Let there be no doubt -- Barack Obama's victory is a watershed moment in American history. Given the nation's shameful record on race, seeing an African-American ascend to the highest office in the land is striking and deeply moving. This is amplified by the fact that Obama won several states in the old Confederacy, states that even Al Gore (a white Southerner) couldn't win in 2000. Obama's victory speaks volumes about the nation's undeniable progress on racial issues. Hopefully the election, on its own, helps to repair some of the enormous damage and ill-feelings that the past eight years have wrought, at home and abroad.
All of that said, I believe that the pundits and political commentators are being too hasty in declaring that the American political landscape has been altered forever. It's important to remember when analyzing the results that Senator Obama ran during a "perfect storm" for a Democratic candidate: President Bush was deeply unpopular, and the campaign season witnessed one episode of bad news after another, culminating with the worst financial disaster the nation had faced in more than 70 years. I remain curious how Obama would have fared if the political seas had been calm, never mind if he had run during prosperous times. This is not a knock on the candidate at all -- he ran a nearly flawless campaign. I'm just not convinced that the country is now "blue" for the indefinite future. Instead, I think the US remains a moderately conservative nation which, because of the staggeringly awful job done by the GOP over the past 8 years, was starving for something different. If Obama turns out to be a great president, and he's able to solve some of the terrifying problems that the US currently faces, then I can easily see a long-term Democratic majority dominating Washington, much like Roosevelt's New Deal coalition stayed in power from 1932-52. If, however, Obama is ineffectual, and the problems remain or worsen, I see no reason that the Republican party won't be able to return from the political wilderness. A long-term Democratic majority is there for the taking. But it's not there yet.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"Make-Believe Maverick"
This article in Rolling Stone magazine is mind-blowing and is one of the more fascinating pieces that I've read in a long time. This is mainly because there's tons of new information in there, stuff that the mainstream media just doesn't talk about for whatever reason. I really urge you to read it and guarantee that if you do, you won't look at John McCain in the same way.
All of this raises an interesting question -- why DOESN'T the mainstream media talk about some of the disturbing McCain incidents discussed in the article? Maybe it's my hatred for the GOP talking, but I feel like the media gives free passes on these kinds of things to Republicans much more frequently than it does to Democrats. How often did we hear about Jeremiah Wright's off-the-cuff comments or Obama's friendship 30 years ago with the guy from the Weather Underground? Discussing Bill Clinton's marijuana use was a national event. But we barely heard about George W. Bush's DUI or his failure to show up for National Guard duty, and we've never heard about some of the incidents documented in this Rolling Stone article. And then the things that political junkies do know about (Keating Five comes to mind), go unreported even though they're extremely relevant and totally undercut McCain's campaign arguments (it's painful to hear him talk about cleaning up the corruption in DC when he went to bat for a corrupt banker who had taken him on junkets to the Bahamas. The hypocrisy is through the roof). I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but you have to question why these stories are underreported or unreported altogether. In my opinion, the relentless attacks on the mainstream media as "liberal" over the past 30 years or so has created a weird sort of subliminal bias in favor of Republicans. Some of the traditional media are so mindful of being labeled as Democratic lap-dogs that they, intentionally or not, fail to call out Republicans when it's warranted. I really can't think of another, better explanation, but if one of you has one, I'd love to hear it.
All of this raises an interesting question -- why DOESN'T the mainstream media talk about some of the disturbing McCain incidents discussed in the article? Maybe it's my hatred for the GOP talking, but I feel like the media gives free passes on these kinds of things to Republicans much more frequently than it does to Democrats. How often did we hear about Jeremiah Wright's off-the-cuff comments or Obama's friendship 30 years ago with the guy from the Weather Underground? Discussing Bill Clinton's marijuana use was a national event. But we barely heard about George W. Bush's DUI or his failure to show up for National Guard duty, and we've never heard about some of the incidents documented in this Rolling Stone article. And then the things that political junkies do know about (Keating Five comes to mind), go unreported even though they're extremely relevant and totally undercut McCain's campaign arguments (it's painful to hear him talk about cleaning up the corruption in DC when he went to bat for a corrupt banker who had taken him on junkets to the Bahamas. The hypocrisy is through the roof). I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but you have to question why these stories are underreported or unreported altogether. In my opinion, the relentless attacks on the mainstream media as "liberal" over the past 30 years or so has created a weird sort of subliminal bias in favor of Republicans. Some of the traditional media are so mindful of being labeled as Democratic lap-dogs that they, intentionally or not, fail to call out Republicans when it's warranted. I really can't think of another, better explanation, but if one of you has one, I'd love to hear it.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Farewell to Yankee Stadium
By beating Cleveland on Tuesday night, the Red Sox clinched the American League wild card and, in turn, knocked the Yankees out of the playoff race. Because the Yanks are moving into a new stadium next year, the Sox' victory closed Yankee Stadium to baseball forever.
Hold on a sec. Those two sentences sound so amazing, I have to go back and re-read them a few more times.
Anyway, all season long, commentators have spoken reverentially about Yankee Stadium and its history. This is nothing new -- almost unanimously, "baseball people" speak of The Stadium as an irreplaceable baseball cathedral. Growing up, this bothered me because of petty Yankees-Red Sox jealousies; Red Sox fans think that our "lyric little bandbox of a ballpark" (in the words of John Updike) is baseball's most treasured jewel. Hearing gushing praise for our most hated rival's park rubbed me the wrong way. I'm still irked by such praise for The Stadium, but now it's for two different reasons.
First, the praise fails to recognize that there were two separate Yankee Stadiums. The first one stood from 1923 to 1973 and, I admit, it was awesome. It was architecturally unique (the first three-tiered stadium in the U.S., the frieze running along the facade of the upper deck), and it was formidable and imposing. Most importantly, though, an incredible amount of baseball history happened there. THIS was the park in which Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, and Mantle played. THIS was the site of famous boxing matches and New York Giants games. Even as a Sox fan, I would have loved the opportunity to catch a game at this park. In the mid 70s, however, the "renovation" completely gutted the place, leaving it as a barely recognizable version of the original. Accordingly, it bothers me to hear people say today that this is the place where Mickey Mantle roamed center field or where Ruth hit so many homers. No, it's not. Period. And if you doubt the extent of the renovations that took place, check out the picture (at the top of the page) of Joe DiMaggio visiting the Stadium during the "renovations." Not only can you see the demolition taking place in the background, but the look on his face says, "What the hell are they doing to this place?"
Second, Yankee Stadium II simply was not an enjoyable place to catch a ballgame. The sightlines were terrible, getting to the upper reaches of the 3rd deck was the equivalent of climbing Kilmanjaro, and other than the Stadium's sheer size, there was absolutely nothing unique about it. Admittedly, the place got very loud in big moments, and the fans really know their baseball, but that says less about the park itself than it does the fan base. Maybe I never could overcome my obvious biases, but I never walked into Yankee Stadium and said "wow" like I did at Fenway, Wrigley, AT&T, and even PNC. The place was expensive, cramped, old, and dirty -- all of which would have been totally fine if you were watching a game at Lou Gehrig's old stomping grounds. After all, I'm happy to put up with those inconveniences in Boston, Chicago, and LA. But like I said, the original Stadium was destroyed in 1973. Yankee Stadium II stands there now. Good riddance.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The U.S. Supreme Court abroad
This article in today's New York Times reports that foreign courts are citing U.S. Supreme Court opinions far less frequently in recent years than they had in the past. The article puts forth several possible reasons for this phenomenon: (1) "the rise of new and sophisticated constitutional courts elsewhere," namely the European Court of Human Rights; (2) the new courts tend to be more "liberal" on issues of human rights than the U.S. Supreme Court; and (3) the diminished reputation of the U.S. in other parts of the world makes foreign courts less apt to cite to an American court.
Of these possibilities, I find the second the most likely and the most objectionable. I really have no empirical basis for saying this, but I imagine that "liberal" foreign courts were happy to use the Supreme Court's precedents under the similarly ultra-"liberal" Warren Court. (Note: I really hate using "liberal" and "conservative" to refer to a judge's or a court's jurisprudential approach because being politically liberal and advocating judicial restraint are not mutually exclusive -- hence the quotation marks -- but I can't think of anything better on the fly). It was only when the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts began rolling back or at least limiting the decisions of their predecessors that American law became undesirable to these other courts.
If this is the case, then these foreign courts are engaging in the same intellectually bankrupt, results-oriented jurisprudence that established many of these "liberal" precedents in the first place. Far too often, courts implicitly but transparently say, "this is or this should be the law if it leads to a result that we like, but this surely can't be the law if it leads to an unwelcome result." This is a nice transition into why I think that U.S. courts shouldn't use foreign law in its decisions: (1) how can a court possibly decide which foreign law to use? and (2) why does a foreign court's interpretation of ITS OWN Constitution or ITS OWN statute have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the AMERICAN Constitution or an AMERICAN statute?
(1) Gay rights advocates undoubtedly were thrilled when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the criminalization of homosexual conduct violates one's right to due process. In Lawrence, the Court cited foreign law as support for its decision, mostly from Europe. But why look only to Europe? Once the door to foreign law is open, a court can look to any foreign jurisdiction. I imagine that fans of the Lawrence decision would have a different take on the use of foreign law in domestic judicial opinions if the Lawrence Court had cited the law of Bangladesh (where the punishment for homosexuality ranges from life in prison to death) or of Angola (where convicted homosexuals are sent to forced labor camps). The point is that very, very rarely is there a definitive "answer" from foreign law; instead, the results are all over the map. Accordingly, citations to foreign law are almost self-serving and results-oriented. A judge knows which way he or she wants the case to come out, and, as some weak support for the decision, he or she can throw in a few case citations that say, "See?? Some other people have done it this way too!" This isn't a definitive statement of what the law is. It's cherry picking.
(2) I really mean this in the most respectful, least xenophobic way possible, but why the hell does a Belgian (or Indian or South African....) court's interpretation of its own law have any impact whatsoever on a question of American law? Let's not forget, the U.S. Constitution is a document. With words. Even if one believes that history and the framers' intent should play NO role in the interpretation of the Constitution (a dubious premise, but whatever), the only way that a foreign court's decision could possibly have any relevance for an American court interpreting these words is if that foreign country's constitution or statute was identical to ours. Even in that case, isn't it more helpful to look at how American courts have handled the same issue in the past? Again, I don't mean this as an attack on the competence of foreign judges -- in the reverse situation, I don't see how American law can be helpful to the interpretation of their own laws. It's not a value judgment of whose law is "better" or "more developed," it's merely an acknowledgement that the laws and the cultures are DIFFERENT. Pretending otherwise does everyone a disservice.
Of these possibilities, I find the second the most likely and the most objectionable. I really have no empirical basis for saying this, but I imagine that "liberal" foreign courts were happy to use the Supreme Court's precedents under the similarly ultra-"liberal" Warren Court. (Note: I really hate using "liberal" and "conservative" to refer to a judge's or a court's jurisprudential approach because being politically liberal and advocating judicial restraint are not mutually exclusive -- hence the quotation marks -- but I can't think of anything better on the fly). It was only when the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts began rolling back or at least limiting the decisions of their predecessors that American law became undesirable to these other courts.
If this is the case, then these foreign courts are engaging in the same intellectually bankrupt, results-oriented jurisprudence that established many of these "liberal" precedents in the first place. Far too often, courts implicitly but transparently say, "this is or this should be the law if it leads to a result that we like, but this surely can't be the law if it leads to an unwelcome result." This is a nice transition into why I think that U.S. courts shouldn't use foreign law in its decisions: (1) how can a court possibly decide which foreign law to use? and (2) why does a foreign court's interpretation of ITS OWN Constitution or ITS OWN statute have any bearing whatsoever on the interpretation of the AMERICAN Constitution or an AMERICAN statute?
(1) Gay rights advocates undoubtedly were thrilled when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the criminalization of homosexual conduct violates one's right to due process. In Lawrence, the Court cited foreign law as support for its decision, mostly from Europe. But why look only to Europe? Once the door to foreign law is open, a court can look to any foreign jurisdiction. I imagine that fans of the Lawrence decision would have a different take on the use of foreign law in domestic judicial opinions if the Lawrence Court had cited the law of Bangladesh (where the punishment for homosexuality ranges from life in prison to death) or of Angola (where convicted homosexuals are sent to forced labor camps). The point is that very, very rarely is there a definitive "answer" from foreign law; instead, the results are all over the map. Accordingly, citations to foreign law are almost self-serving and results-oriented. A judge knows which way he or she wants the case to come out, and, as some weak support for the decision, he or she can throw in a few case citations that say, "See?? Some other people have done it this way too!" This isn't a definitive statement of what the law is. It's cherry picking.
(2) I really mean this in the most respectful, least xenophobic way possible, but why the hell does a Belgian (or Indian or South African....) court's interpretation of its own law have any impact whatsoever on a question of American law? Let's not forget, the U.S. Constitution is a document. With words. Even if one believes that history and the framers' intent should play NO role in the interpretation of the Constitution (a dubious premise, but whatever), the only way that a foreign court's decision could possibly have any relevance for an American court interpreting these words is if that foreign country's constitution or statute was identical to ours. Even in that case, isn't it more helpful to look at how American courts have handled the same issue in the past? Again, I don't mean this as an attack on the competence of foreign judges -- in the reverse situation, I don't see how American law can be helpful to the interpretation of their own laws. It's not a value judgment of whose law is "better" or "more developed," it's merely an acknowledgement that the laws and the cultures are DIFFERENT. Pretending otherwise does everyone a disservice.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Stuff
I sit here at the computer all day filling out job applications. Needless to say, I'm desperate for a distraction and, because I enjoy posting on this site, I've been trying hard to think of something to write, if only to get me away from cover letters and resumes for half an hour. But I've got nothing. Or rather, I don't have much. Here's what I do have:
This. Is. Awesome. Walter as a neocon! How did I not think of that? This is my favorite article in a long time.
Full disclosure: I didn't watch Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night. But I've read several articles today that called Gibson's question regarding the Bush Doctrine (which Palin botched horribly) an unfair, "gotcha" kind of question. I couldn't disagree more. For the past 7 years, the Bush administration has endorsed a rather radical foreign policy viewpoint (regardless of whether you agree with the Doctrine, it is a departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy). Initially, the Doctrine meant that the United States would hold nations that gave sanctuary to terrorists as culpable as the terrorists themselves. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Doctrine evolved to mean that the United States was entitled to mount a preventive war to stop a state that had weapons of mass destruction from passing it to terrorists.
"Gotcha" questions include asking who's the prime minister of Uzbekistan or anything else even a well-prepared, knowledgeable candidate shouldn't have to know off the top of her head. I'd also include irrelevant, unfair, personal questions in the category. Asking a candidate for vice president of the United States about a fundamental shift in our nation's foreign policy, however, doesn't qualify. I find it troubling that she didn't seem to know what the hell Gibson was talking about and, after stumbling for a while, talked only about America's ability to pre-empt an imminent threat, a capability that has never been very controversial. The true issue in Iraq and its effect on the Bush Doctrine was that the threat WASN'T imminent. Serious national politicians need to know this kind of stuff, period.
UPDATE: A couple of articles (here and here) in today's Washington Post defend Palin's hesitation on this topic during the interview essentially because there is more than one version of the Bush Doctrine. Accordingly (the argument goes), her response of "In what respect?" to the question of what she thought of the Doctrine makes sense. I'm not buying it for two reasons. First, her actual response was way too vague to be interpreted as a deep understanding of the mutli-layered ideology that is the Bush Doctrine. I'd agree with these articles if she had asked, "Which version of the Doctrine are you referring to?" or "Do you mean the idea that harboring terrorists is the equivalent of commiting terrorism itself or the idea that the U.S. can use preventative military force?" But that's not what she said. Watching the video makes it pretty clear that she was just stalling for time, hoping for a cue from Gibson. In fact, her first answer was some generic, boilerplate answer about ridding the world of Islamic extremism. When Gibson finally filled in Palin that he was asking about the right of the U.S. to take preventative military action, even then she only talked about the country's right to attack when faced with an imminent threat. As I said yesterday, that's never been the subject of serious debate or controversy. Taken together, I don't think that Palin had a deep understanding of the Doctrine, but that she actually had no clue about ANY of the different versions. This might seem like too much analysis on a small topic or that Gibson and other commentators are being "school teacherish" in their critiques, but these times are too important for a candidate for national office to be learning as she goes.
This. Is. Awesome. Walter as a neocon! How did I not think of that? This is my favorite article in a long time.
Full disclosure: I didn't watch Charlie Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin last night. But I've read several articles today that called Gibson's question regarding the Bush Doctrine (which Palin botched horribly) an unfair, "gotcha" kind of question. I couldn't disagree more. For the past 7 years, the Bush administration has endorsed a rather radical foreign policy viewpoint (regardless of whether you agree with the Doctrine, it is a departure from traditional U.S. foreign policy). Initially, the Doctrine meant that the United States would hold nations that gave sanctuary to terrorists as culpable as the terrorists themselves. Before the invasion of Iraq, the Doctrine evolved to mean that the United States was entitled to mount a preventive war to stop a state that had weapons of mass destruction from passing it to terrorists.
"Gotcha" questions include asking who's the prime minister of Uzbekistan or anything else even a well-prepared, knowledgeable candidate shouldn't have to know off the top of her head. I'd also include irrelevant, unfair, personal questions in the category. Asking a candidate for vice president of the United States about a fundamental shift in our nation's foreign policy, however, doesn't qualify. I find it troubling that she didn't seem to know what the hell Gibson was talking about and, after stumbling for a while, talked only about America's ability to pre-empt an imminent threat, a capability that has never been very controversial. The true issue in Iraq and its effect on the Bush Doctrine was that the threat WASN'T imminent. Serious national politicians need to know this kind of stuff, period.
UPDATE: A couple of articles (here and here) in today's Washington Post defend Palin's hesitation on this topic during the interview essentially because there is more than one version of the Bush Doctrine. Accordingly (the argument goes), her response of "In what respect?" to the question of what she thought of the Doctrine makes sense. I'm not buying it for two reasons. First, her actual response was way too vague to be interpreted as a deep understanding of the mutli-layered ideology that is the Bush Doctrine. I'd agree with these articles if she had asked, "Which version of the Doctrine are you referring to?" or "Do you mean the idea that harboring terrorists is the equivalent of commiting terrorism itself or the idea that the U.S. can use preventative military force?" But that's not what she said. Watching the video makes it pretty clear that she was just stalling for time, hoping for a cue from Gibson. In fact, her first answer was some generic, boilerplate answer about ridding the world of Islamic extremism. When Gibson finally filled in Palin that he was asking about the right of the U.S. to take preventative military action, even then she only talked about the country's right to attack when faced with an imminent threat. As I said yesterday, that's never been the subject of serious debate or controversy. Taken together, I don't think that Palin had a deep understanding of the Doctrine, but that she actually had no clue about ANY of the different versions. This might seem like too much analysis on a small topic or that Gibson and other commentators are being "school teacherish" in their critiques, but these times are too important for a candidate for national office to be learning as she goes.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
U.S. Open
Last night, Roger Federer beat Andy Murray in straight sets to capture his fifth consecutive U.S. Open championship and his 13th Grand Slam title overall. Even sports fans in America (to say nothing of the general public) don't really give a damn about professional tennis anymore, and I think that's a shame. Maybe it's just because I played the sport growing up and have an appreciation for how hard it is to hit the shots that these guys make on a consistent basis, but I am blown away at how the elite players make what is near-impossible look routine. Other than basketball, I can't think of a sport that requires strength, agility, hand-eye coordination, quick reflexes, speed, and stamina. Unlike professional basketball, however, singles tennis is a 1-on-1 sport which requires extreme mental toughness because it's all on you, through the good and the bad. There is no teammate to whom you can pass the ball. Of course, there are collapses in team sports too. But choke jobs in tennis (or in golf, for that matter) are more compelling because the nature of the game refutes the old adage that "no man is an island." It's so fascinating to watch a single person either unravel or rise to the occassion while thousands of people watch. It's the dual requirements of elite physical and mental excellence that, to me, make tennis so interesting.
My pro-tennis rant aside, Federer's win last night was historic. Not only did he move within one Grand Slam title of Pete Sampras's all-time record (14), but he also became the first male player to win 5 straight titles in 2 different Grand Slams. He won Wimbledon from 2003-2007, and he's won the U.S. Open every year from 2004 until the present. It's not really necessary for me to point out that this is impressive and a big deal; no player in the history of the game has done it before, so it's self-evident. Instead, I'll just express my disappointment that coverage of this accomplishment from the sports media was sorely lacking. On all of ESPN's programming last night and this morning, the Open final received fifth billing (at best) behind the stories from Week 1 of the NFL. Look, I'm a huge football fan, and I was traumatized by Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury. I also understand that football is about 750 times more popular than men's tennis in this country. But Federer does something that has NEVER been done, and it trails the highlights from a crappy football game like Buffalo-Seattle??? That's crazy to me. Tennis may never return to the level of popularity that it enjoyed in the 1970s and 80s, but it doesn't help the cause when the country's major sports network barely covers a remarkable and once-in-a-lifetime achievement within the sport. In turn, this raises a "chicken and egg" question: does ESPN ignore tennis because the sport is unpopular among its general audience or have the networks denied tennis the opportunity to grow by ignoring its biggest storylines and sending the implicit message that it's an unimportant, fringe sport? Either way, I find it unfortunate that self-proclaimed sports fans aren't interested in watching an exceptional athlete do something that no one has ever done before.
My pro-tennis rant aside, Federer's win last night was historic. Not only did he move within one Grand Slam title of Pete Sampras's all-time record (14), but he also became the first male player to win 5 straight titles in 2 different Grand Slams. He won Wimbledon from 2003-2007, and he's won the U.S. Open every year from 2004 until the present. It's not really necessary for me to point out that this is impressive and a big deal; no player in the history of the game has done it before, so it's self-evident. Instead, I'll just express my disappointment that coverage of this accomplishment from the sports media was sorely lacking. On all of ESPN's programming last night and this morning, the Open final received fifth billing (at best) behind the stories from Week 1 of the NFL. Look, I'm a huge football fan, and I was traumatized by Tom Brady's season-ending knee injury. I also understand that football is about 750 times more popular than men's tennis in this country. But Federer does something that has NEVER been done, and it trails the highlights from a crappy football game like Buffalo-Seattle??? That's crazy to me. Tennis may never return to the level of popularity that it enjoyed in the 1970s and 80s, but it doesn't help the cause when the country's major sports network barely covers a remarkable and once-in-a-lifetime achievement within the sport. In turn, this raises a "chicken and egg" question: does ESPN ignore tennis because the sport is unpopular among its general audience or have the networks denied tennis the opportunity to grow by ignoring its biggest storylines and sending the implicit message that it's an unimportant, fringe sport? Either way, I find it unfortunate that self-proclaimed sports fans aren't interested in watching an exceptional athlete do something that no one has ever done before.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Palin
John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin (governor of Alaska) as his running mate rightfully drew a lot of skepticism from the mainstream media. The way I see it, there are a few possible explanations for the pick, none of which I find compelling.
1. Cater to women. Considering the bitter Obama-Clinton primary battle which left many Hillary supporters refusing to vote for Obama (I still don't buy this, but that's a story for another day), McCain may believe that having a woman on his ticket could draw in a good number of these disaffected women voters. Call me naive, but I just don't believe that an appreciable number of women will vote for a candidate SOLELY because she's a woman. This is especially true in this specific case because, in terms of positions on policy, Palin and Clinton couldn't be more different. I just can't imagine that someone who supported Hillary Clinton (pro-choice, pro-gay rights etc) would vote for the GOP ticket merely because the VP candidate is a woman.
2. Pre-empt the "lack of experience" argument. According to this strategy, McCain selected Palin in order to bait the Dems into arguing that she lacks experience. This would allow the GOP to blast Obama in return for his own lack of experience. Or, on a similar note, the Dems would avoid all attacks on Palin for fear of having the same arguments applied to Obama in return. This is all well and good, but if this is really the strategy, the Dems can beat it by simply ignoring Palin and continuing their attacks on McCain's record (mainly his support for most of Bush's policies). After all, McCain is the top dog on the ticket, and it's not a huge problem to either ignore the veep entirely or to focus attacks on her very, very conservative policy positions rather than her thin resume.
3. Compelling life story. Palin's path to prominence is really cool and unusual, and she certainly qualifies as an "outside the Beltway" kind of candidate. That said, how many votes will this secure the GOP ticket at the end of the day? I mean, are there people out there saying, "Wow, Sarah Palin is a former beauty pageant winner, I'm voting Republican this year." ?? Good God, I hope not, and I don't think that there are.
4. Break the glass ceiling. This is related to #1, but it's more about refusing to cede the "change/hope/historic candidacy" theme to team Obama. This is a nice idea, but (1) it comes 24 years after the Democrats made the same move by nominating a woman for vice president and so I question how powerful a theme this is in reality, and (2) it's the GOP playing defense rather than exposing a weakness of the Democratic ticket.
My two major criticisms of the Palin pick mirror those that I had of Obama's Biden selection: (1) the choice totally undercuts the campaign's central theme, and (2) the VP candidate offers no electoral advantage. Just as I thought that it was asinine for the "fresh, hope, change" guy to choose a Washington lifer as his running mate, McCain's selection of a completely untested, young VP when he has been (understandably) going on and on for months about Obama's lack of experience and preparation is the height of absurdity. In this sense, I find both picks laughable. Also, Palin comes from a completely safe GOP state, so she doesn't automatically offer any help in a battleground like Pawlenty or Crist would have done.
The major point here is that I think there's only one way for the VP selection to make a really big difference, and that's if the candidate is a popular figure in a swing state in a close election. For this reason, I think Tim Kaine would've been a great choice for the Dems, and I think Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist would've been great choices for the GOP. It's nice that Sarah Palin played point guard for her high school basketball team, but really -- who cares?
1. Cater to women. Considering the bitter Obama-Clinton primary battle which left many Hillary supporters refusing to vote for Obama (I still don't buy this, but that's a story for another day), McCain may believe that having a woman on his ticket could draw in a good number of these disaffected women voters. Call me naive, but I just don't believe that an appreciable number of women will vote for a candidate SOLELY because she's a woman. This is especially true in this specific case because, in terms of positions on policy, Palin and Clinton couldn't be more different. I just can't imagine that someone who supported Hillary Clinton (pro-choice, pro-gay rights etc) would vote for the GOP ticket merely because the VP candidate is a woman.
2. Pre-empt the "lack of experience" argument. According to this strategy, McCain selected Palin in order to bait the Dems into arguing that she lacks experience. This would allow the GOP to blast Obama in return for his own lack of experience. Or, on a similar note, the Dems would avoid all attacks on Palin for fear of having the same arguments applied to Obama in return. This is all well and good, but if this is really the strategy, the Dems can beat it by simply ignoring Palin and continuing their attacks on McCain's record (mainly his support for most of Bush's policies). After all, McCain is the top dog on the ticket, and it's not a huge problem to either ignore the veep entirely or to focus attacks on her very, very conservative policy positions rather than her thin resume.
3. Compelling life story. Palin's path to prominence is really cool and unusual, and she certainly qualifies as an "outside the Beltway" kind of candidate. That said, how many votes will this secure the GOP ticket at the end of the day? I mean, are there people out there saying, "Wow, Sarah Palin is a former beauty pageant winner, I'm voting Republican this year." ?? Good God, I hope not, and I don't think that there are.
4. Break the glass ceiling. This is related to #1, but it's more about refusing to cede the "change/hope/historic candidacy" theme to team Obama. This is a nice idea, but (1) it comes 24 years after the Democrats made the same move by nominating a woman for vice president and so I question how powerful a theme this is in reality, and (2) it's the GOP playing defense rather than exposing a weakness of the Democratic ticket.
My two major criticisms of the Palin pick mirror those that I had of Obama's Biden selection: (1) the choice totally undercuts the campaign's central theme, and (2) the VP candidate offers no electoral advantage. Just as I thought that it was asinine for the "fresh, hope, change" guy to choose a Washington lifer as his running mate, McCain's selection of a completely untested, young VP when he has been (understandably) going on and on for months about Obama's lack of experience and preparation is the height of absurdity. In this sense, I find both picks laughable. Also, Palin comes from a completely safe GOP state, so she doesn't automatically offer any help in a battleground like Pawlenty or Crist would have done.
The major point here is that I think there's only one way for the VP selection to make a really big difference, and that's if the candidate is a popular figure in a swing state in a close election. For this reason, I think Tim Kaine would've been a great choice for the Dems, and I think Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist would've been great choices for the GOP. It's nice that Sarah Palin played point guard for her high school basketball team, but really -- who cares?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Biden
While I was away, Barack Obama selected Joe Biden to be his running mate for the presidency, meaning that my prediction of Tim Kaine was wrong (no surprise there). Despite the generally positive review of Obama's decision from the chattering classes, I still feel like Kaine would have been a better choice.
To me, it seems as if presidential candidates can opt for two different paths when selecting a potential vice president. They can select a running mate who offers some kind of political advantage (hails from a crucial swing state, is popular within a certain constituency, etc) or they can select a running mate who offers some substantive expertise and, therefore, would be an asset in the actual execution of the administration's responsibilities. Ideally, a VP candidate would fit into both categories, but that seems rare.
I suggested Kaine not because I think that a one-term governor from a mid-sized state would bring anything of real value to the table when serving as vice president. Instead, I thought that Kaine could do one thing and one thing only: help Obama take Virginia. In a hotly contested election that likely will come down to one or two states yet again, having a VP that could help deliver a traditionally Republican state to a Democratic ticket might be the dispositive factor in the entire election. Sure, Kaine is "pro-life," but I'm guessing that's merely a function of Virginian politics. Phrased differently, you HAVE to be pro-life to get elected in Virginia, especially as a Democrat. I question how fervent he is on the subject. In any event, how many people would refuse to vote for Obama merely because his vice presidential candidate didn't fit the Democratic mold on a single issue? My guess is very, very few. This is why I felt (and still feel) that Kaine could've provided the most benefit for the ticket. Tilting the balance in a state that's up for grabs is an ENORMOUS asset in contemporary American politics, where the electoral map is essentially split 50-50.
The conventional wisdom on the selection of Biden is that he adds foreign policy expertise to the ticket, the area in which Obama is most sorely lacking in experience. I'm not buying it. First, Biden is the ultimate DC insider. For a campaign that is built on themes of change, hope, youth, and grassroots activity, the selection of someone who has served in the Senate for 35 years and who first ran for president 20 years ago seems oddly out of place. According to Obama rhetoric, Biden represents that which is old, that which hasn't worked. You take a new direction on the issue by turning to a guy who has been part and parcel of US foreign policy since the early 70s? It's counter-intuitive. Second, how outstanding can the guy really be? I mean, if he's such an impressive guy, why was his own presidential campaign such a disastrous joke?
What it comes down to is this: how many voters in swing states now will vote Democratic merely because Joe Biden is on the ticket? I have no empirical basis for saying so, but my guess is not enough to make a difference in any one of those states. Therefore, even assuming that Biden would make a fantastic vice president, the move doesn't make sense from a political point of view. It's nice to make plans about how you will run your White House, but you have to get there first.
To me, it seems as if presidential candidates can opt for two different paths when selecting a potential vice president. They can select a running mate who offers some kind of political advantage (hails from a crucial swing state, is popular within a certain constituency, etc) or they can select a running mate who offers some substantive expertise and, therefore, would be an asset in the actual execution of the administration's responsibilities. Ideally, a VP candidate would fit into both categories, but that seems rare.
I suggested Kaine not because I think that a one-term governor from a mid-sized state would bring anything of real value to the table when serving as vice president. Instead, I thought that Kaine could do one thing and one thing only: help Obama take Virginia. In a hotly contested election that likely will come down to one or two states yet again, having a VP that could help deliver a traditionally Republican state to a Democratic ticket might be the dispositive factor in the entire election. Sure, Kaine is "pro-life," but I'm guessing that's merely a function of Virginian politics. Phrased differently, you HAVE to be pro-life to get elected in Virginia, especially as a Democrat. I question how fervent he is on the subject. In any event, how many people would refuse to vote for Obama merely because his vice presidential candidate didn't fit the Democratic mold on a single issue? My guess is very, very few. This is why I felt (and still feel) that Kaine could've provided the most benefit for the ticket. Tilting the balance in a state that's up for grabs is an ENORMOUS asset in contemporary American politics, where the electoral map is essentially split 50-50.
The conventional wisdom on the selection of Biden is that he adds foreign policy expertise to the ticket, the area in which Obama is most sorely lacking in experience. I'm not buying it. First, Biden is the ultimate DC insider. For a campaign that is built on themes of change, hope, youth, and grassroots activity, the selection of someone who has served in the Senate for 35 years and who first ran for president 20 years ago seems oddly out of place. According to Obama rhetoric, Biden represents that which is old, that which hasn't worked. You take a new direction on the issue by turning to a guy who has been part and parcel of US foreign policy since the early 70s? It's counter-intuitive. Second, how outstanding can the guy really be? I mean, if he's such an impressive guy, why was his own presidential campaign such a disastrous joke?
What it comes down to is this: how many voters in swing states now will vote Democratic merely because Joe Biden is on the ticket? I have no empirical basis for saying so, but my guess is not enough to make a difference in any one of those states. Therefore, even assuming that Biden would make a fantastic vice president, the move doesn't make sense from a political point of view. It's nice to make plans about how you will run your White House, but you have to get there first.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Vacation
Hey everyone, I'm going to be out of the country until August 28th, so there probably won't be any new posts until then. I hope that you'll keep reading after I get back.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Odds and ends
There isn't a story right now that has me really interested, so here's some discussion on a couple of assorted topics.
V.P. Sweepstakes
My predictions:
For Obama -- Tim Kaine. Virginia's shaping up to be a true battleground and, along with Ohio, Iowa, and a couple of others, represents the Dems' best chance to pick up a state that they lost in '04. Kaine is young and (relative to the rest of the uber-dorky political world) pretty cool. This would fit nicely with Obama's theme of hope/change/new blood etc. The downside is that Kaine, like Obama, hasn't been around for very long. I think, though, that having a geezer from "The Establishment" on the ticket would be a real drag on Obama's message of being the change that we seek, or whatever it is that the Obamapaths chant at their cultish rallies. Instead, stick with a young, charasmatic politician with executive experience in a state ripe for the picking.
For McCain -- this one is tougher. Does McCain balance his own relatively moderate record by going with a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (i.e. Huckabee)? Does he balance his age by choosing a younger, more dynamic running mate (Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin) or would doing so make him look even older and stiffer by comparison ("Vote for McCain and his granddaughter!")? Does he balance his weakness on economic issues, identified in polling as the country's #1 concern, by selecting someone with impressive private sector experience (Romney)? Does he go with someone from a battleground state (Crist)? In the end, I think that this will be a classic "do no harm" selection, and McCain will choose someone likeable and uncontroversial who helps him with as many of the criteria mentioned above as possible. Pawlenty fits the mold -- he's a young, mild-mannered guy with executive experience and who hails from a state (Minnesota) that the GOP has a reasonable chance of picking up this year. Do no harm, indeed.
Therapists and Confidentiality
This article presents an interesting question about which I'm pretty conflicted: when should therapists have to tell police (or potential victims) that the patient plans to do someone harm?
It goes without saying that effective psychotherapy requires an assurance by the therapist that what the patient discloses during clinical sessions will remain confidential. Equally apparent, however, is that the policy rationale for protecting the confidentiality of the therapist-patient relationship sometimes must yield for the protection of outside individuals. Every first year law student reads the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (discussed in the linked article) in which a patient told his therapist that he planned to kill a woman who had spurned his romantic advances and then proceeded to do just that. Even though the therapist had warned the police of the threat, the California Supreme Court ruled that therapists have a "duty to protect" potential victims of crazy patients.
My major problem here is that, by definition, the type of people that would make death threats about others might not be the most reliable sources in the world. Phrased differently, how is a therapist supposed to distinguish between frustrated rantings and real, legitimate threats? What level of specificity is required? The Tarasoff standard, to me, seems a little harsh for two reasons: first, it leads to overreporting of "threats," thereby undermining the confidentiality necessary for effective therapy; and second, it imposes way too high of a burden on therapists. Telling the police that Mr. X plans to harm Mr. Y isn't enough? Really? In almost all other walks of life, telling the police about something puts the onus on the police. If they go on to mess up after that, it's on them. Why should this be any different?
Brett Favre
Seriously, make it stop. Please.
In a general sense, I don't get what this guy is doing. You've accomplished everything there is to do in football (3 MVPs, all-time leader in all of the important categories, Super Bowl champ), you have more money than God, and you want to......... spend another year getting hit by 350 pound dudes and playing for a few months in sub-zero temperatures? Come on dude, zip up your Wranglers, head back to the Gulf Coast, and spend your untold millions of dollars on whatever it is that Mississippians spend money on.
That said, the guy has the right to play football if that's what he wants. It's just the way that he went about it totally screwed the Packers. After he announced his retirement, the Packers (completely reasonably) spent the off-season assuming that Aaron Rogers would be the quarterback. That was their understanding during the draft, that was their understanding during free agency, and so forth. Announcing a comeback at the time that he did was 100% selfish and put the Packers in an untenable situation. Even if they hadn't assembled personnel based upon the assumption that Rogers would be the starter (which they did), Favre represents the past. The Packers have every right to begin the post-Favre era, and how can you fault them for doing so after FAVRE HIMSELF told him that he was gone? He set the train in motion, and he had no right to tell the team to stop that train and back it up.
In any event, after the trade, hopefully now I can put on ESPN without having to watch charter flights land at the airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
V.P. Sweepstakes
My predictions:
For Obama -- Tim Kaine. Virginia's shaping up to be a true battleground and, along with Ohio, Iowa, and a couple of others, represents the Dems' best chance to pick up a state that they lost in '04. Kaine is young and (relative to the rest of the uber-dorky political world) pretty cool. This would fit nicely with Obama's theme of hope/change/new blood etc. The downside is that Kaine, like Obama, hasn't been around for very long. I think, though, that having a geezer from "The Establishment" on the ticket would be a real drag on Obama's message of being the change that we seek, or whatever it is that the Obamapaths chant at their cultish rallies. Instead, stick with a young, charasmatic politician with executive experience in a state ripe for the picking.
For McCain -- this one is tougher. Does McCain balance his own relatively moderate record by going with a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (i.e. Huckabee)? Does he balance his age by choosing a younger, more dynamic running mate (Pawlenty, Jindal, Palin) or would doing so make him look even older and stiffer by comparison ("Vote for McCain and his granddaughter!")? Does he balance his weakness on economic issues, identified in polling as the country's #1 concern, by selecting someone with impressive private sector experience (Romney)? Does he go with someone from a battleground state (Crist)? In the end, I think that this will be a classic "do no harm" selection, and McCain will choose someone likeable and uncontroversial who helps him with as many of the criteria mentioned above as possible. Pawlenty fits the mold -- he's a young, mild-mannered guy with executive experience and who hails from a state (Minnesota) that the GOP has a reasonable chance of picking up this year. Do no harm, indeed.
Therapists and Confidentiality
This article presents an interesting question about which I'm pretty conflicted: when should therapists have to tell police (or potential victims) that the patient plans to do someone harm?
It goes without saying that effective psychotherapy requires an assurance by the therapist that what the patient discloses during clinical sessions will remain confidential. Equally apparent, however, is that the policy rationale for protecting the confidentiality of the therapist-patient relationship sometimes must yield for the protection of outside individuals. Every first year law student reads the case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (discussed in the linked article) in which a patient told his therapist that he planned to kill a woman who had spurned his romantic advances and then proceeded to do just that. Even though the therapist had warned the police of the threat, the California Supreme Court ruled that therapists have a "duty to protect" potential victims of crazy patients.
My major problem here is that, by definition, the type of people that would make death threats about others might not be the most reliable sources in the world. Phrased differently, how is a therapist supposed to distinguish between frustrated rantings and real, legitimate threats? What level of specificity is required? The Tarasoff standard, to me, seems a little harsh for two reasons: first, it leads to overreporting of "threats," thereby undermining the confidentiality necessary for effective therapy; and second, it imposes way too high of a burden on therapists. Telling the police that Mr. X plans to harm Mr. Y isn't enough? Really? In almost all other walks of life, telling the police about something puts the onus on the police. If they go on to mess up after that, it's on them. Why should this be any different?
Brett Favre
Seriously, make it stop. Please.
In a general sense, I don't get what this guy is doing. You've accomplished everything there is to do in football (3 MVPs, all-time leader in all of the important categories, Super Bowl champ), you have more money than God, and you want to......... spend another year getting hit by 350 pound dudes and playing for a few months in sub-zero temperatures? Come on dude, zip up your Wranglers, head back to the Gulf Coast, and spend your untold millions of dollars on whatever it is that Mississippians spend money on.
That said, the guy has the right to play football if that's what he wants. It's just the way that he went about it totally screwed the Packers. After he announced his retirement, the Packers (completely reasonably) spent the off-season assuming that Aaron Rogers would be the quarterback. That was their understanding during the draft, that was their understanding during free agency, and so forth. Announcing a comeback at the time that he did was 100% selfish and put the Packers in an untenable situation. Even if they hadn't assembled personnel based upon the assumption that Rogers would be the starter (which they did), Favre represents the past. The Packers have every right to begin the post-Favre era, and how can you fault them for doing so after FAVRE HIMSELF told him that he was gone? He set the train in motion, and he had no right to tell the team to stop that train and back it up.
In any event, after the trade, hopefully now I can put on ESPN without having to watch charter flights land at the airport in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Ballpark Review -- Comerica Park, Detroit (and updated, re-thought rankings)
(Side note: whenever I post pictures on one of these entries, everything gets scrunched together. I don't know why it happens, and it doesn't change when I go back and add more spacing after the fact. I know it makes it harder to read, so I'm sorry, but it's not me, it's Blogger!)
Here's the final installment of my sort-of impromptu summer ballpark tour, using the same criteria that I have for the other parks.
GETTING THERE
I might've missed it, but I didn't notice any public transportation taking fans to the park, meaning you pretty much have to drive (we stayed in a hotel downtown only a mile or two from Comerica, but even still we had to drive our rental car to the park). This is common for stadiums in the 'burbs or in cities like LA where "public transportation" is a kind of curse word, but really weird for parks in the middle of a city's core, like Comerica. Then again, this is the home of the car, so maybe the city's trying to encourage driving? Who knows. It wasn't too tough to find parking, and the lots ranged from $8 or $9 further from the park to $15 close by. Remember, though: this is Detroit. Spend the extra $7 for the shorter walk.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD
It's tough to blame Comerica Park for being in Detroit. It's not the fault of the park's architects that their project was located in a dying American city. Nevertheless, Detroit IS a dying American city, and there are slim pickings nearby for fans to get some food or a beer. In fact, within walking distance of the stadium, I noticed only two bars: the Hockeytown Cafe and a place called Cheli's Chili (which I'm guessing is some sort of reference to Chris Chelios -- stupid Red Wings). You COULD walk to the Greektown neighborhood which is Detroit's "going out" area, but it's quite a hike and you'd have to cross a major road in the meantime. It'd be nice to rebut some of the lazy stereotypes that exist about this city, but it's hard to do.
THE DESIGN
Comerica is often overlooked in the discussion of really solid Major League ballparks. While there's nothing particularly notable about the seating bowl itself, almost all of the non-bleacher seats (whether in the lower or upper deck) have great views of Detroit's skyscrapers. Even the seats way up towards the top have excellent, unobstructed sightlines, and those on the first base/right field part of the park have views of massive Ford Field, home of the Lions. The "General Motors Fountain" in center field, which shoots off water after a home run or a Tigers' win, is a little kitchsy, but not so over the top as to detract from the action. I also liked Comerica's take on Yankee Stadium's Monument Park, with statues of their great players accompanying the retired numbers beyond the left field concourse. The enormous scoreboard in left field is way too much, but this is just an unfortunate part of modern baseball. All in all, there's a lot to like about the viewing experience here.
MISCELLANEOUS
The overriding theme here is that Comerica Park takes things that are good ideas in theory and takes them too far. For example, after walking in the main entrance, you're bombarded almost immediately by a tiger-themed amusement park and other attacks on your senses. It's nice that there are things for kids to do at the park, I just feel like other places (AT&T Park in San Fran most notably) have done it more subtly, incorporating it into the park's design so you almost don't notice. Speaking of "tiger-themed," this was really the thing that I found most noticeable. There are tigers EVERYWHERE. Again, I like it when parks are designed with an indication as to who is the primary occupant, but good Lord, there are limits. And the whole row of tigers with baseballs in their mouths (see the picture above), is just weird.
As for food, it was pretty much standard ballpark fare: dogs, sausage, peanuts, beer etc. Some people consider this lame and want more culinary variety at games. Like I said in my Busch Stadium review, though, I don't consider this a negative part of the experience. If you want contemporary East Asian/Indian fusion, make a reservation at a restaurant after the game.
THE VERDICT
If Comerica was in a different city and had toned down the crap like the tiger statues, this might be a top-10 MLB park. But Comerica is in Detroit and they didn't tone down that other stuff, and so, for me, it fell short of the "elite" level of ballparks.
Re-thought and updated ballpark rankings (includes parks no longer in use):
1(a): AT&T Park, San Francisco
1(b): PNC Park, Pittsburgh -- it's too tough to pick between these two. I loved them both and are as close to flawless as I can imagine.
3: Fenway Park, Boston -- as Stephen King has said, "I love it in spite of everything I hate about it."
4: Wrigley Field, Chicago
5: Camden Yards, Baltimore
6: Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles
7: Kaufman Stadium, Kansas City
8: Citizens Bank Park, Philadelphia
9: Comerica Park, Detroit
10: New Busch Stadium, St. Louis
11: Yankee Stadium, New York -- after some thought, I realized that I overcompensated for my"Red Sox bias" by overrating this place last time.
12: Chase Field, Phoenix
13: Turner Field, Atlanta
14: Old Busch Stadium, St. Louis
15: Nationals Park, Washington DC
16: Shea Stadium, New York
17: RFK Stadium, Washington DC
18: Olympic Stadium, Montreal
Friday, August 1, 2008
Very quick Manny talk
In a three-way trade yesterday, the Red Sox dealt Manny Ramirez to the Dodgers, with the Sox receiving Jason Bay from Pittsburgh as the major piece in return.
Manny is one of the best right-handed hitters in Major League history, and the Red Sox wouldn't have won two world championships without him. That said, (1) his status in Boston had reached a point of no return, and he had to go, and (2) Bay provides very, very similar offensive value and might actually be an overall upgrade.
(1) Some of Manny's antics (taking a leak in the Green Monster, high fiving fans in the bleachers after making a nice catch, establishing a mandatory man-hug policy on the roster) were funny, harmless, and kind of endearing. Refusing to play because of vague and suspect injuries, ripping the front office, and creating an enormous distraction in the clubhouse did not fall within the same category. It became pretty clear that Manny would hold the team hostage either by refusing to play at all or refusing to play hard if they didn't trade him this week. And let's not forget that Theo Epstein was never too enamored with Manny to begin with, even going so far as to place him on waivers during the off-season a few years ago. All of the nonsense over the past two weeks or so finally provided Theo with the necessary support to dump Manny from both the front office and Red Sox Nation at large.
(2) Bay's and Manny's offensive numbers this year are almost identical. Of course, Jason Bay isn't as good a hitter as Manny Ramirez; very, very few players are. But Bay is a legitimately good hitter, who is much younger than Manny, is signed through 2009, and who is an undisputed defensive upgrade in left field. Even outside of the purely statistical realm, it has to be a relief to the rest of the team to have all of this ridiculous drama resovled, and I'd bet that Manny had only a couple of supporters on the team by the end of his tenure (Youkilis and Schilling NOT being two of them). I'm not a big believer in the importance of "chemistry" in baseball, but it certainly can't hurt to have a stressful and distracting situation resolved once and for all. This applies for everyone -- players, the manager, coaches, and the front office. If there's one concern with Bay it's that he won't be able to handle the limelight and itensity that comes with playing in Boston. Only time will tell on that issue. But given the circumstances, I think Theo did an incredible job in getting as much value back as he could. The man-crush remains firmly intact.
Manny, it was a joy to watch you hit, you provided us with hours of goofy entertainment, and I wouldn't own two "World Series champs" t-shirts if it weren't for you. But don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Manny is one of the best right-handed hitters in Major League history, and the Red Sox wouldn't have won two world championships without him. That said, (1) his status in Boston had reached a point of no return, and he had to go, and (2) Bay provides very, very similar offensive value and might actually be an overall upgrade.
(1) Some of Manny's antics (taking a leak in the Green Monster, high fiving fans in the bleachers after making a nice catch, establishing a mandatory man-hug policy on the roster) were funny, harmless, and kind of endearing. Refusing to play because of vague and suspect injuries, ripping the front office, and creating an enormous distraction in the clubhouse did not fall within the same category. It became pretty clear that Manny would hold the team hostage either by refusing to play at all or refusing to play hard if they didn't trade him this week. And let's not forget that Theo Epstein was never too enamored with Manny to begin with, even going so far as to place him on waivers during the off-season a few years ago. All of the nonsense over the past two weeks or so finally provided Theo with the necessary support to dump Manny from both the front office and Red Sox Nation at large.
(2) Bay's and Manny's offensive numbers this year are almost identical. Of course, Jason Bay isn't as good a hitter as Manny Ramirez; very, very few players are. But Bay is a legitimately good hitter, who is much younger than Manny, is signed through 2009, and who is an undisputed defensive upgrade in left field. Even outside of the purely statistical realm, it has to be a relief to the rest of the team to have all of this ridiculous drama resovled, and I'd bet that Manny had only a couple of supporters on the team by the end of his tenure (Youkilis and Schilling NOT being two of them). I'm not a big believer in the importance of "chemistry" in baseball, but it certainly can't hurt to have a stressful and distracting situation resolved once and for all. This applies for everyone -- players, the manager, coaches, and the front office. If there's one concern with Bay it's that he won't be able to handle the limelight and itensity that comes with playing in Boston. Only time will tell on that issue. But given the circumstances, I think Theo did an incredible job in getting as much value back as he could. The man-crush remains firmly intact.
Manny, it was a joy to watch you hit, you provided us with hours of goofy entertainment, and I wouldn't own two "World Series champs" t-shirts if it weren't for you. But don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
No posts
Sorry for the lack of posting, but my home computer has been busted for the past week or so, and I probably shouldn't write while I'm at work. Everything should be on the up-and-up by the end of the week, so please check back then. Thanks.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Links
I'm feeling way too lazy to write a full entry, so here are a few recent links that I found interesting early in the week:
- The 9th Circuit weighs in on one of the most absurd acts that I've ever heard a school's administration undertake. I'm stunned that the panel was this divided, and my question for the dissenters is: if this wasn't unconstitutional, (given the extent of the intrusion and the potential "harm"), what is??
- David Simon and Ed Burns were known as sticklers for accuracy when writing The Wire. Given that, it's not suprising that their newest project, "Generation Kill," receives praise here (from a former embedded reporter) and here (from a former Marine) for its true-to-life portrayal of the invasion of Iraq.
- One of the funniest Daily Show clips that I've seen in a while (albeit a little bit embarassing).
- A Chinese tennis player expresses his disdain for Michael Chang.
- Are the attacks against Michelle Obama unfair: Round 750. For what it's worth, I think that Ponnuru's rationale is more logical (although describing her as "anti-American" and "hostile to men" is being needlessly provocative).
- It got a little dusty in the office while I was reading this article, if you know what I mean.
- An interesting college experience, to say the least. No debt would be nice, though........
- The 9th Circuit weighs in on one of the most absurd acts that I've ever heard a school's administration undertake. I'm stunned that the panel was this divided, and my question for the dissenters is: if this wasn't unconstitutional, (given the extent of the intrusion and the potential "harm"), what is??
- David Simon and Ed Burns were known as sticklers for accuracy when writing The Wire. Given that, it's not suprising that their newest project, "Generation Kill," receives praise here (from a former embedded reporter) and here (from a former Marine) for its true-to-life portrayal of the invasion of Iraq.
- One of the funniest Daily Show clips that I've seen in a while (albeit a little bit embarassing).
- A Chinese tennis player expresses his disdain for Michael Chang.
- Are the attacks against Michelle Obama unfair: Round 750. For what it's worth, I think that Ponnuru's rationale is more logical (although describing her as "anti-American" and "hostile to men" is being needlessly provocative).
- It got a little dusty in the office while I was reading this article, if you know what I mean.
- An interesting college experience, to say the least. No debt would be nice, though........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)