized economic planning then this is all something to get excited about. If you believe that would should be allowed free choice in the products we buy and the cars we drive, be very nervous.
The companies may have filed for bankruptcy and may "restructure" but it is the policy of preserving the status quo at all costs that is bankrupt.
The real problem is admitting mistakes and correcting them, something everyone is trying to avoid. The car companies and the government have made huge promises to the unions and they are not able to fulfill them. They pay literally millions, if not billions, to people who no longer work, no longer produce. They pay billions more to people who are working, but they cannot sell enough product to meet those obligations. Now it has become unsustainable.
The UAW will tell you, rather loudly, that they have made significant concessions and maybe they have. The problem is, unless you can find a way to sell the cars, it will not be enough.
Still, the focus seems to be on how we preserve the auto industry "as is" rather than how it should look in the future. This is the difference between government intervention to prop up a structure and allowing the market to set the direction.
Why does there have to be a "big three" automakers? Because there always has been? What happened to "change"? Maybe the market would create a "medium size six". We don't know. What we do know is that the Administration is tying itself up in knots to preserve the big three and more importantly to them, protect the U.A.W.'s perogatives.
After the bankruptcy however, we still have the problem of selling cars. Can the companies make cars people want to buy? We hear noises about fuel efficiency standards and other bells and whistles the Administration now wants to put on new cars. Some even suggest taxing certain types of "non preferred" i.e. S.U.V.s cars more, to force us to buy the more fuel efficient models. We have the makings of an unholy alliance between the auto makers and the government to force us to buy certain cars in the interest of saving the big three.
If you are a fan of centralized economic planning then this is all something to get excited about. If you believe that would should be allowed free choice in the products we buy and the cars we drive, be very nervous.
The companies may have filed for bankruptcy and may "restructure" but it is the policy of preserving the status quo at all costs that is bankrupt.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Justice
If you googled the word "justice" yesterday you probably came up with hundreds of news articles. Justice was in the news. The President named a nominee for Supreme Court Justice and the California Supreme Court's justices issued their long awaited ruling on gay marriage. Starting with Washington: Sonja Sotomayor is certainly a historic choice for the Court. The first Hispanic nominee and only the third female in the high court's history. There is no doubt she is not a "moderate" or a "centrist". She is a liberal. She will be expansive in her view of the Constitution. Her decisions will read into the language things that are not readily apparent in order to achieve a certain result.
Conservatives are already caterwauling about her, but guess what? This is how it works. Obama won and he gets to appoint the Justices. Just as I felt George W. Bush was under no obligation to appoint "moderates" or "centrists" to the court, neither is President Obama. The Senate is entitled to advise and consent, but to me, absent some showing of disqualification for the job along the lines of past unethical or criminal conduct, the nominee should be confirmed. In the end, I expect Judge Sotomayor will win confirmation, probably by a large majority.
In California the Justices were busy dealing with those nasty little checks and balances. After they invalidated a statute prohibiting same sex marriage on constitutional grounds, those pesky voters passed an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage. This time the Supreme Court upheld the will of the people.
The Sotomayor nomination and the California ruling highlight the question of the judiciary's role in society. I do not think anyone disagrees that the world is very different than it was in 1787 and we face many issues the Framers never dreamed of. Slavery still existed, women could not vote, I really do not believe the Framers had any feeling as to same sex marriage or abortion. Free speech, initially thought to be limited to your voice or writings has evolved into a host of different mediums, remember the Framers weren't e-mailing drafts of the Constitution over the Internet.
So what do Judges do? Do they use their authority to push society forward in a certain direction, or do they allow the democratic process to operate and step in when the process has not functioned properly? Chief Justice Roberts has suggested that Judges are umpires and I agree with that. Their job is to enforce the rules. There is an additional role however that gets trickier: when the rules are not fair to all the players. Often that is somewhat subjective. There are the obvious issues: clearly so called separate but equal schools were anything but and the courts stepped in to eliminate what the democratic process had produced.
What about things that are not so clear? To some the case for allowing same sex marriage is as obvious and compelling as ending segregation. To others it is an affront. To many however, it is a process that the democratic process needs to work out, but if a Judge does not like the result, can he or she step in? The California Supreme Court has said "yes" and "no".
In the coming weeks we will learn more about Judge Sotomayor. I suspect her philosophy will lean more towards the Judges stepping in to achieve a result that is better, in her mind, than what the democratic process has produced. In California the democratic process is revving up again with more initiatives planned on same sex marriage.
"Justice" topped the news yesterday and after 222 years we are still trying to figure out what it means.
Conservatives are already caterwauling about her, but guess what? This is how it works. Obama won and he gets to appoint the Justices. Just as I felt George W. Bush was under no obligation to appoint "moderates" or "centrists" to the court, neither is President Obama. The Senate is entitled to advise and consent, but to me, absent some showing of disqualification for the job along the lines of past unethical or criminal conduct, the nominee should be confirmed. In the end, I expect Judge Sotomayor will win confirmation, probably by a large majority.
In California the Justices were busy dealing with those nasty little checks and balances. After they invalidated a statute prohibiting same sex marriage on constitutional grounds, those pesky voters passed an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage. This time the Supreme Court upheld the will of the people.
The Sotomayor nomination and the California ruling highlight the question of the judiciary's role in society. I do not think anyone disagrees that the world is very different than it was in 1787 and we face many issues the Framers never dreamed of. Slavery still existed, women could not vote, I really do not believe the Framers had any feeling as to same sex marriage or abortion. Free speech, initially thought to be limited to your voice or writings has evolved into a host of different mediums, remember the Framers weren't e-mailing drafts of the Constitution over the Internet.
So what do Judges do? Do they use their authority to push society forward in a certain direction, or do they allow the democratic process to operate and step in when the process has not functioned properly? Chief Justice Roberts has suggested that Judges are umpires and I agree with that. Their job is to enforce the rules. There is an additional role however that gets trickier: when the rules are not fair to all the players. Often that is somewhat subjective. There are the obvious issues: clearly so called separate but equal schools were anything but and the courts stepped in to eliminate what the democratic process had produced.
What about things that are not so clear? To some the case for allowing same sex marriage is as obvious and compelling as ending segregation. To others it is an affront. To many however, it is a process that the democratic process needs to work out, but if a Judge does not like the result, can he or she step in? The California Supreme Court has said "yes" and "no".
In the coming weeks we will learn more about Judge Sotomayor. I suspect her philosophy will lean more towards the Judges stepping in to achieve a result that is better, in her mind, than what the democratic process has produced. In California the democratic process is revving up again with more initiatives planned on same sex marriage.
"Justice" topped the news yesterday and after 222 years we are still trying to figure out what it means.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Interesting Times in Which We Live
America seems to be a nation of political contradictions. In November we elected the most liberal Democratic nominee in a generation. Since President Obama's election Washington has gone on a spending binge that was only slightly tempered when worded leaked that funding for condom programs was somehow considered fiscal stimulus.
While Washington has been on a spending bender, the voters in very blue state California yesterday rejected a series of ballot initiatives designed in large part to preserve the budget status quo. Advertising for the initiatives suggested that, without their passage, schools would close and the displaced children would join just released prisoners wandering the streets of the Golden State. Still, the voters said "no" and resoundingly.
So, is it a conservative backlash and revival as some want to claim? I do not think so. If the election for Governor were held tomorrow, I believe California would elect a big government, big spending liberal. Then again, the election is not tomorrow, it is in a year and a half so maybe yesterday's results do offer a glimmer of hope for conservatives.
Right now we are, as a populace, taking contradictory positions. A recent Field Poll (4/30/09) in California was instructive. When asked about individual areas of spending, the respondents did not want to see cuts. When asked overall, and when they voted on Tuesday, respondents felt government is spending too much. The answer seems to be: spend on the things I like, but not on the things I don't care as much about. It is a microcosm of the interest group politics that have crippled California's budget process.
Over the years Californians have voted themselves all sorts of toys and trinkets and feel good policies. The most dramatic was Proposition 98 which required a set percentage of the state budget to go to education. The percentage stayed the same in good times and bad, whether it was needed or not (I know there are those who will argue that more money is always needed for education).
After seeing the success that the education lobby, particularly the teacher's unions, had with hijacking the budget process, other groups have stepped in the get their share. Public employee unions sought and gained huge pension promises. The state got into the stem cell research business. We are now left with a budget that basically cannot be balanced. Too many spending programs have been embedded as Constitutional Amendments leaving any Governor and Legislature with little discretion. When the economy turned down, this process ran on to the rocks.
So what happens now? Californians are still going to want their spending. What is needed is a process of educating the public on what the state spends its money on. The commercials suggest that any cut in the education budget means kids not having bookss and good teachers losing their jobs. It is not that simple. The Governor and the Legislature need to shine the light on all educational spending and show how much of it does not go into the classroom. How much bureaucracy is being funded? How many "studies" are we paying for? Show the people what the education budget really is, then let's prioritize.
It's more than just the education budget however. California is rich in commissions of dubious value, yet great expense. Let's give their benefactors a chance to explain what they are and what they do, then let's prioritize.
Tuesday results show the voters are not fond of decisions made in the backrooms. Sweetheart deals for certain interest groups also are not popular. Yes, we may be living in an era when the people want more government, but cost matters. Perhaps now politicians will turn on the lights and talk to us like adults to explain the programs, the priorities and the costs.
Then let the people decide how much government they want and are willing to pay for. Yes, we are living in interesting times.
While Washington has been on a spending bender, the voters in very blue state California yesterday rejected a series of ballot initiatives designed in large part to preserve the budget status quo. Advertising for the initiatives suggested that, without their passage, schools would close and the displaced children would join just released prisoners wandering the streets of the Golden State. Still, the voters said "no" and resoundingly.
So, is it a conservative backlash and revival as some want to claim? I do not think so. If the election for Governor were held tomorrow, I believe California would elect a big government, big spending liberal. Then again, the election is not tomorrow, it is in a year and a half so maybe yesterday's results do offer a glimmer of hope for conservatives.
Right now we are, as a populace, taking contradictory positions. A recent Field Poll (4/30/09) in California was instructive. When asked about individual areas of spending, the respondents did not want to see cuts. When asked overall, and when they voted on Tuesday, respondents felt government is spending too much. The answer seems to be: spend on the things I like, but not on the things I don't care as much about. It is a microcosm of the interest group politics that have crippled California's budget process.
Over the years Californians have voted themselves all sorts of toys and trinkets and feel good policies. The most dramatic was Proposition 98 which required a set percentage of the state budget to go to education. The percentage stayed the same in good times and bad, whether it was needed or not (I know there are those who will argue that more money is always needed for education).
After seeing the success that the education lobby, particularly the teacher's unions, had with hijacking the budget process, other groups have stepped in the get their share. Public employee unions sought and gained huge pension promises. The state got into the stem cell research business. We are now left with a budget that basically cannot be balanced. Too many spending programs have been embedded as Constitutional Amendments leaving any Governor and Legislature with little discretion. When the economy turned down, this process ran on to the rocks.
So what happens now? Californians are still going to want their spending. What is needed is a process of educating the public on what the state spends its money on. The commercials suggest that any cut in the education budget means kids not having bookss and good teachers losing their jobs. It is not that simple. The Governor and the Legislature need to shine the light on all educational spending and show how much of it does not go into the classroom. How much bureaucracy is being funded? How many "studies" are we paying for? Show the people what the education budget really is, then let's prioritize.
It's more than just the education budget however. California is rich in commissions of dubious value, yet great expense. Let's give their benefactors a chance to explain what they are and what they do, then let's prioritize.
Tuesday results show the voters are not fond of decisions made in the backrooms. Sweetheart deals for certain interest groups also are not popular. Yes, we may be living in an era when the people want more government, but cost matters. Perhaps now politicians will turn on the lights and talk to us like adults to explain the programs, the priorities and the costs.
Then let the people decide how much government they want and are willing to pay for. Yes, we are living in interesting times.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Being in Charge
Do you think Democrats ever long for the good old days? You know, back in 2007 and 2008 when there was still a Republican, and an unpopular one at that, in the White House. The Democrats controlled Congress and that was nice, but without having the presidency they could avoid ultimate accountability. They could crisscross the country demanding the closure of Guantanamo Bay, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, full disclosure of the techniques used to question terrorist suspects. They could promise that, when they are fully in charge, all of the evils of the past eight years would be investigated: hearings, truth commissions, episodes of Oprah would expose the misdeeds of the past eight years.
Now they are in charge and it might be a little tougher than they thought.
If you want to close Guantanamo, then you have to figure out where to put all of the "guests". Funny thing, their own countries don't really want them back. There are federal prisons on the U.S. mainland, but the Democrats from those states don't want them there (aren't these just people who the Bush Administration wrongly accused of misdeeds and who need a place to go while we process their paperwork?).
Withdrawal from Iraq? It is easier to talk about ending a war while running for President than to actually do it as President. President Obama, and I give him a great deal of credit for this, has actually decided to rely on the advice of the commanders rather than the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. We will and should get out of Iraq, but we are doing it in a responsible manner that will not undo the success of the 2007 surge and leave a disaster in its wake.
Then there is the "truth" about torture. Apparently the truth is that the Democratic Speaker of the House, while the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, was told quite a bit about these "enhanced interrogation techniques". Speaker Pelosi seems to be defending herself by arguing that she was not in the meetings she was in, or was not paying attention, or did not understand. Next she will be arguing that she missed the translation, the air conditioner was blowing too loud or she had an inner ear infection.
What is clear is that campaigning is pretend, governing is real. It is very easy to say what plays to the base in a political campaign, but a lot tougher to deal with the real world. Questioning and detaining suspected terrorists is not a pretty business. Drawing down a military operation cannot be done overnight. The Democrats are finding out that what they promised may not square with the reality.
What might help the Democrats right now? Well, if they could just lure Dick Cheney out to give a bunch of interviews...oh, never mind.
Now they are in charge and it might be a little tougher than they thought.
If you want to close Guantanamo, then you have to figure out where to put all of the "guests". Funny thing, their own countries don't really want them back. There are federal prisons on the U.S. mainland, but the Democrats from those states don't want them there (aren't these just people who the Bush Administration wrongly accused of misdeeds and who need a place to go while we process their paperwork?).
Withdrawal from Iraq? It is easier to talk about ending a war while running for President than to actually do it as President. President Obama, and I give him a great deal of credit for this, has actually decided to rely on the advice of the commanders rather than the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. We will and should get out of Iraq, but we are doing it in a responsible manner that will not undo the success of the 2007 surge and leave a disaster in its wake.
Then there is the "truth" about torture. Apparently the truth is that the Democratic Speaker of the House, while the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, was told quite a bit about these "enhanced interrogation techniques". Speaker Pelosi seems to be defending herself by arguing that she was not in the meetings she was in, or was not paying attention, or did not understand. Next she will be arguing that she missed the translation, the air conditioner was blowing too loud or she had an inner ear infection.
What is clear is that campaigning is pretend, governing is real. It is very easy to say what plays to the base in a political campaign, but a lot tougher to deal with the real world. Questioning and detaining suspected terrorists is not a pretty business. Drawing down a military operation cannot be done overnight. The Democrats are finding out that what they promised may not square with the reality.
What might help the Democrats right now? Well, if they could just lure Dick Cheney out to give a bunch of interviews...oh, never mind.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Another shoe drops
Manny Ramirez: 50 game suspension. It probably no longer should be, but it was a stunner. Why are we surprised by anybody admitting to, or getting caught in, the steroid scandal.
Still, somehow it seemed like Ramirez was clean. Sure he was self-centered in Boston. Yes, he has been a little goofy in L.A., but it still seemed like was clean. Yes, he was playing at a high level into his late 30s, but there was no dramatic spike in his numbers. He has been consistently producing 30-40 home runs for ten years. He did not suddenly go from 20 home runs to 55, 60 and beyond.
Now, once again we don't know. Manny is still a great hitter and probably would have been one of the best in baseball over the past ten years even if he hit 25-30 homers a year. The problem is how do we know?
With each suspension, admission or indictment we are left to wonder whether anything we have seen over the last 10-15 years was real. Sure, the games were legitimate and the best team won, but were the scores and numbers real?
Worse yet, I think we are becoming immune to it. When I heard the story, I found myself calculating the time frame of his return. July? Perfect, just like last year when he came in from Boston. The Dodgers just acquired their slugger for the second half without making a trade or giving up a thing. They actually save $7 million (Manny's lost salary during the suspension). What a deal! All they have to do is hang around first place until July then let Manny kick start their second half.
I tried to snap back and be mad about it. I am. Manny cheated the fans, and the game. I let my son dress up as Manny for Halloween last year and now I have to explain to him why Manny does not get to play for 2 months. Still, when he returns I am not going to tell him to boo Manny or not root for the Dodgers. We will go on. Baseball will go on.
Sadly however, this scandal is going to be with us for twenty more years. Yes, the number of players flunking drug tests will dwindle (you really have to be a knucklehead to get caught now, sorry Manny), but the stars of this era will become eligible for the Hall of Fame. Do Clemens, Bonds, Ramirez and Palmeiro get in? They were the greatest of their era, albeit a tainted era, but do they deserve to sit in baseball immortality next to Ruth, Dimaggio, Jackie Robinson and Cy Young? The debate will go on and remind us of this scandal.
What I hope the Hall Fame voters do is disregard the whole group. No plaques for Barry, A-Rod, Clemens or Manny. No weekend in Cooperstown for McGwire and Sosa and let's not even get started on Rafael Palmeiro.
Instead of voting these guys in, how about the Hall voters take a new look at some of the stars they have left out. Perhaps their achievements look a little better in light of what we have seen. Can the Hall now find a place for Bert Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Katt (all pitchers who won over 280 games)? What about the Cubs great Ron Santo? Isn't Bill Buckner and his 2700 career hits worth a look? Perhaps the perspective we should gain from the steroid era is a better appreciation of some of the players who came before even if they did not reach the so called "magic numbers" of 500 homers, 3000 hits, or 300 wins.
Part of what makes baseball great is its history. Baseball can best honor its past and move forward into the future by exiling the phonies and honoring the real greats of the game.
Still, somehow it seemed like Ramirez was clean. Sure he was self-centered in Boston. Yes, he has been a little goofy in L.A., but it still seemed like was clean. Yes, he was playing at a high level into his late 30s, but there was no dramatic spike in his numbers. He has been consistently producing 30-40 home runs for ten years. He did not suddenly go from 20 home runs to 55, 60 and beyond.
Now, once again we don't know. Manny is still a great hitter and probably would have been one of the best in baseball over the past ten years even if he hit 25-30 homers a year. The problem is how do we know?
With each suspension, admission or indictment we are left to wonder whether anything we have seen over the last 10-15 years was real. Sure, the games were legitimate and the best team won, but were the scores and numbers real?
Worse yet, I think we are becoming immune to it. When I heard the story, I found myself calculating the time frame of his return. July? Perfect, just like last year when he came in from Boston. The Dodgers just acquired their slugger for the second half without making a trade or giving up a thing. They actually save $7 million (Manny's lost salary during the suspension). What a deal! All they have to do is hang around first place until July then let Manny kick start their second half.
I tried to snap back and be mad about it. I am. Manny cheated the fans, and the game. I let my son dress up as Manny for Halloween last year and now I have to explain to him why Manny does not get to play for 2 months. Still, when he returns I am not going to tell him to boo Manny or not root for the Dodgers. We will go on. Baseball will go on.
Sadly however, this scandal is going to be with us for twenty more years. Yes, the number of players flunking drug tests will dwindle (you really have to be a knucklehead to get caught now, sorry Manny), but the stars of this era will become eligible for the Hall of Fame. Do Clemens, Bonds, Ramirez and Palmeiro get in? They were the greatest of their era, albeit a tainted era, but do they deserve to sit in baseball immortality next to Ruth, Dimaggio, Jackie Robinson and Cy Young? The debate will go on and remind us of this scandal.
What I hope the Hall Fame voters do is disregard the whole group. No plaques for Barry, A-Rod, Clemens or Manny. No weekend in Cooperstown for McGwire and Sosa and let's not even get started on Rafael Palmeiro.
Instead of voting these guys in, how about the Hall voters take a new look at some of the stars they have left out. Perhaps their achievements look a little better in light of what we have seen. Can the Hall now find a place for Bert Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Katt (all pitchers who won over 280 games)? What about the Cubs great Ron Santo? Isn't Bill Buckner and his 2700 career hits worth a look? Perhaps the perspective we should gain from the steroid era is a better appreciation of some of the players who came before even if they did not reach the so called "magic numbers" of 500 homers, 3000 hits, or 300 wins.
Part of what makes baseball great is its history. Baseball can best honor its past and move forward into the future by exiling the phonies and honoring the real greats of the game.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Passing of a Quarterback
Former Congressman, HUD Secretary and GOP vice presidential nominee and Buffalo Bills quarterback Jack Kemp died on Saturday.
There are a lot of "what if" scenarios in political history and I wonder how things might be different if Jack Kemp had won the Republican nomination over George H.W. Bush in 1988 or if the Dole-Kemp ticket won in 1996 leading to Jack Kemp being the GOP nominee in 2000 (remember Dole was already in his med-seventies in 1996). We will never know.
Jack Kemp was a different type of Republican and it is a shame the party did not follow him to a greater extent. He was a self described "bleeding heart" conservative. He was not one who tried to be a lighter, less expensive version of the Democrats. Instead he advocated conservative solutions to the problems of poverty and education. A Republican talking about poverty and education...what a concept.
For too long Republicans have ceded the landscape of poverty and education to the Democrats and allowed the media to portray the party as uncaring, indifferent or uninterested. Jack Kemp tried to change that. He advocated policies to create jobs and economic growth in the inner cities, recognizing that the best thing the government could do was create the environment for growth and change, then allow the smart people to do it. If you are familiar with some of the work that Magic Johnson's company has done in the inner cities with movie theatres and shopping centers, you have seen what Jack Kemp envisioned. It was an idea known as enterprise zones.
Kemp recognized that education mattered and was a ticket out of poverty. What he did not recognize was the establishment view that continued to chase good money with bad. Still, there were things that could and should be done to improve our schools, and if the school was beyond repair, allow parents a way to get their kids out of the failing school and into a better one.
Unfortunately the Republican Party never nominated Jack Kemp for President and his national roles were as subordinates to traditional and long time Republican establishment figures (Bush and Dole). The party lost out on an opportunity and America missed out on a great debate. Wouldn't it have been something to see Jack Kemp and Bill Clinton or Al Gore debate liberal, big government orthodoxy versus individual empowerment?
There is much talk about how to "rebrand" the Republican Party as though it were a soft drink that simply needs a new ad campaign. What it needs is what Jack Kemp tried to do: engagement in issues that for too long have only been the hallowed grounds of the Democrats. It is a shame that he will not be here to lead the offense down the field.
There are a lot of "what if" scenarios in political history and I wonder how things might be different if Jack Kemp had won the Republican nomination over George H.W. Bush in 1988 or if the Dole-Kemp ticket won in 1996 leading to Jack Kemp being the GOP nominee in 2000 (remember Dole was already in his med-seventies in 1996). We will never know.
Jack Kemp was a different type of Republican and it is a shame the party did not follow him to a greater extent. He was a self described "bleeding heart" conservative. He was not one who tried to be a lighter, less expensive version of the Democrats. Instead he advocated conservative solutions to the problems of poverty and education. A Republican talking about poverty and education...what a concept.
For too long Republicans have ceded the landscape of poverty and education to the Democrats and allowed the media to portray the party as uncaring, indifferent or uninterested. Jack Kemp tried to change that. He advocated policies to create jobs and economic growth in the inner cities, recognizing that the best thing the government could do was create the environment for growth and change, then allow the smart people to do it. If you are familiar with some of the work that Magic Johnson's company has done in the inner cities with movie theatres and shopping centers, you have seen what Jack Kemp envisioned. It was an idea known as enterprise zones.
Kemp recognized that education mattered and was a ticket out of poverty. What he did not recognize was the establishment view that continued to chase good money with bad. Still, there were things that could and should be done to improve our schools, and if the school was beyond repair, allow parents a way to get their kids out of the failing school and into a better one.
Unfortunately the Republican Party never nominated Jack Kemp for President and his national roles were as subordinates to traditional and long time Republican establishment figures (Bush and Dole). The party lost out on an opportunity and America missed out on a great debate. Wouldn't it have been something to see Jack Kemp and Bill Clinton or Al Gore debate liberal, big government orthodoxy versus individual empowerment?
There is much talk about how to "rebrand" the Republican Party as though it were a soft drink that simply needs a new ad campaign. What it needs is what Jack Kemp tried to do: engagement in issues that for too long have only been the hallowed grounds of the Democrats. It is a shame that he will not be here to lead the offense down the field.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Greatest
There are many debates in sports and politics. Who was the greatest player of all time? The greatest President. Baseball is a sport that, due to the incredible lack of any significant rule changes, lends itself well to debates about different eras.
There is one category about which there can be no debate: greatest announcer ever. It is the Dodgers' Vin Scully, hands down.
Vin is in his 60th season with the Dodgers. To put that in perspective, he started announcing for the Dodgers during the Truman Administration. The Dodgers did not even play in Los Angeles when he started (rumor has it they played in Brooklyn). I won't even try to count how many teams have come into Major League baseball since Vin started calling games. I do know that the Washington Senators and Montreal Expos came and went. Division play started, the designated hitter, the wild card, and ESPN have all come into existence since Scully started.
But longevity alone does not make Scully great. Listening to him announce a game is like having a very nice gentleman sitting in your living room describing the action to you. It is conversational, and very pleasant conversation at that. He doesn't scream or cheer for the home team. He is not a wacky character who you tune in to see what outrageous thing he will say next. Vin Scully just calls the game.
For many of us his voice is the soundtrack of our life. As a kid I grew up with "Garvey-Lopes-Russell and Cey". In college there was Fernandomania ("if you have a sombrero, throw it to the sky"). Also, the simple call on Kirk Gibson's memorable 1988 World Series homerun "she is gone!". Now my sons get to listen to Vin Scully announce Dodger games with me, as I did with my Dad.
There have been tough moments. I remember him announcing the death of his broadcast partner and Dodger great Don Drysdale. As always, he was eloquent in discussing the death of Angels' pitcher Nick Adenhart a few weeks back.
After 60 years he is a good as ever. Sure, there is an occasional name wrong, but he quickly corrects himself, usually with self-deprecating humor. Most importantly, he makes a 10-0 loss in September when the Dodgers have been eliminated from the pennant race three weeks earlier just as interesting to listen to as a late September game with the pennant on the line.
You can tune in in the middle of the game and it is as though he saw you walk in the room and catches you up. You have a question about a player and it is as though he heard you and answers it.
60 years at the mike for the Dodgers. There are few things, other than breathing, that people do for 60 years. There are even fewer things that people do just as well as ever after 60 years (let's face it, the breathing gets tougher). Vin Scully however is still the best , simply the greatest.
There is one category about which there can be no debate: greatest announcer ever. It is the Dodgers' Vin Scully, hands down.
Vin is in his 60th season with the Dodgers. To put that in perspective, he started announcing for the Dodgers during the Truman Administration. The Dodgers did not even play in Los Angeles when he started (rumor has it they played in Brooklyn). I won't even try to count how many teams have come into Major League baseball since Vin started calling games. I do know that the Washington Senators and Montreal Expos came and went. Division play started, the designated hitter, the wild card, and ESPN have all come into existence since Scully started.
But longevity alone does not make Scully great. Listening to him announce a game is like having a very nice gentleman sitting in your living room describing the action to you. It is conversational, and very pleasant conversation at that. He doesn't scream or cheer for the home team. He is not a wacky character who you tune in to see what outrageous thing he will say next. Vin Scully just calls the game.
For many of us his voice is the soundtrack of our life. As a kid I grew up with "Garvey-Lopes-Russell and Cey". In college there was Fernandomania ("if you have a sombrero, throw it to the sky"). Also, the simple call on Kirk Gibson's memorable 1988 World Series homerun "she is gone!". Now my sons get to listen to Vin Scully announce Dodger games with me, as I did with my Dad.
There have been tough moments. I remember him announcing the death of his broadcast partner and Dodger great Don Drysdale. As always, he was eloquent in discussing the death of Angels' pitcher Nick Adenhart a few weeks back.
After 60 years he is a good as ever. Sure, there is an occasional name wrong, but he quickly corrects himself, usually with self-deprecating humor. Most importantly, he makes a 10-0 loss in September when the Dodgers have been eliminated from the pennant race three weeks earlier just as interesting to listen to as a late September game with the pennant on the line.
You can tune in in the middle of the game and it is as though he saw you walk in the room and catches you up. You have a question about a player and it is as though he heard you and answers it.
60 years at the mike for the Dodgers. There are few things, other than breathing, that people do for 60 years. There are even fewer things that people do just as well as ever after 60 years (let's face it, the breathing gets tougher). Vin Scully however is still the best , simply the greatest.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
They just can't quit him
Many posts ago I wondered what the left would do without George W. Bush to kick around. For eight years they have had a foil, but the 2008 election has put the left solidly in charge of the federal government. It seems however, that the left just can't get over him.
All of this really goes back to the Florida recount in 2000. The left never accepted George W. Bush winning that election. Although recount after recount by their allies in the media ultimately showed that he did, the left still refused to accept that result. As close as it was, maybe that is understandable.
Then George Bush became a wartime President and the left hates the use of military force.
Then George Bush won again in 2004 and the left tried to spin stories of 'stolen" election in Ohio, even though the margin of victory was over 100,000 votes.
Happiness should have come in 2008 as the most liberal Democratic nominee in a generation won the White House. The left however seems to be signing the Rolling Stones' "I can't get no satisfaction..I try and I try...".
First President Obama embarked on a course of using the phrase "inherited this mess" at least ten times before we had finished our morning coffee. Politically, he needs to remind people that things were tough when he got there. I wonder however, if we combed through Lincoln's speeches in 1861 would we find him using the phrase "inherited this mess"? Different times call for different styles of "leadership", I suppose.
Then the President issued a series of high profile executive orders changing Bush policies. That is his prerogative, he won.
Finally, President Obama ignores the advice of his CIA Director (and several past Directors and intelligence leaders) and begins declassifying Bush era memos on interrogation techniques. Then he was against prosecution before he was for it. It is this element of the left's obsession with Bush that is the most dangerous.
Now it looks like we will have the left engaged in investigations, "truth commissions" and efforts to continue to hammer away at George W. Bush for years to come. They just can't quit him.
One thing President Obama should think about during his next conference call with Moveon.Org (a name that is getting real ironic): all Presidents and their staffs leave someday. The business of running, and protecting, the country sometimes is a little unseemly. The Bush era "truth commissions" of today, might be the Obama era truth commissions of 2013 or 2017.
All of this really goes back to the Florida recount in 2000. The left never accepted George W. Bush winning that election. Although recount after recount by their allies in the media ultimately showed that he did, the left still refused to accept that result. As close as it was, maybe that is understandable.
Then George Bush became a wartime President and the left hates the use of military force.
Then George Bush won again in 2004 and the left tried to spin stories of 'stolen" election in Ohio, even though the margin of victory was over 100,000 votes.
Happiness should have come in 2008 as the most liberal Democratic nominee in a generation won the White House. The left however seems to be signing the Rolling Stones' "I can't get no satisfaction..I try and I try...".
First President Obama embarked on a course of using the phrase "inherited this mess" at least ten times before we had finished our morning coffee. Politically, he needs to remind people that things were tough when he got there. I wonder however, if we combed through Lincoln's speeches in 1861 would we find him using the phrase "inherited this mess"? Different times call for different styles of "leadership", I suppose.
Then the President issued a series of high profile executive orders changing Bush policies. That is his prerogative, he won.
Finally, President Obama ignores the advice of his CIA Director (and several past Directors and intelligence leaders) and begins declassifying Bush era memos on interrogation techniques. Then he was against prosecution before he was for it. It is this element of the left's obsession with Bush that is the most dangerous.
Now it looks like we will have the left engaged in investigations, "truth commissions" and efforts to continue to hammer away at George W. Bush for years to come. They just can't quit him.
One thing President Obama should think about during his next conference call with Moveon.Org (a name that is getting real ironic): all Presidents and their staffs leave someday. The business of running, and protecting, the country sometimes is a little unseemly. The Bush era "truth commissions" of today, might be the Obama era truth commissions of 2013 or 2017.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
We're Sorry
President Obama has been on a world tour in recent weeks. He seems to be apologizing to the world and promising a more humble America. While better relations with the rest of the world is not a bad thing, I think the President has been overdoing it. Any day now I expect him to give the following speech:
"My fellow citizens of the world. I come to you tonight on behalf of a more humble America. I mean, we are really humble right now. The stock market is way down. Nobody wants to buy the cars we make and my recent stimulus package means we are going to owe billions and billions more to the rest of the world.
Recently I have traveled the globe and acknowledged American arrogance and promised a new vision of international relations. I am going to be the listening President. Sure sometimes you rail against us and call us the Great Satan, but I want to understand why you think we are the great Satan and to make sure we are still delivering those relief supplies to your country in a timely fashion. Just because you call us names and burn our flag does not mean we should delay the billions in aid we provide every year.
But I digress. First I want to say to our great friend, Great Britain, I am sorry about the whole 1776 thing. It was arrogant for a group of men to think they simply had the right to end a relationship that had lasted for centuries, particularly over something like taxes. It certainly was not humble to declare independence. Who did we think we were?
To Great Britain, Germany and France I want to say I am sorry we intervened, twice in the last century, in your affairs. We should have let you settle your own differences. Sure it sort of seemed lopsided until we got involved, but what gave us the right to intervene other than some vague notion of preventing tyranny? I say no more. Next time you are on your own.
To North Korea I say, cool rocket. How about we just be friends?
To Iran I say, I understand that there are many peaceful uses for plutonium, let us know what you come up with. We respect you.
There are a few other things I would like to apologize for and acknowledge as arrogant.
First, The New York Yankees. 26 world championships? That is just overdoing it. Other teams should have a chance to win and my administration will look into ways to make that happen. Perhaps the Yankees will have to get four outs an inning.
Second, reality television. We are sorry we have asked the world to keep up with the Kardashians or have anything to do with Flava Flav's love life.
Finally, country music, especially those pro-America songs by Toby Keith and Brooks & Dunn. We have no right to impose our pride on everyone else.
I am sure there are more things we do wrong, but these are just a few. I pledge to the world that we will be a more humble nation. We will not try so hard to win at the next Olympics. An Argentinian just won the Masters, so we are making progress. The heavyweight champion is some Russian guy. As Americans, we don't want to stand out, we just want to be part of the crowd."
Do we think that would make the world like us a little better?
"My fellow citizens of the world. I come to you tonight on behalf of a more humble America. I mean, we are really humble right now. The stock market is way down. Nobody wants to buy the cars we make and my recent stimulus package means we are going to owe billions and billions more to the rest of the world.
Recently I have traveled the globe and acknowledged American arrogance and promised a new vision of international relations. I am going to be the listening President. Sure sometimes you rail against us and call us the Great Satan, but I want to understand why you think we are the great Satan and to make sure we are still delivering those relief supplies to your country in a timely fashion. Just because you call us names and burn our flag does not mean we should delay the billions in aid we provide every year.
But I digress. First I want to say to our great friend, Great Britain, I am sorry about the whole 1776 thing. It was arrogant for a group of men to think they simply had the right to end a relationship that had lasted for centuries, particularly over something like taxes. It certainly was not humble to declare independence. Who did we think we were?
To Great Britain, Germany and France I want to say I am sorry we intervened, twice in the last century, in your affairs. We should have let you settle your own differences. Sure it sort of seemed lopsided until we got involved, but what gave us the right to intervene other than some vague notion of preventing tyranny? I say no more. Next time you are on your own.
To North Korea I say, cool rocket. How about we just be friends?
To Iran I say, I understand that there are many peaceful uses for plutonium, let us know what you come up with. We respect you.
There are a few other things I would like to apologize for and acknowledge as arrogant.
First, The New York Yankees. 26 world championships? That is just overdoing it. Other teams should have a chance to win and my administration will look into ways to make that happen. Perhaps the Yankees will have to get four outs an inning.
Second, reality television. We are sorry we have asked the world to keep up with the Kardashians or have anything to do with Flava Flav's love life.
Finally, country music, especially those pro-America songs by Toby Keith and Brooks & Dunn. We have no right to impose our pride on everyone else.
I am sure there are more things we do wrong, but these are just a few. I pledge to the world that we will be a more humble nation. We will not try so hard to win at the next Olympics. An Argentinian just won the Masters, so we are making progress. The heavyweight champion is some Russian guy. As Americans, we don't want to stand out, we just want to be part of the crowd."
Do we think that would make the world like us a little better?
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Just a game
This past week was baseball's opening week, yet there were painful reminders that it is just a game.
The one that received the most attention was the death of pitcher Nick Adenhart. Normally when you hear of an athlete out after midnight and an auto accident, we assume the worst of the athlete. In this case it appears to have been wrong place at the wrong time.
The other incident was the death of a fan at the Angeles home opener. This appears to have been the result of a fistfight. I am going to go out on a limb here and assume there was some alcohol involved.
In their own ways, both of these deaths remind us that it is just a game. Being a rising star cannot protect you from the cruel hand of fate. The results of Adenhart's pitching performance Thursday night are forever lost to the tragedy that followed. It was just a game, what happened later was painfully real for three families.
Every year we read stories of parents getting into fights at Little League games. In some cases there are charges filed, in some instances even worse results. It is just a game.
Fistfights in the stands have become a regular part of sports. In some ways they are even glorified. People dress up in team uniforms, paint their faces, have too much to drink and brawl. It is just a game.
Sports can be a great thing. It can bring families, communities and even countries together to watch an event. We see people do things physically that astound and amaze. We leave our troubles behind for a few hours.
In the end however, it is just a game.
The one that received the most attention was the death of pitcher Nick Adenhart. Normally when you hear of an athlete out after midnight and an auto accident, we assume the worst of the athlete. In this case it appears to have been wrong place at the wrong time.
The other incident was the death of a fan at the Angeles home opener. This appears to have been the result of a fistfight. I am going to go out on a limb here and assume there was some alcohol involved.
In their own ways, both of these deaths remind us that it is just a game. Being a rising star cannot protect you from the cruel hand of fate. The results of Adenhart's pitching performance Thursday night are forever lost to the tragedy that followed. It was just a game, what happened later was painfully real for three families.
Every year we read stories of parents getting into fights at Little League games. In some cases there are charges filed, in some instances even worse results. It is just a game.
Fistfights in the stands have become a regular part of sports. In some ways they are even glorified. People dress up in team uniforms, paint their faces, have too much to drink and brawl. It is just a game.
Sports can be a great thing. It can bring families, communities and even countries together to watch an event. We see people do things physically that astound and amaze. We leave our troubles behind for a few hours.
In the end however, it is just a game.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Fearless Predictions
The time has come to make the predictions for the 2009 season. Of course, by doing it here to be preserved in cyberspace forever, I won't be able to deny them come October. Still, I will forge ahead with my forecasts for the 2009 season.
National league West: The Dodgers. Arizona figures to make it tough and certainly has better pitching, but if their pitching is not what is expected, Arizona could fall fast. The Dodgers seem to have too much talent not to win. The starting rotation and closer spots could be questions, but scoring a lot of runs can paper over pitching problems and I think that is what the Dodgers will do.
National league Central: The Cubs. Who else is in this Division?
National league East: Phillies. It has become fashionable to pick the Mets here because of their rebuilt bullpen, but the world champion Phillies have done nothing to get worse and their core of Howard, Utley and Rollins is just too good. Mix in a legitimate ace like Cole Hamels and I think the Phillies win this division.
National league wild card: Arizona. Sorry New York, I am just not buying the Mets' revival.
American League West: The Angels. Oakland could pull a surprise here, but overall the Angels are still the most talented team in the division.
American League Central: Minnesota. This is a tough one. First, it is a challenge to remember who is in this division. Second, on paper the White Sox should be the best team, but age may be creeping up on them. The Twins have some early injury issues, but they always seem to find a way to be in the hunt in this division.
American league East: The Yankees. I think they have improved their rotation with Sabathia and Burnett and the offense will produce. Tampa Bay may experience some "sophomore jinx" and return to earth. Probably my most controversial thought is that I see Boston having an off year. Some of the Red Sox' core are facing injury and age concerns. I think the Sox end up third in this division.
American league wild card: Oakland. Just an odd hunch.
Who wins it all? With my heart I want to say Manny leads the Dodgers into the Fall Classic. With my head I think the Phillies pull out another National league Championship. In the American League I am going to go with the A's to pull off an improbable playoff run and make it to the World Series.
In a World Series with the nostalgia of the A's returning to their east coast roots in Philadelphia (lots of Connie Mack stories to be told in the buildup), the current occupants of the City of Brotherly Love knock them off in five games.
There it is. Fortunately there is an edit feature on this site, some mid season revisions may be possible. I also hope to know who else is in the National League Central by then.
National league West: The Dodgers. Arizona figures to make it tough and certainly has better pitching, but if their pitching is not what is expected, Arizona could fall fast. The Dodgers seem to have too much talent not to win. The starting rotation and closer spots could be questions, but scoring a lot of runs can paper over pitching problems and I think that is what the Dodgers will do.
National league Central: The Cubs. Who else is in this Division?
National league East: Phillies. It has become fashionable to pick the Mets here because of their rebuilt bullpen, but the world champion Phillies have done nothing to get worse and their core of Howard, Utley and Rollins is just too good. Mix in a legitimate ace like Cole Hamels and I think the Phillies win this division.
National league wild card: Arizona. Sorry New York, I am just not buying the Mets' revival.
American League West: The Angels. Oakland could pull a surprise here, but overall the Angels are still the most talented team in the division.
American League Central: Minnesota. This is a tough one. First, it is a challenge to remember who is in this division. Second, on paper the White Sox should be the best team, but age may be creeping up on them. The Twins have some early injury issues, but they always seem to find a way to be in the hunt in this division.
American league East: The Yankees. I think they have improved their rotation with Sabathia and Burnett and the offense will produce. Tampa Bay may experience some "sophomore jinx" and return to earth. Probably my most controversial thought is that I see Boston having an off year. Some of the Red Sox' core are facing injury and age concerns. I think the Sox end up third in this division.
American league wild card: Oakland. Just an odd hunch.
Who wins it all? With my heart I want to say Manny leads the Dodgers into the Fall Classic. With my head I think the Phillies pull out another National league Championship. In the American League I am going to go with the A's to pull off an improbable playoff run and make it to the World Series.
In a World Series with the nostalgia of the A's returning to their east coast roots in Philadelphia (lots of Connie Mack stories to be told in the buildup), the current occupants of the City of Brotherly Love knock them off in five games.
There it is. Fortunately there is an edit feature on this site, some mid season revisions may be possible. I also hope to know who else is in the National League Central by then.
Monday, March 30, 2009
A Happy Guy
I was watching a spring training game the other night between the Texas Rangers and someone I don't remember (yes, I need a life) when my favorite former Dodger Andrew Jones came to bat.
The Los Angeles Dodgers paid Jones $36 million for three home runs. $12 million per homer. He showed up for spring training last year, after signing the contract, out of shape, promptly got hurt and then did not understand why Dodger fans booed him after every strikeout or double play.
He had a year left to go on the contract, but the Dodgers agreed to pay him the money and let him leave. $18 million, take it and don't let the door hit you on the way out. I wish I could find someone willing to pay me $18 million to leave.
Our intrepid star signed with the Texas Rangers and when he came to bat the other night, the announcers commented on how happy and content he seemed in camp. ($18 million in the bank would seem to breed a lot of contentment). They also commented that he seems perfectly fine with the understanding that he will not be a starter and may not play much (he is satisfied getting paid not to play? what a shock!). These announcers went on and on about what a great fit Andruw Jones seems to be for the Rangers.
Andruw Jones may not be the worst free agent signing in baseball history and possibly not even the worst of the Dodgers (Jason Schmidt has to be in the mix for that). I hope he enjoys his spot on the Texas Rangers' bench. I hope he doesn't have to break a sweat all season and stays content doing just that. Let's just try not to make him out to be a great guy because he seems so content in training camp. In a time when not a lot of people have much to be happy about, especially in terms of jobs and money, Andruw Jones put 18 million reasons for happiness in the bank this winter.
The Los Angeles Dodgers paid Jones $36 million for three home runs. $12 million per homer. He showed up for spring training last year, after signing the contract, out of shape, promptly got hurt and then did not understand why Dodger fans booed him after every strikeout or double play.
He had a year left to go on the contract, but the Dodgers agreed to pay him the money and let him leave. $18 million, take it and don't let the door hit you on the way out. I wish I could find someone willing to pay me $18 million to leave.
Our intrepid star signed with the Texas Rangers and when he came to bat the other night, the announcers commented on how happy and content he seemed in camp. ($18 million in the bank would seem to breed a lot of contentment). They also commented that he seems perfectly fine with the understanding that he will not be a starter and may not play much (he is satisfied getting paid not to play? what a shock!). These announcers went on and on about what a great fit Andruw Jones seems to be for the Rangers.
Andruw Jones may not be the worst free agent signing in baseball history and possibly not even the worst of the Dodgers (Jason Schmidt has to be in the mix for that). I hope he enjoys his spot on the Texas Rangers' bench. I hope he doesn't have to break a sweat all season and stays content doing just that. Let's just try not to make him out to be a great guy because he seems so content in training camp. In a time when not a lot of people have much to be happy about, especially in terms of jobs and money, Andruw Jones put 18 million reasons for happiness in the bank this winter.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A Classic
The World Baseball Classic sort of snuck up on me. I did not think I would pay a lot of attention to it, then I saw an early round game and realized that these were All Star games. The Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and the U.S. were loaded with major league talent. The games were played with a high level of intensity. It certainly was not spring training for these guys.
In the end however, it was the game with very few major leaguers that was really the best. Japan vs. Korea. Sure, there were a few players I recognized. Ichiro has made his mark here in the states.
For the most part however, it was a lot of guys I had never heard of and probably will never see play again, yet the final game was gripping. It was tight throughout. The crowd of over 50,000 at Dodger Stadium was loud through the whole game. Korea tied the game in the 9th inning to send it into extra innings. Japan won in the 10th on a hit by, guess who, Ichiro.
You just don't see games like that in March. Frankly you rarely see games like that in any month other than October. What was great was the joy in the players and the fans. This was truly baseball for love of the game. It may be America's national pastime, but I would be hard pressed to argue that America has more passion for the game than Japan or Korea, at least based on what I saw over the last weekend.
The American team once again did not win. I commend many of the guys for giving up their spring training to be out there. I have a new respect for David Wright who played through an injury, and a potentially serious one at that, for his country. Chipper Jones, for his whining about the format, has gone down a few notches in my esteem.
The World Baseball Classic is a good event. I am looking forward to seeing it again. Bud Selig has done a lot of things wrong, but this event is not one of them.
In the end however, it was the game with very few major leaguers that was really the best. Japan vs. Korea. Sure, there were a few players I recognized. Ichiro has made his mark here in the states.
For the most part however, it was a lot of guys I had never heard of and probably will never see play again, yet the final game was gripping. It was tight throughout. The crowd of over 50,000 at Dodger Stadium was loud through the whole game. Korea tied the game in the 9th inning to send it into extra innings. Japan won in the 10th on a hit by, guess who, Ichiro.
You just don't see games like that in March. Frankly you rarely see games like that in any month other than October. What was great was the joy in the players and the fans. This was truly baseball for love of the game. It may be America's national pastime, but I would be hard pressed to argue that America has more passion for the game than Japan or Korea, at least based on what I saw over the last weekend.
The American team once again did not win. I commend many of the guys for giving up their spring training to be out there. I have a new respect for David Wright who played through an injury, and a potentially serious one at that, for his country. Chipper Jones, for his whining about the format, has gone down a few notches in my esteem.
The World Baseball Classic is a good event. I am looking forward to seeing it again. Bud Selig has done a lot of things wrong, but this event is not one of them.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Pop Culture President
President Obama went on the Tonight Show this week in an effort to connect with pop culture and sell his economic program. The interview went fairly well unless you are a Special Olympian. If the President can otherwise hold his tongue and minimize the shots at those less fortunate than he, he might try to appear on some other popular shows to sell his program.
For instance, how about a guest shot on an episode on "CSI:NY"? The investigative team could be examining the books of a fictional large financial services company to try and figure out where all the bailout money went. The President could show up to briefly encourage the investigators on their quest and pledge that his Treasury Secretary will provide them with any help they need. The scene could get dramatic when one of the characters offhandedly says they are still looking at Secretary Geithner's tax returns.
To keep up his appeal to younger voters, he could drop by "90210". He could speak to an assembly at West Beverly High and explain why all of their parents need to pay more in taxes. There will be an awkward moment in the Q&A portion when one of the characters chastises the President for not supporting Speaker Pelosi's condom distribution program in the stimulus bill (as I understand the show, condoms are something the characters need quite a bit). Still, the President ends up winning sustained applause from the kids at West Beverly.
He could then do a turn on the "Celebrity Apprentice". The Donald could assign each of the teams with the task of designing a plan to stabilize the banking system and the President picks the one he likes best. Somebody will get fired.
I think a cameo on "NCSI" might work to burnish his military credentials. The Navy investigative team could be called to the White House so the President can explain why he is no longer calling our guests at Guantanamo Bay "enemy combatants". While they are there the President can explain why he wants military members to pay for more of their own health care.
Lastly, I think an appearance on the final episode of "ER" is in order. The President could arrive, explain his health care program, heal all of the sick in the hospital leaving the show's characters with nothing to do as the final credits roll.
We now have a President who uses pop culture as no President has before. He can be everywhere and everything. Happy viewing America!
For instance, how about a guest shot on an episode on "CSI:NY"? The investigative team could be examining the books of a fictional large financial services company to try and figure out where all the bailout money went. The President could show up to briefly encourage the investigators on their quest and pledge that his Treasury Secretary will provide them with any help they need. The scene could get dramatic when one of the characters offhandedly says they are still looking at Secretary Geithner's tax returns.
To keep up his appeal to younger voters, he could drop by "90210". He could speak to an assembly at West Beverly High and explain why all of their parents need to pay more in taxes. There will be an awkward moment in the Q&A portion when one of the characters chastises the President for not supporting Speaker Pelosi's condom distribution program in the stimulus bill (as I understand the show, condoms are something the characters need quite a bit). Still, the President ends up winning sustained applause from the kids at West Beverly.
He could then do a turn on the "Celebrity Apprentice". The Donald could assign each of the teams with the task of designing a plan to stabilize the banking system and the President picks the one he likes best. Somebody will get fired.
I think a cameo on "NCSI" might work to burnish his military credentials. The Navy investigative team could be called to the White House so the President can explain why he is no longer calling our guests at Guantanamo Bay "enemy combatants". While they are there the President can explain why he wants military members to pay for more of their own health care.
Lastly, I think an appearance on the final episode of "ER" is in order. The President could arrive, explain his health care program, heal all of the sick in the hospital leaving the show's characters with nothing to do as the final credits roll.
We now have a President who uses pop culture as no President has before. He can be everywhere and everything. Happy viewing America!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Here to help
What can your country do for you? Everything apparently.
A global economic crisis has stressed, and nearly broken, the markets and some would say, the free enterprise system. The people are looking for answers and reassurance. The President has said "we're from the government and we're here to help". Can the government really solve the problem?
Lyndon Johnson launched a war on poverty 40 years ago and we still have poverty. Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education 30 years ago and our nation's educational system still fails many students. Going as far back as Roosevelt, we apparently still haven't gotten electricity to all of rural America, because those agencies are still around.
My definition of solving a problem is 1) identify the problem 2) come up with a solution and 3) implement the solution. After that, the problem should be solved.
For instance, let's say you notice the light is dim in a room of your house. You determine that a bulb in the lamp has burned out. Step one is complete (problem identified). You happen to have a new bulb ready to go and you will replace the burned out bulb. Step two is done (solution). You screw in the new bulb (thus implementing your solution) and the room lights up again (problem solved).
How would the government approach this problem?
First, there would be extensive hearings on whether the issue is really a light bulb being burned out or whether a more comprehensive lighting agenda is required. A task force or commission would be created to report back to the President. Perhaps a light czar would be appointed.
At some point the government might release the study which would conclude that it was shortsighted to merely replace one bulb in the house as eventually new bulbs would be needed throughout. The report would recommend creation of a Cabinet level agency to address the issue. There would be a paragraph in the State of the Union speech.
The head of the new agency would finally be appointed (after the first three choices withdrew because of tax problems) and would announce a goal of lighting the room within ten years.
Legislation would be introduced in Congress. There would be more committee hearings. Senators would appear on the floor of the Senate holding up light bulbs. The final bill would be loaded up with amendments related to other issues. The President would sign the bill and proudly announce that this legislation will light the room.
For another few years however, the lamp will still be dark. Members of Congress will announce that the program was not adequately funded. The agency will get bogged down in procuring the contract. There will be a scandal because the deputy secretary's brother in law owns a light bulb maker and got the contract without competitive bidding. The program will grind to a halt while Congress investigates. We will find out that the infamous brother in law was also a campaign contributor to the President and once attended a fundraiser. A picture of him shaking hands with the President will emerge.
The scandal will eventually die out (by the way, our light bulb still has not been replaced). There will be another Presidential election. The candidates will vow to replace that bulb in their first 100 days. The outgoing President will tout his substantial progress towards replacing the light bulb. The light bulb agency will ask for and receive an 8% increase in its budget. It will order new office furniture and redo the lighting in its offices.
The bulb will still be burned out, but your government is working to solve the problem in our lifetime. Don't worry about a thing.
A global economic crisis has stressed, and nearly broken, the markets and some would say, the free enterprise system. The people are looking for answers and reassurance. The President has said "we're from the government and we're here to help". Can the government really solve the problem?
Lyndon Johnson launched a war on poverty 40 years ago and we still have poverty. Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education 30 years ago and our nation's educational system still fails many students. Going as far back as Roosevelt, we apparently still haven't gotten electricity to all of rural America, because those agencies are still around.
My definition of solving a problem is 1) identify the problem 2) come up with a solution and 3) implement the solution. After that, the problem should be solved.
For instance, let's say you notice the light is dim in a room of your house. You determine that a bulb in the lamp has burned out. Step one is complete (problem identified). You happen to have a new bulb ready to go and you will replace the burned out bulb. Step two is done (solution). You screw in the new bulb (thus implementing your solution) and the room lights up again (problem solved).
How would the government approach this problem?
First, there would be extensive hearings on whether the issue is really a light bulb being burned out or whether a more comprehensive lighting agenda is required. A task force or commission would be created to report back to the President. Perhaps a light czar would be appointed.
At some point the government might release the study which would conclude that it was shortsighted to merely replace one bulb in the house as eventually new bulbs would be needed throughout. The report would recommend creation of a Cabinet level agency to address the issue. There would be a paragraph in the State of the Union speech.
The head of the new agency would finally be appointed (after the first three choices withdrew because of tax problems) and would announce a goal of lighting the room within ten years.
Legislation would be introduced in Congress. There would be more committee hearings. Senators would appear on the floor of the Senate holding up light bulbs. The final bill would be loaded up with amendments related to other issues. The President would sign the bill and proudly announce that this legislation will light the room.
For another few years however, the lamp will still be dark. Members of Congress will announce that the program was not adequately funded. The agency will get bogged down in procuring the contract. There will be a scandal because the deputy secretary's brother in law owns a light bulb maker and got the contract without competitive bidding. The program will grind to a halt while Congress investigates. We will find out that the infamous brother in law was also a campaign contributor to the President and once attended a fundraiser. A picture of him shaking hands with the President will emerge.
The scandal will eventually die out (by the way, our light bulb still has not been replaced). There will be another Presidential election. The candidates will vow to replace that bulb in their first 100 days. The outgoing President will tout his substantial progress towards replacing the light bulb. The light bulb agency will ask for and receive an 8% increase in its budget. It will order new office furniture and redo the lighting in its offices.
The bulb will still be burned out, but your government is working to solve the problem in our lifetime. Don't worry about a thing.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The speech
From time to time I have written about the speeches I would like to hear Barack Obama give. It seems to me that, with the massive stimulus, the bailouts and tax hikes, it is time for another. Here is a "what if he was just brutally honest":
"My fellow Americans. Thank you for tuning in tonight. Thanks to my administration, we corrected one of the many problems we inherited and you are still able to watch me without using one of those converter boxes.
I want to talk to you tonight about the state of our Union. When I ran for this job, I had no idea what a mess things were going to be. Really, I thought Hillary would win and I might get some name recognition, maybe a vice presidential nomination. I wasn't really planning on winning. The house is nice and all, but man what a mess. Did I mention we inherited that mess?
Many of you are scared tonight. Jobs are being lost and we feel like there is little we can do. We don't want to face the reality that people don't want to buy gas guzzling cars made by people getting paid $70 per hour when they can buy a more efficient car, made in America, from a nonunion company for much less. Go figure.
To address these problems I came up with an idea: let's throw a boatload of money at it. Sure Congress stuck some wild things in the bill, but hey, my Democratic friends have had eight years of not getting to spend money on the things they like, so tattoo removal programs made it in there. Maybe studying volcanoes doesn't create jobs, but it's pretty cool. Remember, I grew up in Hawaii, I am a big fan of volcanoes.
Still, it seems like the stock market doesn't like my program. Some say I should cut taxes, try to spur investment and business creation, but I wasn't elected to do that. Clinton did some of that and before he knew it, things were going well and he had time on his hands and you know what happened from there...it is important that a President stay busy working on the problems of America and we have enough to keep me busy for the next four years, and really, probably, for the next eight.
Did I mention I inherited this mess?
Some have criticized me for my negative tone, saying it is not inspiring hope. Do you think I like the fact that whenever I open my mouth the Dow seems to drop another 150? If I could say something that would drive the market up I would, but remember the market was already way down when I took office. I inherited this, remember?
Many don't like my plan to help people with their mortgages. I identify with people having trouble making the mortgage. Maybe they reached a little bit, tried to get the big house, said some things they thought people wanted to hear so they could get the house and then, one day, they find out they won, they got the big house and all that goes with it. They moved in, got the kids a puppy, had Oprah, I mean their friends, over. It was all good. After awhile however, they start feeling stretched a little thin. It's tough to keep up. Before you know it, you are behind on the payments and not sure what to do next. I get it.
So my fellow Americans, I am frustrated just like you. I don't really know where we are going next. This economy is something that I have never seen and I don't have all the answers. Pelosi really doesn't either. We are just shooting from the hip, hoping something works. Each night as I return to the residence, I pass the portrait of Jimmy Carter, you don't think that sends chills down my spine?
So tomorrow we'll try something else. Something has got to work. I know it, we're Americans, something will work."
It might not boost the nation's confidence, but it would be honest. Maybe we need some of that right now.
"My fellow Americans. Thank you for tuning in tonight. Thanks to my administration, we corrected one of the many problems we inherited and you are still able to watch me without using one of those converter boxes.
I want to talk to you tonight about the state of our Union. When I ran for this job, I had no idea what a mess things were going to be. Really, I thought Hillary would win and I might get some name recognition, maybe a vice presidential nomination. I wasn't really planning on winning. The house is nice and all, but man what a mess. Did I mention we inherited that mess?
Many of you are scared tonight. Jobs are being lost and we feel like there is little we can do. We don't want to face the reality that people don't want to buy gas guzzling cars made by people getting paid $70 per hour when they can buy a more efficient car, made in America, from a nonunion company for much less. Go figure.
To address these problems I came up with an idea: let's throw a boatload of money at it. Sure Congress stuck some wild things in the bill, but hey, my Democratic friends have had eight years of not getting to spend money on the things they like, so tattoo removal programs made it in there. Maybe studying volcanoes doesn't create jobs, but it's pretty cool. Remember, I grew up in Hawaii, I am a big fan of volcanoes.
Still, it seems like the stock market doesn't like my program. Some say I should cut taxes, try to spur investment and business creation, but I wasn't elected to do that. Clinton did some of that and before he knew it, things were going well and he had time on his hands and you know what happened from there...it is important that a President stay busy working on the problems of America and we have enough to keep me busy for the next four years, and really, probably, for the next eight.
Did I mention I inherited this mess?
Some have criticized me for my negative tone, saying it is not inspiring hope. Do you think I like the fact that whenever I open my mouth the Dow seems to drop another 150? If I could say something that would drive the market up I would, but remember the market was already way down when I took office. I inherited this, remember?
Many don't like my plan to help people with their mortgages. I identify with people having trouble making the mortgage. Maybe they reached a little bit, tried to get the big house, said some things they thought people wanted to hear so they could get the house and then, one day, they find out they won, they got the big house and all that goes with it. They moved in, got the kids a puppy, had Oprah, I mean their friends, over. It was all good. After awhile however, they start feeling stretched a little thin. It's tough to keep up. Before you know it, you are behind on the payments and not sure what to do next. I get it.
So my fellow Americans, I am frustrated just like you. I don't really know where we are going next. This economy is something that I have never seen and I don't have all the answers. Pelosi really doesn't either. We are just shooting from the hip, hoping something works. Each night as I return to the residence, I pass the portrait of Jimmy Carter, you don't think that sends chills down my spine?
So tomorrow we'll try something else. Something has got to work. I know it, we're Americans, something will work."
It might not boost the nation's confidence, but it would be honest. Maybe we need some of that right now.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Making Up is Hard to Do
Manny is back in LA. Manny Ramirez broke down and took the Dodgers $45 million offer. he had been hoping for a $100 million contract, but times are tough. All of you who are feeling bad about your 401K, think how this economy cost Manny. $60 million? Ouch.
I suspect however, that he will be able to pay for the groceries. The contract also lets him opt out and become a free agent again next year, so Dodger fans get to look forward to this dance all over again.
This has to be one of the strangest episodes in free agent history. Manny Ramirez can clearly mash. He is a .320 type hitter who will hit 40 home runs and drive in 120 runs. Who would not want someone like that?
Well, everyone apparently. No offers from any other teams. The Yankees, who you would think would love to get the ex-Red Sox star in pinstripes passed. The Angels, trying to compete with, and even surpass, the Dodgers in Southern California, passed. The Giants, who would love to tweak the Dodgers and recently cut ties with one of baseball's epic sluggers, said no thanks. Maybe the already auctioned off Barry Bonds' lounge chair.
You really have to work hard to be one of baseball's greatest sluggers and be so unwanted. You even electrify a new city and they make a "take it or leave it" offer. A week into spring training and no job? Wow.
So Manny is back with the Dodgers. The opt out provision should motivate him with dreams of landing that $100 million deal next winter. I am not so sure it will be there even then. Manny may hit .320, with 40 home runs and 120 RBIs for the Dodgers this year, but Manny is still Manny and teams will shy away. The winter of 2009-2010 may seem a little like "Groundhog Day".
Until then however, I am glad he'll be in the middle of the Dodgers' lineup. Welcome back Manny.
I suspect however, that he will be able to pay for the groceries. The contract also lets him opt out and become a free agent again next year, so Dodger fans get to look forward to this dance all over again.
This has to be one of the strangest episodes in free agent history. Manny Ramirez can clearly mash. He is a .320 type hitter who will hit 40 home runs and drive in 120 runs. Who would not want someone like that?
Well, everyone apparently. No offers from any other teams. The Yankees, who you would think would love to get the ex-Red Sox star in pinstripes passed. The Angels, trying to compete with, and even surpass, the Dodgers in Southern California, passed. The Giants, who would love to tweak the Dodgers and recently cut ties with one of baseball's epic sluggers, said no thanks. Maybe the already auctioned off Barry Bonds' lounge chair.
You really have to work hard to be one of baseball's greatest sluggers and be so unwanted. You even electrify a new city and they make a "take it or leave it" offer. A week into spring training and no job? Wow.
So Manny is back with the Dodgers. The opt out provision should motivate him with dreams of landing that $100 million deal next winter. I am not so sure it will be there even then. Manny may hit .320, with 40 home runs and 120 RBIs for the Dodgers this year, but Manny is still Manny and teams will shy away. The winter of 2009-2010 may seem a little like "Groundhog Day".
Until then however, I am glad he'll be in the middle of the Dodgers' lineup. Welcome back Manny.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Facing the Judges
President Obama's big speech to Congress bumped American Idol back a night. I am not sure that is the way to win over the American voters (Idol viewers do vote!). To fill the void, I wondered what the four judges might say to the President once the speech was over. (Disclaimer: I am not trying to ascribe any political views to the four judges, I have no idea where they stand.)
Randy: That was the bomb! You had the dog pound jumping up and down, I thought Nancy was going to break a hip back there. I loved it. The riffs about clean energy and health care, I wasn't sure if you could keep it all together, but you did. I want to see more, yeah! Yeah!
Kara: Actually it was a bit of a letdown for me. I remember when we first saw you back in Iowa and New Hampshire and you were all about hope and change and "yes we can". It just seems like you haven't quite gotten that back. It wasn't bad, but I was hoping for a little more of that guy we loved so much back in the auditions.
Paula: You're just the best. You're just wonderful. You brought tears to me eyes. Just, oh I am too overcome with emotion...you're the best.
Simon: It wasn't memorable. If you are going to do Roosevelt, Kennedy or Reagan, you have got to really make it memorable and I don't know that you did. Health care, the environment, education, we have heard all of this. The red tie and the blue suit, so predictable. You needed to do something to really make you stand out and show us what kind of President you are going to be and I don't think you did that tonight. Sorry.
So that is how I think last night would have played out with the Judges.
A couple of my own observations. First, Nancy Pelosi needs to calm down. She looked like a jack in the box back there jumping up and down. At least let the man finish a sentence before leaping to your feet to applaud.
Second, the U.S. Congress is really old. Not that I have anything against older Americans, I am rapidly becoming one of them, but that Congress looked ancient. The speech looked a little like the high school "what should we do about America" essay winner speaking to the local senior citizens' center.
Finally, and this is a big one: some members of Congress got into a seat at 8:30 in the morning so they could be right on the aisle and shake the President's hand when he came down at nine o'clock that night. We have members of Congress who can devote 13 hours to sitting in a chair so they get a two second handshake and a picture? Congress has become like teenagers hoping to get a glimpse of the Jonas Brothers. I am so glad they are in charge of our future.
The speech was big and the promises were bigger. There was a little more determination and optimism than we have previously seen, but as I write the markets are not jumping for joy. I think the President is determined, but looking at the Congress, I am afraid they are planning business as usual (please Speaker Pelosi, sit down, that was not meant to be an applause line!).
Randy: That was the bomb! You had the dog pound jumping up and down, I thought Nancy was going to break a hip back there. I loved it. The riffs about clean energy and health care, I wasn't sure if you could keep it all together, but you did. I want to see more, yeah! Yeah!
Kara: Actually it was a bit of a letdown for me. I remember when we first saw you back in Iowa and New Hampshire and you were all about hope and change and "yes we can". It just seems like you haven't quite gotten that back. It wasn't bad, but I was hoping for a little more of that guy we loved so much back in the auditions.
Paula: You're just the best. You're just wonderful. You brought tears to me eyes. Just, oh I am too overcome with emotion...you're the best.
Simon: It wasn't memorable. If you are going to do Roosevelt, Kennedy or Reagan, you have got to really make it memorable and I don't know that you did. Health care, the environment, education, we have heard all of this. The red tie and the blue suit, so predictable. You needed to do something to really make you stand out and show us what kind of President you are going to be and I don't think you did that tonight. Sorry.
So that is how I think last night would have played out with the Judges.
A couple of my own observations. First, Nancy Pelosi needs to calm down. She looked like a jack in the box back there jumping up and down. At least let the man finish a sentence before leaping to your feet to applaud.
Second, the U.S. Congress is really old. Not that I have anything against older Americans, I am rapidly becoming one of them, but that Congress looked ancient. The speech looked a little like the high school "what should we do about America" essay winner speaking to the local senior citizens' center.
Finally, and this is a big one: some members of Congress got into a seat at 8:30 in the morning so they could be right on the aisle and shake the President's hand when he came down at nine o'clock that night. We have members of Congress who can devote 13 hours to sitting in a chair so they get a two second handshake and a picture? Congress has become like teenagers hoping to get a glimpse of the Jonas Brothers. I am so glad they are in charge of our future.
The speech was big and the promises were bigger. There was a little more determination and optimism than we have previously seen, but as I write the markets are not jumping for joy. I think the President is determined, but looking at the Congress, I am afraid they are planning business as usual (please Speaker Pelosi, sit down, that was not meant to be an applause line!).
Monday, February 23, 2009
Spring is Here
Pitchers and catchers reported last week and position players are coming into camp now. Spring training has begun.
Spring training is the time of year when every team is in the same spot in the standings and has an equal chance to win the pennant. Once we get about a week into the regular season, Pittsburgh and Kansas City are out. By May 1, about 10 teams are effectively eliminated. That's why the first days of spring are so much fun.
Often, it is the first time we see new players in their new uniforms. Yes, the Yankees had a size that fit C.C. Sabathia.
Still, we hear some familiar story lines: Boston's J.D. Drew is already nursing an injury.
We usually find out a few young players falsified documents and aren't really so young. The Department of Homeland Security is helping clean up baseball!
Spring training usually brings speculation as to which managers are going to be fired early in the season. Imagine going to your job just after New Years and the whole company is e-mailing about whether you will make it to Valentine's Day.
This year, there are a few notable absences from Spring training. Manny Ramirez still does not have a contract. It seems ever more likely that he is going back to the Dodgers. His only other option may be joining Joaquin Phoenix's' hip hop band. The problem is the Dodgers, at first, seemed up for two more years of Manny, now their tolerance and payroll will only support one. Ouch.
Also absent is Barry Bonds. Yes, he was absent last year but he has not officially retired. He does have that little legal matter in federal court, so his spring may be spoken for. Frankly, playing on the prison softball team seems more likely than his being in a major league lineup.
Perhaps one of the most surprising absences is Mike Mussina. In this day and age, when winning nine to twelve games commands an $8-10 million dollar salary for a starting pitcher, Mussina won twenty last year. Then he retired. He walked away from $20-$30 million dollars. Too many players hang on too long, but not Mussina...something to think about Pedro Martinez?
The spring is fun because all of the young players are in camp. The Dodgers and Angels of three or four years from now put on the major league uniform (usually wearing a number like 87 on their jersey) and play with the big guys. It is a tantalizing glimpse of what will be.
Spring training has arrived. Forget about the contracts, the arbitration hearings, the grand jury hearings, the congressional hearings (is it me or is baseball involved in a lot of hearings these days?) and, as our beloved Dodger announcer Vin Scully says "pull up a chair" and let's see what the 2009 season might bring.
Spring training is the time of year when every team is in the same spot in the standings and has an equal chance to win the pennant. Once we get about a week into the regular season, Pittsburgh and Kansas City are out. By May 1, about 10 teams are effectively eliminated. That's why the first days of spring are so much fun.
Often, it is the first time we see new players in their new uniforms. Yes, the Yankees had a size that fit C.C. Sabathia.
Still, we hear some familiar story lines: Boston's J.D. Drew is already nursing an injury.
We usually find out a few young players falsified documents and aren't really so young. The Department of Homeland Security is helping clean up baseball!
Spring training usually brings speculation as to which managers are going to be fired early in the season. Imagine going to your job just after New Years and the whole company is e-mailing about whether you will make it to Valentine's Day.
This year, there are a few notable absences from Spring training. Manny Ramirez still does not have a contract. It seems ever more likely that he is going back to the Dodgers. His only other option may be joining Joaquin Phoenix's' hip hop band. The problem is the Dodgers, at first, seemed up for two more years of Manny, now their tolerance and payroll will only support one. Ouch.
Also absent is Barry Bonds. Yes, he was absent last year but he has not officially retired. He does have that little legal matter in federal court, so his spring may be spoken for. Frankly, playing on the prison softball team seems more likely than his being in a major league lineup.
Perhaps one of the most surprising absences is Mike Mussina. In this day and age, when winning nine to twelve games commands an $8-10 million dollar salary for a starting pitcher, Mussina won twenty last year. Then he retired. He walked away from $20-$30 million dollars. Too many players hang on too long, but not Mussina...something to think about Pedro Martinez?
The spring is fun because all of the young players are in camp. The Dodgers and Angels of three or four years from now put on the major league uniform (usually wearing a number like 87 on their jersey) and play with the big guys. It is a tantalizing glimpse of what will be.
Spring training has arrived. Forget about the contracts, the arbitration hearings, the grand jury hearings, the congressional hearings (is it me or is baseball involved in a lot of hearings these days?) and, as our beloved Dodger announcer Vin Scully says "pull up a chair" and let's see what the 2009 season might bring.
Monday, February 16, 2009
President's Day
Today was President's Day. When I was a kid February included Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday. Now, having added more national, state and local holidays to the calendar, we are forced to roll the celebration of the two greatest Presidents into a day to recognize all 44 chief executives.
Hey liberals: today is a day to honor George W. Bush. Bet that ticks you off.
Not so fast with the chuckle Republicans, it is also Jimmy Carter's big day.
Today we celebrate Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover and, yes, Richard Nixon. In politics they talk about riding the coattails of a more popular President. On President's Day a bunch of them ride Washington and Lincoln's coattails.
What makes a great President? To me it is someone who changes the thinking of the body politic. Washington created the institution and changed the notion of an infallible, appointed for life, chief executive or monarch, to an elected official answerable to the people who still must, at some point, give up power.
Lincoln changed the thinking that the Union could somehow exists with two sets of rules for basic human rights. The nation, and in some sense the world, was never the same.
In the 20th Century Franklin Roosevelt persuaded the electorate that the government could and should be the engine for driving the economy and providing a social safety net. The nation's view of the role of government continues to be debated even as recently as last week.
Ronald Reagan changed the idea that the Cold War had to continue with a series of concessions and accommodations to the Soviet Union. The United States emerged as the lone global superpower, a role that we have struggled with ever since.
These four Presidents dramatically changed the thinking and conventional wisdom of their times.
Other Presidents have left indelible impressions, even if not as significant. Teddy Roosevelt created the President and his family as a personalies to be reported on by the press. Nixon reminded us the election to the nation's highest office can occur in spite of deep personal demons. Clinton forced a national conversation on what the definition of "is" is. Clinton also got us talking about a few other definitions, but that is a topic for a later day.
Some were not there long enough for us to fully assess. William Henry Harrison only had a month. John F. Kennedy served a mere thousand days. Gerald Ford was not elected and did not serve a full term.
Others we appreciated more after they left. History has been kinder to Harry Truman than his time in office was. Eisenhower has been shown to be much more shrewd than was thought at the time. John Quincy Adams fought slavery in the House of Representatives for many years after he left the White House.
While I would still like the second holiday back this month, it is good to pause, remember and thank the 44 who have served in the nation's highest office. Yes, that means W and Jimmy too.
Hey liberals: today is a day to honor George W. Bush. Bet that ticks you off.
Not so fast with the chuckle Republicans, it is also Jimmy Carter's big day.
Today we celebrate Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover and, yes, Richard Nixon. In politics they talk about riding the coattails of a more popular President. On President's Day a bunch of them ride Washington and Lincoln's coattails.
What makes a great President? To me it is someone who changes the thinking of the body politic. Washington created the institution and changed the notion of an infallible, appointed for life, chief executive or monarch, to an elected official answerable to the people who still must, at some point, give up power.
Lincoln changed the thinking that the Union could somehow exists with two sets of rules for basic human rights. The nation, and in some sense the world, was never the same.
In the 20th Century Franklin Roosevelt persuaded the electorate that the government could and should be the engine for driving the economy and providing a social safety net. The nation's view of the role of government continues to be debated even as recently as last week.
Ronald Reagan changed the idea that the Cold War had to continue with a series of concessions and accommodations to the Soviet Union. The United States emerged as the lone global superpower, a role that we have struggled with ever since.
These four Presidents dramatically changed the thinking and conventional wisdom of their times.
Other Presidents have left indelible impressions, even if not as significant. Teddy Roosevelt created the President and his family as a personalies to be reported on by the press. Nixon reminded us the election to the nation's highest office can occur in spite of deep personal demons. Clinton forced a national conversation on what the definition of "is" is. Clinton also got us talking about a few other definitions, but that is a topic for a later day.
Some were not there long enough for us to fully assess. William Henry Harrison only had a month. John F. Kennedy served a mere thousand days. Gerald Ford was not elected and did not serve a full term.
Others we appreciated more after they left. History has been kinder to Harry Truman than his time in office was. Eisenhower has been shown to be much more shrewd than was thought at the time. John Quincy Adams fought slavery in the House of Representatives for many years after he left the White House.
While I would still like the second holiday back this month, it is good to pause, remember and thank the 44 who have served in the nation's highest office. Yes, that means W and Jimmy too.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Enhanced Performance
No, this is not an ad for some new men's product!
Yesterday baseball, with spring training about to start, was greeted with Alex Rodriguez' admission that he used steroids as recently as 2003. Lest you think he had an attack of conscience, reports were all over the media that a list of failed steroid tests included Rodriguez' name (as well as 103 other names). So while I am glad he admitted it and saved us countless stories and exposes which would lead more strained denials, I do not think A-Rod grabbed the moral high ground here.
What he did was make a very calculated and practical decision. Get it out, take the public relations hit and try to move on. He does not have to go to bat tonight in a stadium full of people holding up "A-Fraud" signs or throwing syringes on the field. He will report to spring training in a couple of weeks, no doubt have another few days of questions then state that he just wants to "focus on the coming season and getting the Yankees back to the World Series". If all goes well, by Opening Day everyone has moved on.
Miguel Tejada was kind enough to help out today. Apparently he is going to plead guilt to lying to Congress (I love the irony that lying to Congress is a crime, but lying while in Congress...oh well). Rodriguez had the good fortune never to testify before Congress.
The real question is: what does it mean for baseball? We now have the games greatest home run hitter (although he continues to deny), the greatest pitcher of the past twenty years (although he continues to deny) and arguably the best all around player of the past decade or, so under the cloud of steroids.
In the 1990s the numbers were inflated. I maintain that expansion and the building of bandbox ballparks still contributed to that. Approximately 40 pitchers were on major league rosters who would not have been ten years earlier. Lesser quality pitchers in smaller ballparks are going to produce more home runs.
Steroids are harder to quantify. Were the players who used bigger and stronger? Yes. Is hitting a baseball (or pitching one for that matter) entirely reliant on strength? No. A player must have great eye hand coordination, be able to generate bat speed and be able to make a decision to swing within hundredths of a second. I do not believe steroids impact any of those skills.
That said, the real problem to me is the lack of truth. What is emerging is a story of an era in baseball where the fans were not told the truth. We were first told there was no problem. Then we were told that suspected users were not using. Bit by bit baseball's big lie emerges. The 1998 McGwire-Sosa home run derby now feels more like a movie we saw than something we experienced. Yes it was entertaining, but was it a put on? Maybe pitchers grooved pitches to these guys to help the game. Seems far fetched, but so did a lot of things ten years ago.
No, I don't believe baseball in the 1990s and early 2000s was a screenplay played out on large stages with the results pre-determined, but I don't know what it was I saw in those years. I think it is a shame that Maris, Aaron and others are now lower on the list of "all time" records. We know they were real. Henry Aaron had to overcome incredible odds, racial prejudice. and death threats. Alex Rodriguez tells us he had to overcome the burden of a $25 million a year contract. Sorry Alex, that does not work.
Sometimes when your computer is giving you trouble you can "restore the system" back to an earlier point in time. I wish baseball had that function right now. If it did, and if I got to pick, it would be right before Tommy Lasorda elected to pitch to Jack Clark in the 1985 playoffs. First base was open, walk him!
It felt good to talk about baseball for a moment.
Yesterday baseball, with spring training about to start, was greeted with Alex Rodriguez' admission that he used steroids as recently as 2003. Lest you think he had an attack of conscience, reports were all over the media that a list of failed steroid tests included Rodriguez' name (as well as 103 other names). So while I am glad he admitted it and saved us countless stories and exposes which would lead more strained denials, I do not think A-Rod grabbed the moral high ground here.
What he did was make a very calculated and practical decision. Get it out, take the public relations hit and try to move on. He does not have to go to bat tonight in a stadium full of people holding up "A-Fraud" signs or throwing syringes on the field. He will report to spring training in a couple of weeks, no doubt have another few days of questions then state that he just wants to "focus on the coming season and getting the Yankees back to the World Series". If all goes well, by Opening Day everyone has moved on.
Miguel Tejada was kind enough to help out today. Apparently he is going to plead guilt to lying to Congress (I love the irony that lying to Congress is a crime, but lying while in Congress...oh well). Rodriguez had the good fortune never to testify before Congress.
The real question is: what does it mean for baseball? We now have the games greatest home run hitter (although he continues to deny), the greatest pitcher of the past twenty years (although he continues to deny) and arguably the best all around player of the past decade or, so under the cloud of steroids.
In the 1990s the numbers were inflated. I maintain that expansion and the building of bandbox ballparks still contributed to that. Approximately 40 pitchers were on major league rosters who would not have been ten years earlier. Lesser quality pitchers in smaller ballparks are going to produce more home runs.
Steroids are harder to quantify. Were the players who used bigger and stronger? Yes. Is hitting a baseball (or pitching one for that matter) entirely reliant on strength? No. A player must have great eye hand coordination, be able to generate bat speed and be able to make a decision to swing within hundredths of a second. I do not believe steroids impact any of those skills.
That said, the real problem to me is the lack of truth. What is emerging is a story of an era in baseball where the fans were not told the truth. We were first told there was no problem. Then we were told that suspected users were not using. Bit by bit baseball's big lie emerges. The 1998 McGwire-Sosa home run derby now feels more like a movie we saw than something we experienced. Yes it was entertaining, but was it a put on? Maybe pitchers grooved pitches to these guys to help the game. Seems far fetched, but so did a lot of things ten years ago.
No, I don't believe baseball in the 1990s and early 2000s was a screenplay played out on large stages with the results pre-determined, but I don't know what it was I saw in those years. I think it is a shame that Maris, Aaron and others are now lower on the list of "all time" records. We know they were real. Henry Aaron had to overcome incredible odds, racial prejudice. and death threats. Alex Rodriguez tells us he had to overcome the burden of a $25 million a year contract. Sorry Alex, that does not work.
Sometimes when your computer is giving you trouble you can "restore the system" back to an earlier point in time. I wish baseball had that function right now. If it did, and if I got to pick, it would be right before Tommy Lasorda elected to pitch to Jack Clark in the 1985 playoffs. First base was open, walk him!
It felt good to talk about baseball for a moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)