Playoff Time

With all the politics, debates and bailouts of the last week, it has been easy to forget the really important event of this week: the start of October baseball.
In the National League we have the Dodgers vs. the Cubs and the Phillies squaring off with the Brewers. Over in the American League it is the Angels vs. the Red Sox and the White Sox vs the Rays (can't call them the Devil Rays). The Yankees play the...oh, wait, that's right, they missed the playoffs this year.
My Dodgers take on the nation's sentimental favorite: the Cubs. Yes, it has been 100 years since they last won the World Series. Yes, Wrigley field is a venerable old ballpark and it would be great to see a World Series played there, but enough already. Why do I have to be sentimental about a team that has been losing for 100 years? If they lose this year I suppose Congress will step in with a bailout (again, my effort to mix the topics of this blog). The Cubs have just been bad for 100 years, that's not my problem.
My problem is that they have been pretty good this year. Best record in the National League. Solid pitching. Home field advantage. The Dodgers played lights out in September, but the fact remains they got there with 85 wins, mostly due to the collapse of everyone else in the National League West. I have to pick the Cubs here.
The Brewers represent another strange journey to the playoffs. The midseason pick up of C.C. Sabathia was dramatic in its effect. More intriguing was the decision to fire their manager two weeks before the end of the season. That seemed insane, but it paid off.
The Phillies however seem to have every National League MVP of the last 10 years on their infield. I have to pick them to take out the Brewers.
In the American League we have the Angels, who clinched the division in the third week of April. They have played remarkably well for a team that has not played a meaningful game in months. Still, it is hard to flip the switch and Boston seems to have their number in October. This is not the same Boston team however. Manny is gone and David Ortiz has not had a huge year. This time I think the Angels get by.
The White Sox clinched two days after the end of the season. The best part of that is more Ozzie Guillen interviews. They are facing the renamed Rays (change your team name and start winning? The Royals might want to consider that). The Rays boast great young talent that will challenge in the East for several years, or at least until their players can become free agents and the Yankees and Red Sox sign them. The White Sox won a world series three years ago and have been here before, and the Rays have not, so I am picking the White Sox.
I am going to defer analyzing the League Championship Series because if my picks are wrong, do you really care about my predictions for a series that is not going to happen?
After 6 months, 162 games and some big trades, the postseason is finally here. It's October so let's get ready for some baseball.

Debate Round One

This was one of the strangest weeks ever in American politics. We have the financial markets melting down and the government stepping in. A presidential nominee suspends his campaign to return to Washington. Both candidates wind up sitting at the same table at a White House meeting with the current President (although it took a wide angle lens to get all three of them in the same picture!).
There was a debate Friday night that was in doubt until Friday afternoon. If you love political theatre, this was your week.
As to the debate, nothing earth shattering occurred. I think McCain was well prepared, forceful and knowledgeable. He certainly knows the world and all of the players on the world stage. He showed that we would be getting a President who will not need to learn the ins and outs of foreign policy, but will be ready to go to work on January 20.
Obama was sharp in his critique of the mistakes in Iraq and the need to focus on Afghanistan. He does not appear that he and McCain really disagree much here, so I do not see how much ground he gained.
I think it was effective when, in response to McCain's talking up the surge in Iraq and criticizing Obama's opposition to it Obama suggested that McCain talks like the war began in 2007.
McCain missed an opening on the discussion of Iran. Obama has said he would meet with the President of Iran without pre-conditions. He backs away from that now, but he said it. McCain pointed out that Iran's leader has sworn the destruction of Israel (as well as a few other choice comments about Israel). Here was the opening: Obama has refused to say that an attack on Iran against Israel would bring retaliation from the U.S. Obama should be put on the spot on this and asked whether he would intervene on Israel's behalf or not.
Although the pundits seem to feel Obama won the discussion on the economy, I thought McCain was effective. He was actually able to identify spending that would be cut and/or frozen, Obama could not. McCain hit Obama hard on earmarks and Obama really had no response. His answer that he has stopped asking for earmarks was countered by McCain pointing out that he only did so after he started running for President.
I did feel McCain was borderline condescending at times. His campaign is trying to establish his experience versus Obama's lack thereof, but the "Senator Obama does not understand..." opening to many questions grew tiresome. I think McCain can remind people that his has been part of the Vietnam war, the Cold War, the first Gulf War and other momentous word events over the past 30 years and that gives him a range of understanding and experience. It is not what Obama understands or does not understand, Obama is a bright man, it is just that McCain understands it better. An example: it was effective when McCain described his personal travels to Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and the understanding of the region and personalities that he has derived from that. Obama had no answer for that type of experience. McCain runs the risk of looking small when he appears condescending towards Obama. I suggest he leave that at home for the next debate.
If you woke up Friday morning and were for McCain, or Obama, you probably have not changed as you wake up this morning. If you still do not know, there is some time, two debates. and a lot more political theatre. before Election Day.

Could it be?

The Dodgers are up by three with five to go, could they really do it?
Last year they collapsed in the last two weeks of the season, so I still have this nagging feeling. The odds however, are getting better and better.
Last night Chad Billingsley won his 16th game. It has been a breakout year for him. What I love is that Billingsley is a product of the old Dodger way. He came up through the organization, got his feet wet in the majors with some spot starts and relief appearances, then settled in to the rotation and has become a permanent fixture. Back in the 80s (it is really hard for me to refer to the years of my youth as "back in...") Orel Hershiser came along the same way.
Billingsley has the look of a guy that will be here for the next 10 years. He is big and sturdy and should not break down. The Dodgers deserve credit for being patient with him as he developed. All too often teams (including the Dodgers) panic when their young players do not produce big numbers on the day they arrive in the majors.
Some of that is probably due to money. When you pay an eighteen year old 2 or 3 million dollars right after the draft, you want a quick return when they reach the majors 3 years later. In some cases that works out, but in others it may take time. All of us hit bumps in the road early in our careers, we just were not given a seven figure paycheck before we ever started.
Billingsley however,looks like he has arrived. Coming right behind him is Clayton Kershaw. The two of them could form a homegrown 1-2, lefty-righty combination that the Dodgers have not seen since a couple of kids named Koufax and Drysdale came along. That may be an over the top comparison, but if you told me a year ago Joe Torre would be managing the Dodgers and Manny Ramirez would be batting fourth and the division title would be in reach...well. anything can happen in baseball.

Is it that hard to understand?

There has been lots of talk the last few days about finances, budgets and the markets. Wall Street melted down, then rose again. Here in California we had a budget 80 days late, then the Governor was going to veto it, then he didn't.
What seems to run through all of these issues is how little common sense has applied to financial matters in both the public and private sector.
Let's start with the private sector. I don't pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of the mortgage crisis. What seems clear however is a lot of people borrowed more money than they could ever pay back and a lot of banks lent money to people they should have known were not going to be able to pay them back.
If you are a borrower, does it really make sense to believe you can afford a loan for ten times your annual income? Sure the payments were low at first, but the reckoning was in the fine print. If it sounds too good to be true: it is.
If you are a lender, what are you thinking? When the rate adjusts the payments are going to be equal to the borrower's monthly income. How will they sustain that?
Where was the common sense in all of this: you do not borrow for more than you can afford.
Well, maybe they got the idea from the government. We hear a lot about deficits. California has a whopper: approximately $15 billion. Our government has funded programs, projects, and agencies without ever asking: can we afford it? Once a program, project or agency is opened, it seems as though it can never be stopped. We simply reduce the amount of the increase in spending every year. Wanting to cut a program means you favor reducing its growth to 5% rather than 10%.
Then they wake up one day and the money to support the spending isn't there. Sound familiar?
It seems so simple: if you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you are still behind, cut back more. We don't need to form committees, commissions or panels to figure this out, we just need to use common sense.

Back to Baseball and Manny

When last I wrote of the Dodgers they were fading fast, now the lead the division by 4 1/2 games at the beginning of play today (they lost today so that may have changed).
What happened? Well, it helps when your rival loses six in a row and otherwise goes into the tank, but the Dodgers have kicked it in to high gear.
This year will be remembered as "The Year of Manny". Actually it is a little less than half a year, but what a time it has been. Manny Ramirez has completely turned things around for the Dodgers. His bat in the middle of the lineup changes the way pitchers approach the Dodgers. It impacts the pitches seen by the guys batting in front of and behind him.
You stop what you are doing to watch his at bats.
What is more fun however is Manny the character. He wears his hair way too long. He selected a bizarre uniform number. Any ball hit towards him in left field is an adventure. Yet, he always seems to have a smile on his face and be enjoying himself.
As professional sports has gone more and more "corporate", Manny is a breath of fresh air. Yes, he cares a lot about the money, but he admits it. Yet, he is not the cold, efficient type a la Alex Rodriguez. He does not appear to be the standoffish type like Barry Bonds. He just seems to show up, play and have fun.
Make no mistake though, he is deadly serious with a bat in his hands. Watch him work a count and then hit a two strike pitch over the right field wall. It is as if he got the pitcher exactly where he wanted him with the two strike count instead of vice versa. The man knows what he is doing. It is obvious he studies, learns and takes advantage. He is a true pro.
Will Manny take the Dodgers to the World Series? We'll see. Will he be a Dodger in 2009? Who knows. For two months however, he has given us plenty of thrills. Thanks Manny, it's fun.

9/11

Seven years has gone by like the blink of an eye, still it seems like yesterday. They don't show the planes hitting the towers on TV anymore, but we remember.
Today is a day to remember. On that day we saw the worst the world has to offer and the best America has to offer. People giving their lives to help others. Incredible bravery. We remember.
I can remember going to bed that night wondering what would happen the next day. I still look at airplanes and think of the horror that must have existed inside as those planes became flying missiles, yet people were calm enough to call loved ones. I dropped my son off at school today and thought of the school field trip aboard one of the flights. I sit at my desk and think of the workers in the office towers sitting at theirs that morning. Yes, we remember.
There were the passengers of Flight 93 who took it upon themselves to save the U.S. Capitol building and crash the plane in a field. We remember.
Firefighters rushed into burning buildings and helped people come out, but many of them did not. We remember. Police officers and soldiers trying to save lives before their own life was lost. We remember.
There will come a day when nobody living has an independent remembrance of 9/11. Nobody remains from Gettysburg. Their are fewer and fewer from Pearl Harbor. Like those events, 9/11 will be a part of history recalled only through pictures, films and books. Like those events however, America must always remember.
If you have not thought today about how luck you are to live in this country, remember. If you have not hugged a loved one today remember to. On this solemn day, remember.

Is Lack of Experience a Bad Thing?

So why do I like Sarah Palin and hope she is the next Vice President of the United States?
It is because she has lived a life outside of politics. She has raised children, been involved in their activities and schools, helped with the family business. She has shopped for groceries and filled her tank with gas.
Why is this so important? Nowadays it seems all of our candidates (and I include both parties in this) have come from "political candidate training school". They go to elite schools, major in political science (full disclosure: as did I) and immediately set out on a political career. Decisions on where to live are based on opportunities to run for office. Churches are selected based on who attends that church. Potential spouses are evaluated for their potential as a political spouse.
They often migrate to political or government jobs. Many go to work for officeholders and make plans to be the boss' successor.
A lifetime of public service can be admirable, but it also can be confining. The political class talks to each other, not the rest of us. Often they are at political events and miss out on the conversations on the sidelines of soccer games or the parking lot at school. They don't hear what it is the rest of us really care about. Government work tends to provide more job security and better benefits (granted, at a lesser salary) than the private sector , so they do not really worry about losing a job or the financial implications of seeing an out of network health provider.
They end up making laws because that is what they do, whether or not it is what we need. They decide it is in our best interests to ban fast food or hair salons from the community, despite the evident need and desire for both. Why not? When lobbyists buy your lunch and you get your hair cut by a fancy stylists you don't really worry about what other people want to eat or where they want to get their hair cut.
In short, the political class loses touch with reality.
Public service is noble, but the Founding Fathers never intended it to be a permanent career. George Washington recognized that it was time to go and let others serve. We did not need term limits to tell people it was time to move on.
Sarah Palin has served masters other than her own political career. That "lack of experience" works for me.