So apparently the World Series between two teams with great pitching and compelling individual stories drew the lowest TV ratings EVER.
The Texas Rangers had never been to the World Series. Their best player is a recovering heroin addict who was out of baseball 4 years ago but has turned his life around, resulting in the curious spectacle of ginger ale showers instead of beer and champagne. Their best pitcher started for last year's champion but was traded to a team that missed the playoffs, then dealt to Texas in mid-season.
The Giants hadn't won a WS since the fifties and came out of the weakest Division in the National League. They've escaped the specter of Barry Bonds, baseball's poster boy for the steroid era. They boast the best closer in baseball, a guy with a fake beard and a flaky attitude.
But nobody watched. Because it's not the Yankees or Red Sox? Because the scores weren't expected to be 11-10? Because there were no prospects of Jose Mesa intentionally beaning players?
It's because of the DH rule and everything it represents; it's America's worst instincts on display. Our insistence on specialization; our creepy TMZ/People magazine voyeurism; and most of all, our absolute intolerance for delayed gratification.
A week later we held mid-term elections. Apparently "centrist" Democrats and all republicans interpret the mid-term defeats as a public groundswell against health care reform. The sad thing is that they're probably right.
Memo to the masses: MOST OF THE BILL HASN'T KICKED IN YET.
I'd like to bet that one year from now you see growing public appreciation for health care reform. In January, older offspring can remain on their parents health care as they get their careers started. Kids won't be left out of your new insurance plan because of a pre-existing condition. And very few people have a health care plan that will be a taxed benefit.
But the (m)asses don't understand that. They didn't get a check in the mail yesterday like the bribe they got from W.; we haven't bombed any developing countries in months, so country-pop singers don't have any fresh jingoistic songs; and the government that didn't respond to Katrina, consigns veterans to charity medical care, and allows mine and food safety to erode to Eastern European levels is too big. A guy can't even send the kids to McDonalds for dinner every night because taxes are too high.
What a freaking joke. We've become a country of cranky three-year-olds overdue for a nap that want everything, and we want it now.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Support our troops
My Dad fought in Korea in the 1950s, and I've had several cousins serve in the military.
So far my sons and daughter have all been spared that experience. I actually considered joining out of high school, but it would have cost me a full four-year scholarship. The terms of my ride mandated that I enroll right after high school and complete my coursework in four years. And I was in no position to forego the free money.
Still, I know I've profited from the pain, suffering, and death of many others who joined and served for a variety of reasons. But I find it hard to stand up and cheer when soldiers are announced on planes, introduced at ball games, etc. I feel like I'm aiding and abetting a giant fraud on these people.
I read that the single demographic factor most closely associated with military service is the county unemployment rate. What that says to me is that a lot of young people are going in because they have few other options. (Unlike Dick Cheney. And me.)
Despite that, I see people I know clapping and cheering wildly for servicemen and women who would (I believe) advocate strongly against such service for their own children. Most of the Bush/Cheney cabal that started an unnecessary war in Iraq avoided military service themselves. My Dad always called them "chicken hawks", and he resented the facile patriotism of yellow ribbon magnets and jingoistic bumper stickers.
Once when I had a layover in Las Vegas I agreed to give up my seat to a soldier on an overbooked flight. It had nothing to do with "supporting the troops"; I got $700 in flight credits and a few free hours in Vegas. But some fat-ass blowhard on the flight was loudly telling everybody else in the waiting area that he'd pay $100 to anybody giving up their seat. When I agreed to be bumped, he shuffled up and offered it to me. I declined and he beat a quick retreat.
So this is "patriotism". Offer to throw a little money around, but don't actually volunteer to be inconvenienced yourself. I guess it's to be expected. All Bush asked of us after 9/11 was to go shopping. So when we're asked to "salute the troops in attendance" or give a standing ovation to a bunch of teenagers being sworn in, I get queasy. I feel like there's some cruel joke being played on them, and that when the commander shakes their hands he's passing them a folded up paper with "It sucks to be you" printed on it.
I do appreciate their service. I just wish the service didn't consist of being callously used and thrown into danger to protect Halliburton shareholders and as a Viagra substitute for George Bush.
So far my sons and daughter have all been spared that experience. I actually considered joining out of high school, but it would have cost me a full four-year scholarship. The terms of my ride mandated that I enroll right after high school and complete my coursework in four years. And I was in no position to forego the free money.
Still, I know I've profited from the pain, suffering, and death of many others who joined and served for a variety of reasons. But I find it hard to stand up and cheer when soldiers are announced on planes, introduced at ball games, etc. I feel like I'm aiding and abetting a giant fraud on these people.
I read that the single demographic factor most closely associated with military service is the county unemployment rate. What that says to me is that a lot of young people are going in because they have few other options. (Unlike Dick Cheney. And me.)
Despite that, I see people I know clapping and cheering wildly for servicemen and women who would (I believe) advocate strongly against such service for their own children. Most of the Bush/Cheney cabal that started an unnecessary war in Iraq avoided military service themselves. My Dad always called them "chicken hawks", and he resented the facile patriotism of yellow ribbon magnets and jingoistic bumper stickers.
Once when I had a layover in Las Vegas I agreed to give up my seat to a soldier on an overbooked flight. It had nothing to do with "supporting the troops"; I got $700 in flight credits and a few free hours in Vegas. But some fat-ass blowhard on the flight was loudly telling everybody else in the waiting area that he'd pay $100 to anybody giving up their seat. When I agreed to be bumped, he shuffled up and offered it to me. I declined and he beat a quick retreat.
So this is "patriotism". Offer to throw a little money around, but don't actually volunteer to be inconvenienced yourself. I guess it's to be expected. All Bush asked of us after 9/11 was to go shopping. So when we're asked to "salute the troops in attendance" or give a standing ovation to a bunch of teenagers being sworn in, I get queasy. I feel like there's some cruel joke being played on them, and that when the commander shakes their hands he's passing them a folded up paper with "It sucks to be you" printed on it.
I do appreciate their service. I just wish the service didn't consist of being callously used and thrown into danger to protect Halliburton shareholders and as a Viagra substitute for George Bush.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
En Cuba
I've been reading a lot about Cuba lately.
Not just Cuba, but about Che Guevara, Fidel, the Revolution, etc. And I can't avoid the conclusion that the continuing embargo is a) cruel, b) stupid, and c) not in our best interests.
To be fair, there are reasons why we punish a tiny nation with long-standing ties to the U.S.
1) They threatened us with nuclear weapons in the early sixties.....there is that. But before that time the U.S. had sponsored an invasion (Bay of Pigs), attempted several times to assassinate Castro (wonder if Castro kids ever thought about invading the U.S. "'cause he tried ta kill muh daddeh"?), and officially declared we can occupy their country whenever we want (Platt Amendment).
2) The Cuban Revolution dispossessed the U.S. and U.S. companies of assets and will not compensate the owners.....true enough. But we got most of those those assets by bribing corrupt officials of successive regimes.
3) The Cuban government is repressive and brutalizes its one people.....Yup. Probably not as much as the majority of countries with which we do business. China? Russia? Most of the Middle East and Africa?
Lifting the embargo would likely help democratize Cuba. Don't misunderstand; Cuba will never go back to what it was, which was a third world kleptocracy client state. A lot of Cubans are devoted to the Revolution, and it's not hard to see why. Despite shortages and hardship (mostly imposed by the U.S.), Cubans still have free medical care, low infant mortality (lower than the U.S.), free education through graduate school, and guaranteed employment. There are a lot of people in this country who would keep quiet and attend mandatory political rallies for those benefits.
But engagement with Cuba would be a boon to U.S. companies (now prevented from competing with Europe and Canada for joint projects). And those U.S. citizens who lost property in the revolution would have some hope of negotiated compensation.
Finally,Helms-Burton makes us look vindictive, arrogant, and, frankly, a bit silly in the eyes of the world. I deeply respect my ex-brother-in-law who endured hardship in leaving Cuba as a child and made his way in the U.S. A gentle man, he still says he'd gladly kill Fidel with his own hands if he had the chance. But it's been fifty years. And we can't allow raw emotion to dictate our foreign policy.
Not just Cuba, but about Che Guevara, Fidel, the Revolution, etc. And I can't avoid the conclusion that the continuing embargo is a) cruel, b) stupid, and c) not in our best interests.
To be fair, there are reasons why we punish a tiny nation with long-standing ties to the U.S.
1) They threatened us with nuclear weapons in the early sixties.....there is that. But before that time the U.S. had sponsored an invasion (Bay of Pigs), attempted several times to assassinate Castro (wonder if Castro kids ever thought about invading the U.S. "'cause he tried ta kill muh daddeh"?), and officially declared we can occupy their country whenever we want (Platt Amendment).
2) The Cuban Revolution dispossessed the U.S. and U.S. companies of assets and will not compensate the owners.....true enough. But we got most of those those assets by bribing corrupt officials of successive regimes.
3) The Cuban government is repressive and brutalizes its one people.....Yup. Probably not as much as the majority of countries with which we do business. China? Russia? Most of the Middle East and Africa?
Lifting the embargo would likely help democratize Cuba. Don't misunderstand; Cuba will never go back to what it was, which was a third world kleptocracy client state. A lot of Cubans are devoted to the Revolution, and it's not hard to see why. Despite shortages and hardship (mostly imposed by the U.S.), Cubans still have free medical care, low infant mortality (lower than the U.S.), free education through graduate school, and guaranteed employment. There are a lot of people in this country who would keep quiet and attend mandatory political rallies for those benefits.
But engagement with Cuba would be a boon to U.S. companies (now prevented from competing with Europe and Canada for joint projects). And those U.S. citizens who lost property in the revolution would have some hope of negotiated compensation.
Finally,Helms-Burton makes us look vindictive, arrogant, and, frankly, a bit silly in the eyes of the world. I deeply respect my ex-brother-in-law who endured hardship in leaving Cuba as a child and made his way in the U.S. A gentle man, he still says he'd gladly kill Fidel with his own hands if he had the chance. But it's been fifty years. And we can't allow raw emotion to dictate our foreign policy.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
World Cup Observations
June 14th was the two-year anniversary of my Dad's death. The World Cup reminds me of him. He always said it was his most reliable soporific(though he always enjoyed watching his grandsons play).
I'm one of the few Americans my age who actually played the game as a youth, but I don't remember Dad ever attending a game. He may have been there, but since he worked swing shift at the factory he was often sleeping or working during the day. I know he was a lot more enthusiastic about my basketball games, even when I was playing in a rec league in high school. But I digress.
I watch a lot of sports, but there are a few aspects of the WC that make it a truly unique experience.
1) Close enough
In soccer approximations frequently come into play.
Ball out of bounds? Okay, just throw it in from somewhere around in there.
How much time is left? Well, about five minutes. Only the referee really knows, and he may not have decided yet.
Was that player just fouled? Well, yeah, but his teammate got the ball so we'll just ignore it.
2) Amusing English translations
"Group of Death" sound like something kids made it up in a treehouse.
3) Stoppages of play
Compared to the primary American sports, there are almost no stoppages of play. Unlike baseball or football, it's impossible to read and watch a soccer game at the same time. It means you have to stay engaged in the game or miss one of the one or two goals that are suddenly scored. And staying engaged increases the enjoyment.
Of course, soccer ain't perfect. All the exaggerated flopping to get a call seems unabashedly European and thus, somewhat effeminate. I know this is jingoistic, but I can't help it.
So celebrate the World Cup for what it is. It's only on every four years, and has yet to be completely Americanized (in stark contrast to the Olympics).
And, Dad....enjoy your nap.
I'm one of the few Americans my age who actually played the game as a youth, but I don't remember Dad ever attending a game. He may have been there, but since he worked swing shift at the factory he was often sleeping or working during the day. I know he was a lot more enthusiastic about my basketball games, even when I was playing in a rec league in high school. But I digress.
I watch a lot of sports, but there are a few aspects of the WC that make it a truly unique experience.
1) Close enough
In soccer approximations frequently come into play.
Ball out of bounds? Okay, just throw it in from somewhere around in there.
How much time is left? Well, about five minutes. Only the referee really knows, and he may not have decided yet.
Was that player just fouled? Well, yeah, but his teammate got the ball so we'll just ignore it.
2) Amusing English translations
"Group of Death" sound like something kids made it up in a treehouse.
3) Stoppages of play
Compared to the primary American sports, there are almost no stoppages of play. Unlike baseball or football, it's impossible to read and watch a soccer game at the same time. It means you have to stay engaged in the game or miss one of the one or two goals that are suddenly scored. And staying engaged increases the enjoyment.
Of course, soccer ain't perfect. All the exaggerated flopping to get a call seems unabashedly European and thus, somewhat effeminate. I know this is jingoistic, but I can't help it.
So celebrate the World Cup for what it is. It's only on every four years, and has yet to be completely Americanized (in stark contrast to the Olympics).
And, Dad....enjoy your nap.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
My seat back is already upright....
My first post. I have a strange urge to get out the video camera.
I guess this first foray should be on some weighty, topical matter, like the death of the American dream, or the ethics of biotechnology, or the designated hitter rule.
But what I really want to talk about is air travel.
For the past few years, my job has required air travel about once a month. When I was younger, airports seemed exciting and exotic. All these interesting, well-dressed people traveling to attend to urgent matters. Now it just seems like drudgery, a chore to get through that involves frequent contact with rude large people. I hate to sound like a crank, but.....
Issue 1...carry-on baggage
If you're going to insist on carrying on as much as possible to save that critical ten minutes at baggage claim, please do it quickly. And if you can't lift it unassisted, you should probably check the damn bag. Don't get pissy if your Panama hat gets crushed by a laptop. Next time either wear it or leave it at home, Mr. Valdez.
Issue 2....personal space
I know the seats are cramped. But they're cramped for me, too. Don't stick your elbows into my side so you can be comfortable. Respect the armrest, for cryin' out loud. It's the DMZ of coach fare.
Issue 3....the gate stand-up
If you're too tired or weak from the flight to support yourself on your own two feet, why do you feel the need to leap up as soon as the seat belt sign is off, rip your bag from the overhead and block the aisle while leaning against my seat?
Issue 4....the baggage claim
Why in the hell does everybody feel a need to rush up next to the carousel? If everybody would just stay back ten feet, nobody would have to elbow their way through people standing with their arms folded with one foot up on the carousel, blankly staring at bags passing by. Other people's bags.
These are just my complaints about other passengers. My beefs with the actual airlines will await another day.
I guess this first foray should be on some weighty, topical matter, like the death of the American dream, or the ethics of biotechnology, or the designated hitter rule.
But what I really want to talk about is air travel.
For the past few years, my job has required air travel about once a month. When I was younger, airports seemed exciting and exotic. All these interesting, well-dressed people traveling to attend to urgent matters. Now it just seems like drudgery, a chore to get through that involves frequent contact with rude large people. I hate to sound like a crank, but.....
Issue 1...carry-on baggage
If you're going to insist on carrying on as much as possible to save that critical ten minutes at baggage claim, please do it quickly. And if you can't lift it unassisted, you should probably check the damn bag. Don't get pissy if your Panama hat gets crushed by a laptop. Next time either wear it or leave it at home, Mr. Valdez.
Issue 2....personal space
I know the seats are cramped. But they're cramped for me, too. Don't stick your elbows into my side so you can be comfortable. Respect the armrest, for cryin' out loud. It's the DMZ of coach fare.
Issue 3....the gate stand-up
If you're too tired or weak from the flight to support yourself on your own two feet, why do you feel the need to leap up as soon as the seat belt sign is off, rip your bag from the overhead and block the aisle while leaning against my seat?
Issue 4....the baggage claim
Why in the hell does everybody feel a need to rush up next to the carousel? If everybody would just stay back ten feet, nobody would have to elbow their way through people standing with their arms folded with one foot up on the carousel, blankly staring at bags passing by. Other people's bags.
These are just my complaints about other passengers. My beefs with the actual airlines will await another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)