Monday, November 29, 2004
The Hall of Fame ballot has been announced: names preceeded by an "x" are on for the first time: x-Jim Abbott, Bert Blyleven, x-Wade Boggs, x-Tom Candiotti, Dave Concepcion, x-Chili Davis, Andre Dawson, Steve Garvey, Rich Gossage, Tommy John, x-Mark Langston, Don Mattingly, x-Jack McDowell, x-Willie McGee, x-Jeff Montgomery, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, x-Otis Nixon, Dave Parker, x-Tony Phillips, Jim Rice, Ryne Sandberg, Lee Smith, x-Terry Steinbach, x-Darryl Strawberry, Bruce Sutter, Alan Trammell.
Too bad about Straw-- I don't see that he'll ever make it, and yet, when we were watching him in his prime it looked like he was as close to can't miss as it was possible to be. Dave Parker, too, and for some of the same reasons. Can't say I was ever a Boggs fan, but home and away wives won't be enough to keep him out forever. It might be enough to keep Garvey out, though. If I had a vote, I'd go with Gossage, Murphy, Rhino Sandberg and Sutter. Relief pitchers are under-represented, and they were two of the guys who defined the role when "fireman" meant something more than it does today. Sandberg and Murphy were simply great to watch, even though they labored for terrible teams-- you could make a case for each of them being the bast in the game at points during their careers. You could make the same case for Donnie Baseball, of course, but I think his career was too short.
Too bad about Straw-- I don't see that he'll ever make it, and yet, when we were watching him in his prime it looked like he was as close to can't miss as it was possible to be. Dave Parker, too, and for some of the same reasons. Can't say I was ever a Boggs fan, but home and away wives won't be enough to keep him out forever. It might be enough to keep Garvey out, though. If I had a vote, I'd go with Gossage, Murphy, Rhino Sandberg and Sutter. Relief pitchers are under-represented, and they were two of the guys who defined the role when "fireman" meant something more than it does today. Sandberg and Murphy were simply great to watch, even though they labored for terrible teams-- you could make a case for each of them being the bast in the game at points during their careers. You could make the same case for Donnie Baseball, of course, but I think his career was too short.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
42:27. 8:32 pace. (184/M45-49). I was 42:19 last year; if I can hold on to that pace until I'm 80 there may be some hardware in it for me. Light snow, at least at the start-- I parked downtown and took the bus to the start, but it was cold, and snowing, so I spent 45 minutes nursing an oatmeal cookie and a cup of coffee in the Boston Market. I crossed the line feeling like I hadn't pushed, but I was happy with my pace, happy with my race.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Just a thought. The oldest road race in North America. In our backyard. It's even a more or less manageable distance. Just a thought....
Monday, November 22, 2004
Who said no more lists? Well, it's been a while.50 Greatest Covers. (Via kottke.) A very Brit oriented list, but you could carve a decent Top 20 out of it. I love Richard Thompson's "Oops I Did it Again"-- but do I love it enough to put on my all time list? John Cale's "Heartbreak Hotel" is on mine, and Patti Smith's "Gloria", too. Can't argue with the Who's "Summertime Blues", or Devo's "Satisfaction", either. C'mon, though, the Flying Lizards? I don't think The Flying Burrito Bros's "Wild Horses" qualifies-- didn't the Stones steal it from Parsons? The Coltrane has no business on a list like this, but I concur absolutely in the Number One.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
This week's issue of The New Yorker arrived yesterday, and since A. was out of town I was able to get my hands on it before it disappeared into the pile of Things I Plan On Getting To. I don't usually see the magazine until it has passed through the hands of everyone else in the household, so it is seldom a very topical read for me-- if I depended on it for news, I'd just now be devastated about Al Gore losing.
My New Yorker methodology is, I think, the only reasonable one: I go cover to cover, and read it all. Listings, advertisements, Talk of the Town, articles, fiction, the back of the book reviews. Many people-- and I'm not naming names here-- flip through it, looking at the cartoons, and make mental promises to go back and read the articles. Then the magazine goes into the TIPOGT pile. This is not my way.
All of which is by way of saying that the recap of the baseball season just past by Roger Angell is one of the little things that make life nicer. It was a thrilling season, but sometimes the ultimate resolution blurs or obscures all of the elements that make following the sport pleasurable. Angell reminds us of, for example, Jeter's going into the stands to make that spectacular catch, and suddenly on a rainy November night I can recall July. Angell has been writing these pieces since Ty Cobb was playing Legion ball, and someday they'll come to an end. I can't think of anyone else writing about sports today who does it as well.
My New Yorker methodology is, I think, the only reasonable one: I go cover to cover, and read it all. Listings, advertisements, Talk of the Town, articles, fiction, the back of the book reviews. Many people-- and I'm not naming names here-- flip through it, looking at the cartoons, and make mental promises to go back and read the articles. Then the magazine goes into the TIPOGT pile. This is not my way.
All of which is by way of saying that the recap of the baseball season just past by Roger Angell is one of the little things that make life nicer. It was a thrilling season, but sometimes the ultimate resolution blurs or obscures all of the elements that make following the sport pleasurable. Angell reminds us of, for example, Jeter's going into the stands to make that spectacular catch, and suddenly on a rainy November night I can recall July. Angell has been writing these pieces since Ty Cobb was playing Legion ball, and someday they'll come to an end. I can't think of anyone else writing about sports today who does it as well.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
At the Academy of Hospitality Industry Attornys meeting I met a lawyer who represents Buddy Guy. He's a big Stones fan, too, and on their last tour Buddy got him backstage to meet the band. He tells the story better than I can here, but in a nutshell, although he was thrilled to be there, he realized that he really didn't have anything to say. "I've seen you guys play every time you've been through Chicago," he finally blurted out to Keith. "Well, good," the Human Chemistry Set replied, "Then you're caught up."
Friday, November 12, 2004
A point of constitutional law discovered in my travels through the First Amendment case law:
"Nude dancing qualifies as expressive conduct that 'falls within the outer ambit of the First Amendment's protection.' City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 289, 146 L. Ed. 2d 265, 120 S. Ct. 1382 (2001) (plurality opinion); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 566, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504, 111 S. Ct. 2456 (1991) [**2] ('Nude dancing . . . is expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment, though only . . . marginally so.')."
I can hear it now:
"She's got a really nice outer ambit . . . but only marginally so."
"Nude dancing qualifies as expressive conduct that 'falls within the outer ambit of the First Amendment's protection.' City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 289, 146 L. Ed. 2d 265, 120 S. Ct. 1382 (2001) (plurality opinion); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 566, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504, 111 S. Ct. 2456 (1991) [**2] ('Nude dancing . . . is expressive conduct within the outer perimeters of the First Amendment, though only . . . marginally so.')."
I can hear it now:
"She's got a really nice outer ambit . . . but only marginally so."
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Meg Hourihan's thoughts on completing the NYC Marathon. Sounds like a similar experience. Following her training over the summer it seemed like she did a few more long runs than we did.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Hilariously, the Olympia Club has offered to pay my entry fee for the Turkey Trot if I'll wear their colors. They obviously haven't seen my times.
Monday, November 08, 2004
From ESPN.com, What was Keith Richards thinking when he agreed to play the role of Johnny Depp's father in the sequel to "Pirates of the Caribbean: "With acting serious-like, you see, there has to be a (coughs) you see, take a (slurred) try like Mick and Ronnie were back of the (coughs and/or laughs?) what the (unintelligible) pirate thing, Disney or whatever, if you see what I mean, then, right?"
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Garry Willis says:
This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.
The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.
In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
That's what I said the other day, only with fewer words.
This election confirms the brilliance of Karl Rove as a political strategist. He calculated that the religious conservatives, if they could be turned out, would be the deciding factor. The success of the plan was registered not only in the presidential results but also in all 11 of the state votes to ban same-sex marriage. Mr. Rove understands what surveys have shown, that many more Americans believe in the Virgin Birth than in Darwin's theory of evolution.
This might be called Bryan's revenge for the Scopes trial of 1925, in which William Jennings Bryan's fundamentalist assault on the concept of evolution was discredited. Disillusionment with that decision led many evangelicals to withdraw from direct engagement in politics. But they came roaring back into the arena out of anger at other court decisions - on prayer in school, abortion, protection of the flag and, now, gay marriage. Mr. Rove felt that the appeal to this large bloc was worth getting President Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (though he had opposed it earlier).
The results bring to mind a visit the Dalai Lama made to Chicago not long ago. I was one of the people deputized to ask him questions on the stage at the Field Museum. He met with the interrogators beforehand and asked us to give him challenging questions, since he is too often greeted with deference or flattery.
The only one I could think of was: "If you could return to your country, what would you do to change it?" He said that he would disestablish his religion, since "America is the proper model." I later asked him if a pluralist society were possible without the Enlightenment. "Ah," he said. "That's the problem." He seemed to envy America its Enlightenment heritage.
Which raises the question: Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?
America, the first real democracy in history, was a product of Enlightenment values - critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences. Though the founders differed on many things, they shared these values of what was then modernity. They addressed "a candid world," as they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, out of "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." Respect for evidence seems not to pertain any more, when a poll taken just before the elections showed that 75 percent of Mr. Bush's supporters believe Iraq either worked closely with Al Qaeda or was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11.
The secular states of modern Europe do not understand the fundamentalism of the American electorate. It is not what they had experienced from this country in the past. In fact, we now resemble those nations less than we do our putative enemies.
Where else do we find fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity, religious intolerance, fear of and hatred for modernity? Not in France or Britain or Germany or Italy or Spain. We find it in the Muslim world, in Al Qaeda, in Saddam Hussein's Sunni loyalists. Americans wonder that the rest of the world thinks us so dangerous, so single-minded, so impervious to international appeals. They fear jihad, no matter whose zeal is being expressed.
It is often observed that enemies come to resemble each other. We torture the torturers, we call our God better than theirs - as one American general put it, in words that the president has not repudiated.
President Bush promised in 2000 that he would lead a humble country, be a uniter not a divider, that he would make conservatism compassionate. He did not need to make such false promises this time. He was re-elected precisely by being a divider, pitting the reddest aspects of the red states against the blue nearly half of the nation. In this, he is very far from Ronald Reagan, who was amiably and ecumenically pious. He could address more secular audiences, here and abroad, with real respect.
In his victory speech yesterday, President Bush indicated that he would "reach out to the whole nation," including those who voted for John Kerry. But even if he wanted to be more conciliatory now, the constituency to which he owes his victory is not a yielding one. He must give them what they want on things like judicial appointments. His helpers are also his keepers.
The moral zealots will, I predict, give some cause for dismay even to nonfundamentalist Republicans. Jihads are scary things. It is not too early to start yearning back toward the Enlightenment.
That's what I said the other day, only with fewer words.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
On a lighter note, last night I played my first hockey game of the year (three SOG, two A). Although I was slow and rusty, I was amazed to notice that I felt significantly less fatigued after skating a shift. I think that the marathon training will pay dividends for a long time.
Tonight's the night, fellas.
My fear for three years has been that the cultural/religious/social divide and the GOP's shameless pandering to the red demographic will overwhelm all the rest of the issues and the concerns of the "reality-based" community. Gay marriage, abortion, revolutionary Islam . . . , you know the drill. I'm a gloom and doom guy as you know, but I suggest that the Dems may well have severely underestimated the resonance these feelings (fears?) have out there.
My fear for three years has been that the cultural/religious/social divide and the GOP's shameless pandering to the red demographic will overwhelm all the rest of the issues and the concerns of the "reality-based" community. Gay marriage, abortion, revolutionary Islam . . . , you know the drill. I'm a gloom and doom guy as you know, but I suggest that the Dems may well have severely underestimated the resonance these feelings (fears?) have out there.
