The Celtics were wronged by the fickle ping pong ball of fate and were awarded the fifth pick in the upcoming draft, instead of the first or second.
Say it with me, now: WHO GIVES A RAT'S ASS?
Thank you for your time and attention.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
God Finally Breaks His Silence
Today Jerry Falwell died at 73.
It's not for me to spit on a warm corpse. I'm sensitive to the fact that he left a family who loved him on a personal level, and believe me, I'm hip to how much his death is hurting them, especially today and in the coming days. So if one of Falwell's immediate family is reading this, please accept my condolences for your loss, and I apologize in advance for the hard words that will follow.
But the man you loved was, at his heart, a bad man. He turned his love for his God into a political agenda, and in so doing brought shame to himself and diminished many people's view of his God. For his sake, he'd better hope there is no heaven, because he's gonna be on the outside looking in.
It's my belief that Falwell did more damage to the American political landscape than any other human being, other than perhaps the current President and his administration.
Falwell's particular brand of havoc was to inexorably tie religious beliefs to politics, against the specific instructions of the framers of the Constitution. In so doing he has set the course of American history back by decades. I know this is a difficult concept for a lot of people, especially Christian people, but there are more people in the United States besides Christians. And there are plenty of Christians who can separate the notions of how a country should be run versus how one's house should be run. But Falwell decided things should be otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with being a person of faith, though I admit freely that I am not one. What's wrong is that certain people of faith are, you should pardon the expression, hell-bent on subjecting the entire population to the same set of rules by which they have chosen to live (the selfsame choice, by the way, that might never have been possible had the Founding Fathers decided that religion and politics ought not mix).
A provocative question: How much different is the Christian right - specifically that segment of the Christian right that pursues a political agenda - from those who would see Islamic regimes set up based on Shariya, ancient Islamic law? Sure, maybe the way punishment is meted out might be different (we'll throw you in the hoosgow for knocking over a liquor store; those crazy bastards will cut off your hand), but the idea is the same: conduct YOUR life according to the tenets that I believe, and if you can't see the folly and the arrogance of that, you're not paying attention.
And Jerry Falwell was the man that pioneered the concept that his God should run the United States. And would say and do anything to further his political agenda, irrespective of whose beliefs he trampled or whose good name he besmirched. He claimed that feminists and Democrats -- Democrats, for heaven's sake! -- were doing the work of the devil. He claimed that AIDS was God's divine retribution for the "sin" of homosexuality. He claimed that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were the direct cause of abortionists and the ACLU. He of course later claimed that his remarks two days after the attacks on Pat Robertson's 700 Club were taken out of context. I'll let you be the judge:
How out of context could that be? On September 13, 2001, when the whole country was shaken and raw, and tears were shed for total strangers, and there was a universal outpouring of sympathy and pity and love for one's fellow man, here's Jerry Falwell blaming Americans for that horrible tragedy and furthering his own political agenda at the exact time that a TRUE man of God would be trying to heal the nation's wounds.
No, Jerry Falwell was not a good man. History will not remember him kindly, and that is the one true legacy that he deserves.
It's not for me to spit on a warm corpse. I'm sensitive to the fact that he left a family who loved him on a personal level, and believe me, I'm hip to how much his death is hurting them, especially today and in the coming days. So if one of Falwell's immediate family is reading this, please accept my condolences for your loss, and I apologize in advance for the hard words that will follow.
But the man you loved was, at his heart, a bad man. He turned his love for his God into a political agenda, and in so doing brought shame to himself and diminished many people's view of his God. For his sake, he'd better hope there is no heaven, because he's gonna be on the outside looking in.
It's my belief that Falwell did more damage to the American political landscape than any other human being, other than perhaps the current President and his administration.
Falwell's particular brand of havoc was to inexorably tie religious beliefs to politics, against the specific instructions of the framers of the Constitution. In so doing he has set the course of American history back by decades. I know this is a difficult concept for a lot of people, especially Christian people, but there are more people in the United States besides Christians. And there are plenty of Christians who can separate the notions of how a country should be run versus how one's house should be run. But Falwell decided things should be otherwise.
There's nothing wrong with being a person of faith, though I admit freely that I am not one. What's wrong is that certain people of faith are, you should pardon the expression, hell-bent on subjecting the entire population to the same set of rules by which they have chosen to live (the selfsame choice, by the way, that might never have been possible had the Founding Fathers decided that religion and politics ought not mix).
A provocative question: How much different is the Christian right - specifically that segment of the Christian right that pursues a political agenda - from those who would see Islamic regimes set up based on Shariya, ancient Islamic law? Sure, maybe the way punishment is meted out might be different (we'll throw you in the hoosgow for knocking over a liquor store; those crazy bastards will cut off your hand), but the idea is the same: conduct YOUR life according to the tenets that I believe, and if you can't see the folly and the arrogance of that, you're not paying attention.
And Jerry Falwell was the man that pioneered the concept that his God should run the United States. And would say and do anything to further his political agenda, irrespective of whose beliefs he trampled or whose good name he besmirched. He claimed that feminists and Democrats -- Democrats, for heaven's sake! -- were doing the work of the devil. He claimed that AIDS was God's divine retribution for the "sin" of homosexuality. He claimed that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were the direct cause of abortionists and the ACLU. He of course later claimed that his remarks two days after the attacks on Pat Robertson's 700 Club were taken out of context. I'll let you be the judge:
JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.
JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.
How out of context could that be? On September 13, 2001, when the whole country was shaken and raw, and tears were shed for total strangers, and there was a universal outpouring of sympathy and pity and love for one's fellow man, here's Jerry Falwell blaming Americans for that horrible tragedy and furthering his own political agenda at the exact time that a TRUE man of God would be trying to heal the nation's wounds.
No, Jerry Falwell was not a good man. History will not remember him kindly, and that is the one true legacy that he deserves.
Monday, May 14, 2007
A Few More Words About the Red Sox
My favorite baseball quote of all time comes, ironically enough (you'll understand the irony soon) from Earl Weaver, the longtime skipper of the Baltimore Orioles:
Yesterday, the Red Sox, down five runs in the bottom of the ninth inning, scored six for an improbable 6-5 victory over the selfsame Orioles that Weaver managed for so many years. Had they harkened to his words of wisdom, this game would have ended up the laugher that it had been shaping up to be all afternoon. But an error, an ill-timed pitching change, a few base hits, a few walks, another error, and hey presto, 6-5 good guys.
One hears that the Yankees were scoreboard-watching and couldn't believe that the Sox ended up winning. "I looked up and couldn't really believe it," the New York Daily News quoted the ever quotable Johnny Damon as saying. "It seemed like the Orioles had the game convincingly. I thought they might have made a mistake, that it should have still been 5-0."
No mistake, Johnny D.
Combined with a 2-1 Yankees loss to the Mariners (where A-Rod had the game on his bat with two outs and two on in the eighth, but whiffed), this means that the Orioles and the Yankees both trail the Sox in the AL East by eight games, which is quite a lead for the middle of May. Of course it's no guarantee that the crown comes to Boston this year, but I'm sure they'd rather be eight up than eight down.
In my last post I articulated why I think this is no fluke; the team is strong in just about every category you can measure. But I'll add some additional analysis, and hope that the less stat-minded among you will forgive me.
The Red Sox are tied for second place in all of baseball in the category of runs scored with 198, tied with Detroit and second only to a certain New York based team whose name rhymes with "Shmankees." They are also the outright leader in runs allowed, with 125.
A heady combination, that. Makes one really start thinking that this team is well-constructed for the long haul.
"You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all."
Yesterday, the Red Sox, down five runs in the bottom of the ninth inning, scored six for an improbable 6-5 victory over the selfsame Orioles that Weaver managed for so many years. Had they harkened to his words of wisdom, this game would have ended up the laugher that it had been shaping up to be all afternoon. But an error, an ill-timed pitching change, a few base hits, a few walks, another error, and hey presto, 6-5 good guys.
One hears that the Yankees were scoreboard-watching and couldn't believe that the Sox ended up winning. "I looked up and couldn't really believe it," the New York Daily News quoted the ever quotable Johnny Damon as saying. "It seemed like the Orioles had the game convincingly. I thought they might have made a mistake, that it should have still been 5-0."
No mistake, Johnny D.
Combined with a 2-1 Yankees loss to the Mariners (where A-Rod had the game on his bat with two outs and two on in the eighth, but whiffed), this means that the Orioles and the Yankees both trail the Sox in the AL East by eight games, which is quite a lead for the middle of May. Of course it's no guarantee that the crown comes to Boston this year, but I'm sure they'd rather be eight up than eight down.
In my last post I articulated why I think this is no fluke; the team is strong in just about every category you can measure. But I'll add some additional analysis, and hope that the less stat-minded among you will forgive me.
The Red Sox are tied for second place in all of baseball in the category of runs scored with 198, tied with Detroit and second only to a certain New York based team whose name rhymes with "Shmankees." They are also the outright leader in runs allowed, with 125.
A heady combination, that. Makes one really start thinking that this team is well-constructed for the long haul.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Spot the Weakness
Sorry for the lack of posts. Lot going on for the Crafty Southpaw these days, and only some of it is good. But something is really starting to loom large, so large in fact that I find myself having to write about it.
I'm speaking, of course, of the fortunes of the Boston Red Sox.
Now, I know that it is just May, and that predictions have a tendency to stand on their heads when they're made in May. But as of this morning, the Sawx enjoy a seven-game lead over their closest opponent, as of this morning the Baltimore Orioles by a whisker over the Yankees. More importantly, if this team has a glaring weakness, I can't spot it.
Starting Pitching: Do I even need to go here? The Sox' rotation is as formidable as any in all of baseball. The staff's nominal ace, Curt Schilling, is with his stingy 3.28 ERA only the third-best starter they have by that measure. Josh Beckett is 7-0 with a 2.51 ERA and is the lead horse in the race for the AL Cy Young. Perhaps his closest competitor is Boston's number four starter, the ageless Tim Wakefield, whose 1.79 ERA rules the AL right now. In a word, ri-god-damn-diculous.
Relief Pitching: The Sox have perhaps the best 8th-inning/9th-inning tandem in Hideki Okajima and Jonathan Papelbon that the game offers right now. I'm not as up on the NL closer situation as I might be, so I'll allow myself to be educated otherwise, but I don't think so. How disheartening is it for an opposing team to know that if they're not leading by the end of the 7th that they have virtually no shot at winning? My goodness. And they're not the only stars of the 'pen either. Brendan Donnelly has been buried at the end of the bench through no fault of his own - JC Romero and Joel Pinero have been performing yeoman's work when Oki and Pap have days off or any mop-up duty is called for. Kyle Snyder is a capable long-relief man, but there's really been no great need for long relief.
It is often said that relief pitching is the most difficult part of the roster to fill well - after all, if a pitcher were top-shelf he'd be a starter, usually. But the Sox pen is as lights-out as I personally remember a Red Sox team ever being, and I'm just a hair on the sunny side of 40.
Defense: Sure, we don't have Alex Gonzalez to stare at in wonder any more. I still remember the silky, fluid perfection of his work at shortstop and can't believe he lost the Gold Glove to Jeter. But if our defense isn't top-5 in the league, it's certainly no liability. Go around the horn and it seems that the worst defensive player, this year as last, is Manny Ramirez - and he's only a little ways below average. Despite the howls of the Faithful, Manny is not a BAD left-fielder. He's just not a really good one. Given Manny's other gifts, I'll take it.
Offense: The Sox are pounding the crap out of all comers, and Manny isn't even starting to hit yet (though he will; the one constant in the world besides death and taxes is that Manny will finish the season with an average over .310). The one player thought to be soft with a bat is Dustin Pedroia, and he's been knocking the cover off the ball lately, bringing his average up to a respectable .267, with only upside to come. Those of us who followed him in Pawtucket knew this would happen, by the way; he started off his tenure there poorly, then went through a phase when he made solid contact but always right at someone, then built his average up to over .300 by the time he got called up last September.
Bench: Alex Cora is hitting over .400, and is perhaps the smartest player in the game - look for him to embark on a wildly successful management career when he decides to hang up his spikes (and if he wants to). Wily Mo Pena is looking less lost at the plate and woe betide the poor pitcher who doesn't use scouting reports and tries to sneak a fastball by him. Hinske is only batting .200 but he's only had 30 AB's. If he gets enough work, he'll be good for a .260-odd BA, which is his career average.
Conclusion: Sure, there have been a few pleasant surprises: Mike Lowell is perhaps playing beyond himself, as may be Okajima, but this is not a team of overachievers. This team is the real deal. If the injury bug stays away, you have to figure these guys to take it all. Who's going to beat them in a race to five or to seven with Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, and Wakefield as the starting four, and Oki and Pap at the back end? This might just be May, and it certainly could be said that I'm reaching for a little good news in my life right now, but my pick is for the Sox to earn at least another pennant, and perhaps another parade.
I'm speaking, of course, of the fortunes of the Boston Red Sox.
Now, I know that it is just May, and that predictions have a tendency to stand on their heads when they're made in May. But as of this morning, the Sawx enjoy a seven-game lead over their closest opponent, as of this morning the Baltimore Orioles by a whisker over the Yankees. More importantly, if this team has a glaring weakness, I can't spot it.
Starting Pitching: Do I even need to go here? The Sox' rotation is as formidable as any in all of baseball. The staff's nominal ace, Curt Schilling, is with his stingy 3.28 ERA only the third-best starter they have by that measure. Josh Beckett is 7-0 with a 2.51 ERA and is the lead horse in the race for the AL Cy Young. Perhaps his closest competitor is Boston's number four starter, the ageless Tim Wakefield, whose 1.79 ERA rules the AL right now. In a word, ri-god-damn-diculous.
Relief Pitching: The Sox have perhaps the best 8th-inning/9th-inning tandem in Hideki Okajima and Jonathan Papelbon that the game offers right now. I'm not as up on the NL closer situation as I might be, so I'll allow myself to be educated otherwise, but I don't think so. How disheartening is it for an opposing team to know that if they're not leading by the end of the 7th that they have virtually no shot at winning? My goodness. And they're not the only stars of the 'pen either. Brendan Donnelly has been buried at the end of the bench through no fault of his own - JC Romero and Joel Pinero have been performing yeoman's work when Oki and Pap have days off or any mop-up duty is called for. Kyle Snyder is a capable long-relief man, but there's really been no great need for long relief.
It is often said that relief pitching is the most difficult part of the roster to fill well - after all, if a pitcher were top-shelf he'd be a starter, usually. But the Sox pen is as lights-out as I personally remember a Red Sox team ever being, and I'm just a hair on the sunny side of 40.
Defense: Sure, we don't have Alex Gonzalez to stare at in wonder any more. I still remember the silky, fluid perfection of his work at shortstop and can't believe he lost the Gold Glove to Jeter. But if our defense isn't top-5 in the league, it's certainly no liability. Go around the horn and it seems that the worst defensive player, this year as last, is Manny Ramirez - and he's only a little ways below average. Despite the howls of the Faithful, Manny is not a BAD left-fielder. He's just not a really good one. Given Manny's other gifts, I'll take it.
Offense: The Sox are pounding the crap out of all comers, and Manny isn't even starting to hit yet (though he will; the one constant in the world besides death and taxes is that Manny will finish the season with an average over .310). The one player thought to be soft with a bat is Dustin Pedroia, and he's been knocking the cover off the ball lately, bringing his average up to a respectable .267, with only upside to come. Those of us who followed him in Pawtucket knew this would happen, by the way; he started off his tenure there poorly, then went through a phase when he made solid contact but always right at someone, then built his average up to over .300 by the time he got called up last September.
Bench: Alex Cora is hitting over .400, and is perhaps the smartest player in the game - look for him to embark on a wildly successful management career when he decides to hang up his spikes (and if he wants to). Wily Mo Pena is looking less lost at the plate and woe betide the poor pitcher who doesn't use scouting reports and tries to sneak a fastball by him. Hinske is only batting .200 but he's only had 30 AB's. If he gets enough work, he'll be good for a .260-odd BA, which is his career average.
Conclusion: Sure, there have been a few pleasant surprises: Mike Lowell is perhaps playing beyond himself, as may be Okajima, but this is not a team of overachievers. This team is the real deal. If the injury bug stays away, you have to figure these guys to take it all. Who's going to beat them in a race to five or to seven with Schilling, Beckett, Matsuzaka, and Wakefield as the starting four, and Oki and Pap at the back end? This might just be May, and it certainly could be said that I'm reaching for a little good news in my life right now, but my pick is for the Sox to earn at least another pennant, and perhaps another parade.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Politics - but first, some ground rules
It is my hope - provided of course this little corner of the Internet gets viewed by more people than my immediate family - that there will be discussions about politics.
Of course, any opinion is welcome here. The last thing I want is a forum for only the like-minded. Though satisfying from one perspective, it's lacking in several others, including the romantic, sadly anachronistic image of two strangers at a publick house engaged in a lively debate about the state of the world over a bottle of house wine with a complete absence of rancor or invective.
Impossible, you say? Naive and idealistic, you mutter? Maybe. But it's my blog, and I get to lay the rules down:
Of course, any opinion is welcome here. The last thing I want is a forum for only the like-minded. Though satisfying from one perspective, it's lacking in several others, including the romantic, sadly anachronistic image of two strangers at a publick house engaged in a lively debate about the state of the world over a bottle of house wine with a complete absence of rancor or invective.
Impossible, you say? Naive and idealistic, you mutter? Maybe. But it's my blog, and I get to lay the rules down:
- If you don't like the man or his politics, at least respect the office. He's not "Dubya" or "Slick Willie," he's President Bush or President Clinton respectively. Feel free to poop all over actions and decisions, but remember that we're speaking of offices of honor.
- Arguments will be supported by facts here. When someone suggests, for example, that the War in Iraq is, oh, just hypothetically speaking here, a complete clusterfuck, a boondoggle, a sop towards Big Oil and Big Engineering, and a tragic drain on human life, a good response would be an attempt to refute those points - NOT an attack on that person's patriotism. Likewise, a reasoned justification for the war is no excuse to call someone a warmonger or worse.
- We like curse words here (see clusterfuck, above). Curses are like red pepper flakes - it would be a tragedy indeed if they were completely missing from the palate of discourse, but too much just makes things distasteful and inedible. So, in that spirit: Shit.
- I reserve the right to make more rules.
So let's kick things off by giving you a flavor of my political views: I arch fairly far to the left of center, but have some decidedly right-wing views that indeed fall so far right as to be better described as Libertarian.
For example: I'm a flat tax guy. Lookit: I do my own taxes with the help of a tax program - you know the one I'm talking about. The big one. In addition to all the forms and other related nonsense it generates, it also gives me a sort of recap sheet before anything else prints out. And it has told me for the last fifteen years of my professional life, where my income has ranged from $18,000 a year to (thankfully) several times that, my actual tax paid after all the hoo-ha stands right around 19%. That's a good number, as far as I'm concerned. Add it all up, subtract whatever dollar amount equals poverty, and tax the rest on a flat percentage basis. The IRS - a government employer of 100,000 people - becomes a shell of its former self. Government revenue skyrockets. James L. Payne, author of the book Costly Returns: The Burden of the US Tax System, posits that for every dollar of tax the government collects, the taxpayer actually needs to pay $1.65, due to the costs of complying with a labyrinthine tax code and the cost of supporting the IRS itself. We can do better.
For another example: I believe that the Government exists solely for the succour of its citizens, and should only be used for that purpose. Any government that passes a law restricting the rights of its citizens (such as the Defense of Marriage Act) is an act of abhorrence. There's no justifiable excuse, no matter of public interest to defend here. That's not what Government does - or is supposed to do. This is America, god dammit. If a couple of gay guys or girls wish to know the exquisite misery that is married life, I say let 'em. It doesn't pick my pocket and despite the rhetoric of the Christian right, homosexuality is NOT like cooties: you can't catch gay. If you believe it's against God's law because the Bible says so, I better not catch you digging up your entire garden (Leviticus 19:9), wearing an article of clothing made of a wool-linen blend (Lev. 19:19), or heaven forbid eating a medium-rare steak (Lev. 19:26). If you're going to wave the Bible at me, you better live your life according to ALL its tenets, not just the ones that make you oogy when you think about 'em.
Last example for now: I think most drugs which are currently illegal should be legalized and have the everloving CRAP taxed out of them. It's not politically expedient to legalize, say, pot, now or ever. I know this. But I also know this: interdiction DOES NOT WORK. It has never worked. It will never work. Period. It just fills the prisons with people who aren't criminals and provides the occassional photo-op for an overeager DA trying to make a name for himself. I have no problem with the commercials exhorting people to tell their kids about drugs, or the ones that speak to kids themselves about not starting - besides the fact that they're stupid and ineffective. GOD, that pisses me off - like everything you see on TV, those commercials condescend to kids and give them no credit for having a brain. Do you really think that a kid will look at an egg frying in a cast-iron skillet and REALLY think it's his brain on drugs? Come now.
Anyway, like I said at the top of this little missive, I welcome all viewpoints here. Want to defend the Defense of Marriage Act? Step right up, there, manly man, and make your argument - and thanks for visiting.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Of Swastikas and Nappy Hair
My little swastika
My little swastika
You can do what you want
But I'm taking it back
It's not yours anymore
It's mine now
Well, I got me a white one to give to my bride
I got me a black one that my uncle dyed
Green means football, that's the Notre Dame sign
I got me a pink one: gay pride
-Dan Bern, My Little Swastika
Who is this miscreant, this spreader of hate, this Dan Bern?
Is he a Nazi? a Skinhead? A Klansman?Nope. He's a Jew, and he's got a good point.
Bern, all the rage among the folky-singer-songwriter set (and a good time in concert), argues that the only reason the swastika stands as such a pervasive symbol of hate and intolerance -- indeed, of evil -- is because we as a society are still letting it be so. In his song he makes the point that the Chinese used the swastika for 3000 years and it no more meant evil to them then the checkmark sign does to us today. But in twelve years of usage, Nazi Germany has seemingly erased a civilization's benign use of a random symbol.
Hey: It's been a long time since Nazi Germany has influenced anything. Bern is right. It's time to stop viewing symbols as personifications of the boogeymen who used them. I know it's difficult to conceive of now - but it could happen. Symbols are only powerful if we give them power.
Which brings me to the recent brouhaha regarding Don Imus and his apparently unforgivable statement about the Rutgers basketball team.
Let me start off by saying this: I DESPISE Don Imus. He's irrelevant, unfunny, mushmouthed, and I think that that kid thing on his ranch that he does is more self-serving than philanthropic by orders of magnitude.
But people, people, lord amighty - back off the guy! He's a radio guy. He gets paid to make people laugh, and that means, usually, making fun of people. Listen to Howard. Listen to Opie and Anthony. Listen to any of them, and you'll hear them say things EVERY DAY that are more insulting to more people than what Imus said about the girls from Rutgers. Why they chose to fixate on this one remark out of thousands made by all the shock jocks, all the morning Zoo chucklefests on every goddamn radio station in every goddamn market in the US is beyond me.
Now, people have made the argument that all this ridiculous kerfuffle serves as a beard to shield Revs. Sharpton and Jackson from the embarassment of the complete and total vindication of the Duke lacrosse team - heaven forbid they should ever admit to backing the wrong horse - but it doesn't matter. Obviously this issue resonated with a lot of people, and notwithstanding the motive behind making a big deal of it, it's certainly a big deal.
My point is this: Why are we allowing words to hold so much power over us? Idiots will always be idiots. Those who hate and hurt will always do so. It's not the words they use. It's what they think, and the ideas they articulate. Here, check this out:
Nappy-haired ho.
See? It's not the words. It's the idea behind it. Without a malevolent spirit behind a word (or in this case, without any spirit behind them whatsoever), it's just a word, devoid of emotion.
Words have power because we give them power. Words will immediately cease to have power the microsecond we stop giving it to them.
Let's all take back the swastika.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Sox Lose on Opening Day: Panic in Streets of Hub
Blockbuster news coming out of Kansas City: The Red Sox are now mathematically eliminated from going 162-0.
Armed as they were with such a compelling story, talk radio yesterday popped and sizzled with a blow-by-blow analysis of the Red Sox’ epic collapse. Schilling showed a shocking lack of control; Pedroia and Youkilis got overaggressive on the basepaths and got gunned down at second by ten feet each; Sox bats stayed silent thanks to the presumptive Cy Young winner, Gil Meche. And as an extra added bonus, we had an entire off-day to discuss the same three-hour game over and over and over again.
Please, people: Can we all take a breath here? I hate to utter a Boston blasphemy, but it’s just one lousy game. There are many more to play before I have to start my “wait ‘till next year” piece.
Yesterday morning, some poor sap called in to the morning yakfest here in Boston and actually tried to articulate this very point – that maybe, just maybe, the talking heads of talk radio, blissfully free of context or long view, were overanalyzing the bejeebers out of this one single game.
He was, quite literally, shouted down and off the air, and ridiculed in absentia for some time thereafter. I’d love to say I was surprised in addition to being disappointed, but I wasn’t.
I admit, though, that I was a little surprised that the very piece you're currently reading was rejected by the site for whom I write, BostonDirtDogs, because they actually like the idea of fomenting panic in the hearts of the Faithful, and apparently wouldn't dream of publishing anything that resembled the voice of Reason, however still and small that voice might be today. Hey - it's their gig, and I admit that beyond contributing, I enjoy reading the site, so maybe they have something there.
But come on. It’s a long season. We need to keep perspective or we’re going to lose our collective minds. Few people likely remember Opening Day 2004, when the Sox, fresh off their Aaron Boone hangover, got shelled 7-2 at Baltimore. The Sox’ erstwhile ace, Pedro someone or other, gave up a three-spot in the early going and the game was never close. We remember what happened from there, don’t we?
Yes: a win is better than a loss. Fully admitted. Any Red Sox fan would have preferred to start the season with a win, but half the league loses on Opening Day. It’s going to happen; best thing to do is hitch up your trousers and hunker down for a long season.
I don’t know if the Red Sox are going to go all the way this year. I can’t even state with anything like certainty that they’ll make the postseason. But I can tell you this: the measure of a team is not winning in April; it’s winning in October. Let’s withhold judgment on the 2007 Red Sox until some time after game 1.
Armed as they were with such a compelling story, talk radio yesterday popped and sizzled with a blow-by-blow analysis of the Red Sox’ epic collapse. Schilling showed a shocking lack of control; Pedroia and Youkilis got overaggressive on the basepaths and got gunned down at second by ten feet each; Sox bats stayed silent thanks to the presumptive Cy Young winner, Gil Meche. And as an extra added bonus, we had an entire off-day to discuss the same three-hour game over and over and over again.
Please, people: Can we all take a breath here? I hate to utter a Boston blasphemy, but it’s just one lousy game. There are many more to play before I have to start my “wait ‘till next year” piece.
Yesterday morning, some poor sap called in to the morning yakfest here in Boston and actually tried to articulate this very point – that maybe, just maybe, the talking heads of talk radio, blissfully free of context or long view, were overanalyzing the bejeebers out of this one single game.
He was, quite literally, shouted down and off the air, and ridiculed in absentia for some time thereafter. I’d love to say I was surprised in addition to being disappointed, but I wasn’t.
I admit, though, that I was a little surprised that the very piece you're currently reading was rejected by the site for whom I write, BostonDirtDogs, because they actually like the idea of fomenting panic in the hearts of the Faithful, and apparently wouldn't dream of publishing anything that resembled the voice of Reason, however still and small that voice might be today. Hey - it's their gig, and I admit that beyond contributing, I enjoy reading the site, so maybe they have something there.
But come on. It’s a long season. We need to keep perspective or we’re going to lose our collective minds. Few people likely remember Opening Day 2004, when the Sox, fresh off their Aaron Boone hangover, got shelled 7-2 at Baltimore. The Sox’ erstwhile ace, Pedro someone or other, gave up a three-spot in the early going and the game was never close. We remember what happened from there, don’t we?
Yes: a win is better than a loss. Fully admitted. Any Red Sox fan would have preferred to start the season with a win, but half the league loses on Opening Day. It’s going to happen; best thing to do is hitch up your trousers and hunker down for a long season.
I don’t know if the Red Sox are going to go all the way this year. I can’t even state with anything like certainty that they’ll make the postseason. But I can tell you this: the measure of a team is not winning in April; it’s winning in October. Let’s withhold judgment on the 2007 Red Sox until some time after game 1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)