The House that A-Rod Built (2008)
Okay, so if salary equals victory then, it appears that 2009 will be a Subway Series in the town of Wall Street that has nearly destroyed the economy—by overpaying for over-hyped players. Hasn’t New York learned its lessons about inflated value and over investing in speculation? Apparently not. Apparently, New York wants to ease its pain by watching ’stars’ in bleak times that the city has helped to create.
They say that in some cities, that nearly all the money in circulation is laced with cocaine or other narcotics. It seems that these organizations have been huffing their wallets. If one lesson is true, it’s that you don’t give mega-bucks to players that had one or two statistically anomalous years.
The New York Mets have decided that the eighth and ninth innings are more important than the sixth and seventh, because without better pitching in the back of their starting rotation, then Putz and K-Rod won’t have much to save. Are they done? Probably not, but the Mets have likely sacrificed their best chips in order to acquire JJ Putz by trade, which leaves a free-agency pool that features the likes of Derek Lowe, Jon Garland, and Brad Penny. The Mets have now turned their priorities however to the outfield though. Regardless though, the Mets have been stuck in a complex of being the orange-headed step-child of the New York Yankees.
The Yankees lost 20-game winner Mike Mussina to retirement, so in their desperation to fill that void, threw more money at CC Sabathia than the Giants gave to Barry Zito; and have now committed themselves to baseball’s statistical grifter, AJ Burnett. It seems that everyone has forgotten that Sabathia struggled mightily in the American League in 2008 with Cleveland, but then surprised the National League by striking out players that had yet to ever face him. Moreover, Sabathia struggled for most of his career in Cleveland until his “breakout” year in 2007.
AJ Burnett meanwhile, was seen as the No. 2 compliment to Roy Halladay when the Blue Jays signed Burnett from Florida after the 2005 season, when he finished 12-12. Apparently, Burnett realized that if he wanted a bigger salary in free-agency that he need to buckle down to look good in the off season so that a desperate team would overpay him. Now Burnett has plenty of money, and nothing obvious that would motivate him; not even the sneers of sports-writers who make their living from criticism of New York stars. To emphasize how much I detest the 82 million given to that snake oilman, Burnett—Burnett is NOT historically better than Javier Vasquez; those two are about the same. And Vasquez was done in New York after one season. Don’t get me started on Carl Pavano and Kei Igawa. But if the Yankees wanted a former Florida pitcher that badly, the Tigers would have surely traded Dontrelle Willis for the right price rather than 82 million.
Whatever happened to GM Brian Cashman’s commitment to youth in New York? With these signings, it log-jams the likes of Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Humberto Sanchez with no apparent future in sight. Meanwhile, the Yankees even considered the trade of OF Melky Cabrera to Milwaukee for OF Mike Cameron. The reason that makes little sense is that Cameron would only add another upper-veteran to an aging outfield that has struggled with injuries and is currently absent OF Bobby Abreu (ex, Hideki Matsui, Johnny Damon). Cabrera though has been an all-around outfielder who still has plenty of durability. The other reason that it makes little sense is that the free-agent market has plenty of outfielders to offer with comparable stats to that of Cameron (ex Jim Edmonds, Garret Anderson). So why sacrifice youth for a temporary fix that detriments your ability to handle the attrition of the season? And how will the Yankees fix their offensive struggles?
BUT, if anything, Cabrera would have been a better blue-chip in a trade for San Diego’s Jake Peavy. Sure, Peavy has stated only several teams that he’d waive his no-trade clause for, but if the price is right and the lure of New York that great: Why has New York put their eggs in the basket of AJ Burnett? Because when those eggs hatch and the rooster crows, there will still be plenty of darkness ahead for the New York Yankees.
AND now, the New York Yankees are moving on in to a brand new stadium that will certainly rake in more money to throw at statistical snake-oilers. The Yankees of course, decided that the lore of Yankee Stadium had no dollar-sign on it (and could not be invested in loan-speculation), so they decided to Fall the House that Ruth Built in order to make more money to buy more “stars” in order to keep pace with those feisty Boston Red Sox, who “reversed the curse” of Babe Ruth in 2004, when the Yankees had entered that season with the so-called edge by acquiring Alex “The Cooler” Rodriguez—who only makes teams better when he leaves.
Funnily, the New York Yankees have 26 World Series titles, which is of course, one short of 27. 1927 is of course, considered the best Yankee team in baseball history and featured of course, Babe Ruth. Two upsets in the World Series to young teams (2001 Diamondbacks, 2003 Marlins) and a “reversed curse” since their 26th title, and the Yankees are still grasping at straws to reclaim the fear they once instilled by lore in their opponents. Something tells me that the curse of Babe Ruth is still in play, but now on the Yankees. For by falling the House that Ruth Built, the spirit of Ruth still lives on but just has no place to go. And the Yankees are now stuck with “The Cooler.” And I don’t mean the crygogenically frozen body of Ted Williams.
So do it your way, New York. If you want “stars” then by all means, keep reaching for the stars. But often times with money, the more you think you’re winning—the more you are actually losing.
The Greatest Game Never Played: Oakland Raiders @ New England Patriots
FROM A VHS TAPE BURIED IN A STORAGE BOX
For those of you who follow my articles, I have written previously on the topic of the infamous “Snowjob/Snow Bowl” game between the Oakland Raiders and New England Patriots on Jan. 19, 2002 and that I believe Roger Goodell covered-up cheating by the Patriots in that game by the destruction of the Spygate tapes.
I have also written on topics of cheating in any sport, Talkin’ Steroids: An History of Baseball’s Era of Greed, the reality of Raider fans and of real victory, The Truth of Victory and Tangents on Trivial Things.
That game in 2002 of course marked the ascension of the New England Patriots to borderline NFL Dynasty as they would win the Super Bowl that postseason over the heavily favored St. Louis Rams, back-to-back Super Bowls in the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons, and appeared in the 2007-2008 Super Bowl at 18-0 only to lose to the New York Giants.
The Tuck Rule Game also marked the end of Jon Gruden’s tenure in Oakland as head coach, because Raiders owner Al David traded Gruden in that offseason to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who of course, defeated the Oakland Raiders in the next Super Bowl of January 2003, which has marked the decline of the Raiders ever since.
This article is essentially an extension of the previous one, Oakland Raiders v New England Patriots: From Snowjob to Spygate. The reason why I bother is that the very question of the NFL’s integrity is at stake, thus, it is of utmost importance to not only Raider fans, but also fans of any NFL team and American football in general.
_____________________________________________________________________
SOME QUESTIONS REALLY DO NEED ANSWERS
If anyone were asking these questions, the integrity of the game would be embroiled in jeopardy. As far as my concern goes, the New England Patriots stole their legacy.
Did a Boston paper fabricate the story about the Patriots taping the walk-through for the St. Louis Rams, which they truly did, but as a red herring to discredit Matt Walsh? The fact that a Boston paper would intentionally fabricate a defamatory story about a home town raised my eyebrow.
What did they stand to gain by jeopardizing the integrity of their home team and fans? Perhaps, it was to redirect all lines of questions away from the obviously missing-game from the list of tapes, with the Raiders (which is nothing more than a non-sequitor, or “does not follow”).
Everyone wonders: How can stealing-signals be that important? Well, chew on this. Did Bill Belichick know that CB Charles Woodson would blitz Tom Brady? Did Tom Brady know to pump-fake? Were the Patriots stealing signals during the Snow Job (if you remember, the Patriots stunk in the first half before looking brilliant in the second half)? The final question is why was it not a sack?
I am dead serious about my questions. I want to know the answers. I could be wrong but I doubt it though. The fact is—the Patriots have done enough to eviscerate any benefit of the doubt.
As well, I actually wanted to see the New England Patriots win the Super Bowl in 2001 (after the Snowjob of course), because of what their win would symbolically mean in the wake of 9/11. Frankly, I not only believe that the Patriots stole their legacy, their propaganda also stole my patriotism.
____________________________________________________________________
EVIDENCE OF THE COVERUP, ‘THE WAY,’ AND THE RED HERRING
1.1) The Patriots began stealing signals in 2000. The Patriots stole signals during the 2002 postseason games against Pittsburgh and St. Louis. The idea that the Patriots did not steal from the Raiders is a logical non-sequitor that literally means, “does not follow.” [Despite of course the actions by Roger Goodell to destroy the tapes.]
1.2) Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, May 13, 2008:
“Goodell met with former Patriots assistant Matt Walsh for more than three hours today. He had previously reviewed tapes of eight games, including the 2002 AFC Championship game between the Patriots and Steelers, that Walsh turned over to Goodell’s office. The tapes showed the Patriots filming opposing coaches as they were giving signals during games.”
2.1) The Snowjob was a tail of two New England teams. The Raiders though would compensate for the conditions with perfectionist preparation, as emulated by Gruden’s comment to announcer Phil Simms, “I did everything I could for Rich Gannon to get ready for this game,” and observed that the Patriots used a different defense in four separate games, and so Gruden had the Raiders prepare for each one.
The Patriots thus stunk offensively and defensively in the first half. Announcer Greg Gumbel would even comment on the Patriots, “lack of confidence” and that of quarterback Tom Brady.
2.2) Offensively, the Patriots could not contain the Raider rush and allowed general pressure and sacks by DL Chris Cooper, LB Elijah Alexander, and DE Regan Upshaw—who simultaneously forced a fumble (recovered by Brady) that mirrored the eventual Tuck play, except that one went for Oakland. Moreover, the Raiders would stop Troy Brown and JR Redmond for losses behind the line of scrimmage.
On top of that, the Raiders also applied pressure from the defensive backs, like safety Johnnie Harris who intercepted Brady and forced an incompletion on a hurry-up. Cornerback Eric Allen played a “whale of a game” as commented by Gumbel. That was in part because, Tom Brady would rarely challenge his former teammate from Michigan, cornerback Charles Woodson on the other side as emulated by Simms comment, “Tom Brady has not attacked his old college teammate, Charles Woodson, on the other side too often today. So most of the plays in the passing game—designed to go against Eric Allen.” Meanwhile, Simms would comment on DT Grady Jackson, “Grady Jackson playing terrific from the inside.” Jackson, would be quoted by Simms during the game that Jackson stated before the game that the, “New England offensive line is slow and we can do about what we want against them.”
In another case, Brady had plenty of time to throw, yet Brady would throw an incomplete pass that would lead Simms to comment, “The conditions make it hard for receivers to stop and change direction when they see their quarterback’s in trouble.”
2.3) Defensively, the Patriots were unable to effectively blitz Oakland quarterback Rich Gannon—who in one case threw a touchdown to receiver James Jett on a blitz by New England. Meanwhile, Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, and Charlie Garner would have field days against New England by picking-up critical first downs and other yardage for points.
In one such drive, Patriots cornerback Ty Law ran-into safety Lawyer Milloy when trying to stop Tim Brown from a catch for a first down on 3rd-and-9, because, as Simms commented, Law was, “not able to keep up with Tim Brown who gets the first down.”
Thus, the conditions may have created, “Atrocious footing for both sides in the snow,” as Gumbel commented, but the Raiders knew exactly what routes to run and where to go which compensated for the conditions, and Gannon knew exactly where his receivers would be.
On that same drive, Gannon completed a critical nine-yard pass to Jett on a play in which Simms commented on the missed tackle by DB Otis Smith, “You got the perfect defense called. You even fool Rich Gannon and Jon Gruden. Then you don’t make the play.”
The drive resulted in a field goal by the Raiders. The other field goal resulted from a drive in which the refs did not call roughing-the-passer and then pass-interference in favor of Rich Gannon and Tim Brown.
3.1) The second half however, became a different story. Before it began, announcer Armen Kateyian would quote retrospectively ominous words by Bill Belichik, “We’re not gonna change anything. We’re gonna do what we do. We’ve won 11 games this season. We’re only down seven, nothing. We’re not gonna change anything right now. We’re gonna try and win this game with the way we’ve won all the others.”
And what “way” exactly would that be that you so vaguely and arrogantly believe in? Simms would suggest that “way” in a comment and quotation, “They feel like they’ve seen all the new plays from the Raider offense. And Bill Belichik said it, and Romeo Crennel the defensive-coordinator, ‘Once we can control that first onslaught of all their new plays and formations then we can come out and attack.’”
[Simms of course has an history with Bill Belichik going back to the Bill Parcells days of the New York Giants when Belichik was their defensive-coordinator, and so I wonder what exactly Simms knows about the practices of Belichik. Surely, even though Simms played offense, he had to be aware of Belichick’s ways and philosophies.]
3.2) Raiders defensive-coordinator Chuck Bresnahan would clearly signal with his hands the calls to the defense. [Sounds like easy pickings for a cheater with a camera.] So even if Gruden would cover his mouth when calling plays, Bresnahan would not. There was no footage of offensive-coordinator Bill Callahan.
3.3) Tom Brady would eventually run for their only touchdown after completing a perfect nine passes of nine attempts for 60-yards, after his receivers had been unable to catch anything. Receiver David Patten was shut out in the first-half while tight-end Jermaine Wiggins had trouble with focus, as he dropped a critical pass in which he would have been wide open, because he was already thinking about running with it. Wiggins though would catch 10 passes for 60+ yards in the second half. [Sounds like the Patriots pulled a rabbit from their hat on that TD and needed Brady to run rather than attempt another errant TD pass.]
3.4) The run for a touchdown was after the Patriots had earlier settled for a field-goal from 23-yards. That FG came after the opening drive of the second half in which receiver, David Patten caught two passes after being shutout in the first half.
The Patriots also converted 2nd-and-19 and 3rd-and-10 on that drive, but failed to score the touchdown after Tom Brady overthrew the pass to tight end Rod Rutledge because of pressure from safety Johnnie Harris who lucked out on the play, as reflected by Simms comment, “The Raiders were completely fooled. Johnnie Harris came up to stop the run, even though he was fooled — the back of the end zone protected him.”
Gumbel would comment on the cadence of Brady after that play, “Tom Brady, the New England quarterback, was sure he should’ve had six.” [Sounds like the Patriots knew something ahead of time, but only failed because of the restrictions of field-position.]
3.5) The Patriots would get possession of the ball for the Tuck drive. They burned three timeouts shortly before the two-minute warning to prevent Oakland from running-off the clock. On the first play, after the two-minute warning at 1:50 on Oakland’s 42-yard line, Charles Woodson blew by the slow New England offense to hit Tom Brady, who pump-faked to the lone receiver on the other side.
Brady would lose the ball that LB Greg Biekert recovered. [Makes me wonder why Brady would think he could fool a defense with a pump-fake to a lone receiver, rather than the majority of receivers that Woodson blew past. Perhaps the only reason for the pump-fake was to stop the clock and that the Patriots knew the play in advance].
The Patriots of course, regained possession after a review from the booth. Tom Brady would again pump-fake at 1:11 when DE Tony Bryant hit Brady that again resulted in no-sack. In other words, the Patriots created two timeouts when sacks would have resulted in huge chunks of lost time.
4.1) The writer behind the walk-through story, John Tomase of the Boston Herald, said on his blog, “I know I screwed up on the Rams taping story and I don’t intend to hide behind today’s apology or an editor’s note.” The Herald claimed to use, “sources that it believed to be credible.” Yet, Tomase only cited one source who was not named. [Why?]
_______________________________________________________________________
THE GREATEST GAME NEVER PLAYED
I actually wanted to see the New England Patriots win the Super Bowl in 2001 (after the Snow Job of course), because of what their win would symbolically mean in the wake of 9/11. Frankly, I not only believe that the Patriots stole their legacy. Their propaganda also stole my patriotism.
The Patriots are nothing but frauds, which is why Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weiss have flopped as head coaches. The Patriots stole their legacy on that day and have thus marred the integrity of the NFL, in a manner reverse to that of The Greatest Game Ever Played in 1958 which marked the ascension in popularity of the NFL, and football at its purest.
That game between the Raiders and Patriots, in my mind, has marked the utter disregard for the integrity of the game by the Patriots, while the cover-up by Goodell has suggested fear and/or complicity with the actions of the Patriots.
I call it, “The Greatest Game Never Played” because the actions of Goodell has instilled in me the same sense I had when reading about memory holes in the George Orwell novel 1984, and that the NFL would prefer that its fans just sheepishly adhere to their fandom without asking hard questions that could result in a loss of money.
But, if baseball commissioner Bud Selig can condone cheating in baseball to sell tickets, why should I believe that Goodell would not condone cheating in football to keep fans buying tickets?
If you doubt my argument simply, ask, can you disprove my argument? No, you can’t—Roger Goodell destroyed the evidence! Furthermore, I sent these questions to Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania in May of 2008 and received a response on June 3, 2008 by email because he investigated Spygate and Roger Goodell’s decision to destroy the tapes. On June 17, 2008 (a mere two weeks later), Senator Specter abruptly called off the inquest.
As far as my concern goes, the New England Patriots should be contracted from the NFL and exist no more, while Los Angeles should receive an expansion team to replace them. The Patriots are frauds, yet the media and the NFL have been in a conspiracy of silence (look it up in the dictionary) and red herring questions (questions that have nothing to do with the real problem) to coverup their fradulence.
The Truth of Victory and Tangents on Trivial Things (2008)
To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to — ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There’s the respect
That makes calamity of so long life,
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th’oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th’unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
–William Shakespeare
I don’t say these things because I believe in the ‘brute’ nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour – his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear—is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he’s exhausted on the field of battle—victorious.
–Vince Lombardi
By now, you the reader must be wondering: What is the purpose of this article? The answer is quite simple; it is that which separates the winners from the losers. When the battle is a near equal match in terms of physical tools and knowledge of the game, that which breaks the tie, is more than the simple jingo of who the hungriest to win is. What does it mean to a person to satisfy a hunger of unknown origin?
Some in sports, like the New York Yankees, grew enormously accustomed to victories and then submitted to the temptation to pilfer “stars” from other teams, on the idea of addition by their opponent’s subtraction. In other words, to pursue not that which makes you stronger, but that which makes your opponent weaker. The creation however is a collection of soul-less moneygrubbers who disregard the fate of their new team, as long as the checks continue to clear, yet, the fans of the team and sport will clamor to praise a player’s greatness, because of some statistic that may as well be the artificial preservatives in food. Sure, those things will elongate the usability of that product, but will make it much less satisfying once used.
Are you hungry for that, or are you hungry for the adrenaline of the high-stakes in which victory is ultimate glory and loss means, not only must you try again but also strive for the chance just to try again? Some would rather build their career on the sand and not bother, while others would rather get back up if for no one else except themselves. Others would rather cash-in on the perceptions of their greatness, and ‘retire’ with the knowledge that the insanity of the sports market will inflate the value of average players in the limelight of a big market, and deflate the value of players lost in the opaqueness of a small market.
A team like the New York Yankees once embodied a great pinnacle in the pyramid of victory as a team that once towered as Goliath at the gate to greatness — and are now more like Cerberus at the gates to Hades. That is because the Yankees would develop from within and identify players of need that were in obscurity rather than try to sandbag their opponent at the same time. Take Jason Giambi for instance. When the Yankees signed the 2000 AL MVP from the Oakland Athletics after the 2001 season: Did they truly need Giambi at the expense of Tino Martinez? Not really but hey, Giambi had an edge statistically and was Oakland’s best player, yet ultimately,”the RBI Machino” contributed to world titles, so I think then, that the underlying message that the Yankees sent to their players was: even those that win are not good enough.
At that point then: why does victory matter? The Yankees said in effect—If you aren’t a star then you don’t deserve to win so get lost, and thus for that, the Yankees have continued to suffer in loss, with a monumentally dysfunctional All-Star team because the Yankees buy star-players on the perception that star-players will produce titles. I now must go off on a tangential philosophy and then question for the parallel I need to prove my point. Sometimes, the sum is greater than the whole of its parts. Other times, the sum is lesser than the whole of its parts. That is what The Yankees have become, a team bloated by exorbitant contracts of soul-less stars: Does anyone remember what Vladimir Guererro did in Montreal other than the few Expo fans? I sure don’t, but his stats do yet the fact is Guerrero’s stats did not produce victories, which is why the Montreal Expos no longer exist while people do however, remember Bucky Dent’s middle name even though Dent hardly represented a player of statistical greatness.
That was from a time when the Yankees would overcome all perceptions to win, no matter how good an opponent like Boston looked on paper; which is what would reinforce the idea of a, “curse.” Not even the Carl Yastrzemski/Jim Rice/Carlton Fisk powered Red Sox could overcome, “the pop up heard ’round the world,” but now the other shoe is on the bloody sock, and Boston is the team that has overcome all perceptions to win, because Boston was unwilling to gut their team for Alex Rodriguez, while the Yankees had no qualms about ’starring up’ by trading Alfonso Soriano in 2004. It then follows to ask the tired and trite question: Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Or even Derek Jeter. That is however, what represented Eli Manning to David Tyree play in the Super Bowl win over the Patriots, which is why I propose that the play be referred to as, “The Truth.”
Surely, you wonder by now about the juxtaposition of Vince Lombardi to the New York Yankees—two different sports, yet, both represented the true nature of their sport: the desire for competition, regardless of possible loss, against the fiercest opponent and to finish victoriously, while alternatively, if you feared the possibility of loss… then you may as well just go home. If you fear and fathom the idea of getting back up after someone knocks you down, then: why did you even try? More importantly, as represented by, “To Be or Not to Be,” the desire “to be,” can be found in all walks of life, not just sports. Yet, the goal of ”to be” has been nihilistically boiled down to quantities that supposedly enumerate the qualities of a person: GPAs, portfolios, cars, planes, ships and trucks (which people really suck?), memorabilia, trophies and so forth. , people have submitted to the idea that they can’t win if they don’t have hallow stats; even though, some of the greatest victories in sports and life were not by stats but by those who became stars for the soul they had to believe they could win. Sadly, I think that the New York Yankees no longer represent the true nature of what it means to win, but that the Yankees have now become in effect a retirement home for “stars.” It is not about the quantities produced, but the qualities by which you produced. Just ask OJ Simpson. Oh, wait, he’s now in prison for trying to steal back the quantities he produced (sorry, OJ but your arrogrance took the better of you). The pursuit of hallow stats would also explain the abuse of steroids. And the homeless are no longer the only panhandlers on Wall Street.
Thus
With that said, I unexpectedly gained some respect today for beleaguered Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich in his defiance to back down from the challenges in front of him. Surely, ‘Pretty Boy Blago,’ has been knee-deep in corruption in his tenure, at least though; he has the courage to go down swinging rather than continue on the same course. He may have lost his job, but at least, not his soul. Whatever your views are, the truth is you play the game for something greater than you.
I suspect that is what terrifies those who mock him: they secretly believe that Blago was caught trying to inherit the world by ’selling’ a Senate seat, yet fate caught him and he had the sense to change course mid-stream rather than trek down the flaming road of foolish pride in a vein attempt to argue his way back into the public’s trust in a court of law, rather than the court of public opinion.
The Incredible Shrinking Democracy: A Review of the US Census and Apportionment (2006)
By David Xaviel (2006)
The United States of America faces in the coming years a new paradox of population[1] that as the American population continues to grow, a system based on the vote of the people will continue to become more and more deflated. For the cost of running for political office continues to rise, and as it continues to rise, it puts the possibility of running for high office further and further out of reach from the common voter. Constitutionally, there should be one representative for every 30,000 people (not voters),[1] which would equal approximately 10,000 representatives in the House. I thus want to argue the case to reapportion the US House of Representatives to constitutional proportions. The numbers may seem completely arbitrary, but I do believe that proper apportionment based on population is essential to representative democracy, and without such, it disenfranchises communities and people that would otherwise be able to elect a representative directly to the US Congress.
Money plays such a critical-role, because there is no body of directly elected government that is free of exorbitant money in order to campaign; thus, if representatives elected to the US House were not so heavily in need of exorbitant money in order to campaign in disproportionately large districts – that then, would allow the House to counter-balance the Senate. For when the time comes where a bill passed in the House differs from a bill passed by the Senate, then there would at least be one side based not on the sway of money but on the voice of whom they represent, rather than the voice of a greenback.
THE CORRUPTION IN THE SYSTEM
With that said, the common argument in favor of campaign-finance reform is that media-costs are the reason for the rising expenditures on campaigns, and the need for more money to run media ads, on TV in particular. The total amount, in fact, of the 2004 congressional and presidential elections was approximately $4 billion, up from approximately $3 billion in 2000, $2.2 billion in 1996, and $1.8 billion in 1992. Critics charge that TV ads, political consultants, and other major sources of campaign spending have driven up the cost of running for office, and that there are no signs of a slowdown in the fast-rising need for campaign cash among candidates and parties.[2]
That sentiment being so strong that it led Senators John McCain of Arizona and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to author the McCain-Feingold Bill in 2002, which was written to reform campaign-finance spending, and seek to reduce the influence of money in the electoral process. The crux of the McCain-Feingold bill was a ban on soft money – unlimited contributions to the national political parties for, “party-building” activities. The bill also placed restrictions on outside groups airing so-called “issue ads” that tout or criticize a candidate’s position on an issue, but refrain from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate.[3] Stephen Ansolabehere, James Snyder Jr, and Alan Gerber of MIT and Yale University, however, conclude through statistical comparison of media-costs in their study, Does TV Advertising Explain the Rise of Campaign Spending? A Study of Campaign Spending and Broadcast Advertising Prices in US House Elections / the 1990s and the 1970s, for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that, “TV advertising prices do not explain the rise of campaign spending,”[4] and that, “the search for a cause for the rise of campaign spending must look elsewhere.”[5]
Meanwhile, the US population continues to balloon to over 300 million.[6] The cost of running a campaign will thus continue to increase, because under the current system there is approximately 1 representative[7] for every 646,946.9103 people,[8] because the more people to campaign to, the more money you will need. Therefore, if the number of Representatives is to remain at 435, then the districts will just get larger and larger, while the costs will in effect continue to increase as population changes force districts to cover larger areas and more expensive markets, rather than a community of 30,000 people. If this country truly is a representative democracy, then: why should the number of politicians remain constant – with districts that vary through gerrymandering[2] – and not have the populations of communities treated as a constant and the politician as the variable?
If that just sounds like blind rhetoric to you, then I ask you to chew on this for a moment: The US Supreme Court ruled that states are free to redraw congressional districts whenever they want, in effect blessing the bitterly contested handiwork in Texas by former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay.[9] A Texas grand jury of course indicted, Tom DeLay, in 2006 on a charge of criminally conspiring with two political associates to inject illegal corporate contributions into 2002 state elections that helped the Republican Party[3] reorder the congressional map in Texas and attempt to cement party control of the US House in Washington.[10]
AN UNFAIR SYSTEM
In, The Quest for a Fourth Congressional District in Utah / Policy Brief,[11] Melinda Frandsen and W. David Patton of The University of Utah document the political endeavor by Representative Thomas Davis of Virginia (R-11) to award the District of Columbia and the state of Utah an additional seat through the 2006 DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act. This movement however, could and should be expanded to be more inclusive of the real problems in the electorate.
First, there is the problem of the “At-Large Representative” when only one person represents a state in the US House. Firstly, a state is constitutionally required to have two representatives in the House as a condition of becoming a state.[12] Take the state of Alaska for example. In the year 2000, the population of Alaska was 626,932 thousand people, yet merely one person, Don Young – who was actually born in Meridian, California – represents Alaska in the US House.[13] Turns out, that the Honorable Don Young or the, “Congressman for All Alaska,”[14] makes no mention of his birthplace on his website, but simply highlights his ties to Alaska, where he did not reside until 1959 at the age of 26;[15] which *coincidentally* is just one mere year after a US citizen can legally run for Congress.[16] If however, House reapportionment occurred, then the Alaskan Natives whom makeup 17.3% of the population (108,187) — but mostly makeup the ‘Alaskan bush’[4] — would have approximately three representatives (depending on the dispersion of their population). Clearly though, having one person represent a population over 625,000 – a person who did not reside in Alaska until the age of 26 – is clearly unfair to the total population of Alaska.
Secondly, there is the problem of whom the Census Bureau actually counts for the purposes of representation. In 2002, the state of Utah fought tooth-and-nail for a Fourth House District after the 2000 Census yet lost. In which, the state of Utah fell 857 people short of gaining a fourth seat, and instead, the seat went to North Carolina. The reason why is that, more than 11,000 Utahans whom reside overseas as missionaries were not counted for the purposes of the census, while 18,360 North Carolinians serving overseas in the military were counted.[17] On another side of this problem, as documented by Analyst in American National Government, Jennifer Williams in CRS Report to Congress, Census 2000: The Sampling Debate,[18] there was the issue going into the 2000 Census as to how to enumerate the US population. Although the 1990 census counted about 98.4% of the total population, the 1990 census was the first since 1940 in which coverage did not improve over that of the previous enumeration. Moreover, the recurrent problem of the “differential undercount” (in which the census inadvertently omits higher proportions of minority groups than of the majority population) persisted in 1990. Estimates indicated that the 1990 census did not count 4.4% of blacks, 5.0% of Hispanics, 2.3% of Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 4.5% of American Indians, compared with 0.7% of non-Hispanic whites. The difference between the black and non-black estimated undercounts were the largest since 1940.[19]
Unfortunately, as it stands, the endeavor by Rep. Thomas Davis lacks an air of political luster because it would award a representative to the District of Columbia, whom almost certainly would be a democrat; and a district to the state of Utah, whom would more than likely be a republican. The reason why it lacks political luster is that the GOP will likely get an additional representative from Utah come 2012 anyway.[20] Alternatively, now that the Democratic Party has won control of the House and Senate, they could pass legislation to give a seat to the District of Columbia without balancing it with an additional seat for the state of Utah. Nevertheless, the aforementioned all seems to beg the question: Why can’t the government give districts to the disenfranchised groups for the purposes of representation in Congress? Unfortunately, I believe that the answer is quite simple – there is limited representation to apportion, thus some people need to be left out in order to maintain the deflated number of 435 representatives in the House of Representatives.
ACTUAL AND PREEMPTIVE FAQs
- Would it require a change to the Constitution to elect 10,000 representatives instead of 435?
Absolutely not; in fact, the election of only 435 Representatives is inherently unconstitutional, as there never was a constitutional amendment nor a Supreme Court ruling that officially allowed for the freeze at 435.
- Isn’t one representative for every 30-thousand people just as arbitrary as one representative for every 646,946.9103 people?
No. Firstly, you may as well say … well, what is the big deal if we only count 5/8 of a person? The reason why is that I believe that while 10,000 as a number may seem just as arbitrary as 435 as a number, the fact is, there would be opinions – by people from many different backgrounds, representing the needs of their district – behind those 10,000 representatives, as opposed to 435.
- Wouldn’t simply putting limits on campaign finance make the system more fair?
If that were the case, you would need to adjust the caps on campaign finance every time districts change to include more people so that someone could have a reasonable chance of winning a campaign in a large district. Why not then, just adjust the number of people in the House every time the population changes rather than the amount of money to spend?
- Money is free speech!
Firstly – that is not a question. That, and money doesn’t talk, it swears.[21] Secondly, voters would still be capable of donating money to the candidate of their choice. The difference would be that candidates would be less dependent on donations, and thus less susceptible to the temptation of being swayed by the desire to stay in office. As well, due to the fact that representatives would be elected at a smaller scale, there would be representatives that could stand up for what they believe and not have to sell-out in order to win. Now, that is free speech.
- Wouldn’t giving one representative for every 30,000 people also mean the potential for bigots to win elections?
First off, no major party would ever align with outright bigots, thus minimizing their influence. Nevertheless unfortunately, yes bigots could and probably would win elections. However, the general population of the country does not support behavior by groups like the KKK amongst others, and so, it is reasonable to conclude that representation by bigots would be minimal and it would be unlikely that either major party, Republicans or Democrats, would ever align with them. Furthermore, even The Federalist Papers recognized that the need for many factions.
- Why would we want more politicians; and why would we want 10,000 representatives – nothing would ever happen?
More politicians would actually make each individual politician less capable of being able to orchestrate a desired vote-total for a particular bill, but at the same time, there would be more emphasis on the actual issue.
Potentially and likely, the House would start to resemble a parliament, in that; factions of representatives would align in order to influence what happens. The difference would be that a party would not lose power by not having the majority but rather, they would lose power by not having the plurality.[5] Furthermore, wasn’t the point of this country to cast-off the yoke of consolidated power, (such as kings and queens) rather than power distributed amongst the many?
- Isn’t this just more big government?
It depends on how you define, “big government.” I personally do not consider a government with more and better checks-and-balances to be, “big government.”
- Wouldn’t we just have to pay more representatives more salaries?
Yes. Nevertheless, at the same time, “changing” the system can make a difference. If you had told those, who fought the American Revolution that breaking away from Great Britain would make no significant difference: Where would this country be now? Furthermore, by electing representatives to the House from smaller districts, there would less of need for endless campaigning to raise more money for the next election.
THESE CHANGES WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE
The main problem that I see with reapportioning the House is that it would be costly, yes. However, I personally would be more willing to spend money in making our government better than in fighting some war overseas in the name of, “spreading democracy.” For the system of 435 representatives is horribly antiquated. The Congress froze the House at 435 in 1911 under Public Law 62-5, and slightly modified it later by the Reapportionment Act of 1929 – which legalized gerrymandering.
The sad thing is however, through all the research I’ve done, I’ve yet to find information on why Congress froze the House at 435, and has yet to change it. I hate to say it, but it feels like something out of 1984. Why is the system left this way – what good is it serving? Why must this country be forced into a dichotomy of either the republicans or democrats (at least if you want to affect change)? It clearly has hindered the voice of people in this country. Must we be forced to do the same thing each decade? I decided then to finish by quoting the words of John Steinbeck, a master in articulating the plight of a community:
I remember Salinas, the town of my birth, when it proudly announced it had reached four-thousand citizens… even those people who joy in numbers and are impressed with bigness are beginning to worry, gradually becoming aware that there must be a saturation point and the progress may be a progression toward strangulation. And no solution has been found.[22]
[1] The population paradox is a counterintuitive result of some procedures for apportionment.
The population paradox occurs when two states have populations increasing at different rates and the state with the greater growth rate loses a legislative seat to the state with the lower growth rate. The paradox arises because of rounding in the procedure for dividing the seats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_paradox, December 11, 2006
[2] Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which legislators manipulate constituency boundaries for an electoral advantage. Gerrymandering may be advantageous or detrimental to particular constituents, such as members of a racial, linguistic, religious or class group, often in the favor of ruling incumbents or a specific political party. Although all electoral systems, which use multiple districts as a basis for determining representation, are susceptible to gerrymandering to various degrees, governments using single winner voting systems are the most vulnerable. Most notably, gerrymandering is particularly effective in non-proportional systems that tend towards fewer parties, such as first-past-the-post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering, March 25, 2007
[3] à Just so you know, I think the GOP and Democratic Party are equally corrupt ß
[4] Much like other roadless or remote parts of Australia and Africa, the state of Alaska in the United States has area commonly referred to as “the Bush.” This term is used in Alaska to refer to the portion of the state that is not connected by North America’s interconnected system of roadways.
Although, Alaskans generally describe the Bush in Alaska as any community not “on the road system,” there are distinctions within how different parts of the state define this term. Residents of remote Eskimo villages, for instance, do not consider communities connected by the Alaska State Marine Highway ferries as properly part of the Bush. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Bush, March 25, 2007
[5] A plurality, relative majority, or simple majority is the largest share of something, which may or may not be considered a majority, i.e. it is the largest group/category, but is not necessarily a majority (more than half). In United States usage, “simple majority” refers to a normal majority. The plurality voting system, also known as “First past the post,” elects the candidate who is the stated first choice of the plurality of voters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality March 25, 2007
[1] The Authors of the US Constitution, US Constitution, Article I, March 4 1789
[2] The Center for Responsive Politics, “Campaign Finance Reform” The Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp, November 29, 2006
[3] The Center for Responsive Politics, “Campaign Finance Reform” The Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp, November 29, 2006
[4] Ansolabehere, Stephen; Gerber, Alan; Snyder, James Jr; October 2001, Does TV Advertising Explain the Rise of Campaign Spending? A Study of Campaign Spending and Broadcast Advertising Prices in US House Elections, the 1990s and the 1970s, pg 25, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[5] Ansolabehere, Stephen; Gerber, Alan; Snyder, James Jr; October 2001, Does TV Advertising Explain the Rise of Campaign Spending? A Study of Campaign Spending and Broadcast Advertising Prices in US House Elections, the 1990s and the 1970s, pg 25, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[6] US Census Bureau, “Population Clock” US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov, November 29, 2006
[7] 281,421,906 million divided by 435; based on the 2000 Census, not the current population estimate of over 300 million
[8] US Census Bureau, “Population Clock” US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov, November 29, 2006
[9] Associated Press, “Justices revise part of Texas redistricting / Court also rules state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like,” MSNBC.com, December 11, 2006
[10] Smith, R. Jeffrey, “DeLay Indicted in Texas Finance Probe,” www.washingtonpost.com, December 11, 2006
[11] Frandsen, Melinda; Patton, W. David; December 04, 2006, The Quest for a Fourth Congressional District in Utah / Policy Brief, Pg 1, The University of Utah
[12] The Authors of the US Constitution, US Constitution, Article IV, March 4 1789
[13] Biographical Directory of the US Congress, Data, US Congress, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=Y000033, November 29, 2006
[14] Don Young, http://donyoung.house.gov/, December 11, 2006
[15] Biographical Directory of the US Congress, Data, US Congress, http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=Y000033, December 11, 2006
[16] The Authors of the US Constitution, US Constitution, Article I, March 4 1789
[17] Frandsen, Melinda; Patton, W. David; December 04, 2006, The Quest for a Fourth Congressional District in Utah / Policy Brief, Pg 1, The University of Utah
[18] Williams, Jennifer D; April 1998, Census 2000: The Sampling Debate, CRS Report for Congress, Pgs, 1-2
[19] Williams, Jennifer D; April 1998, Census 2000: The Sampling Debate, CRS Report for Congress, Pgs, 1-2
[20] Frandsen, Melinda; Patton, W. David; December 04, 2006, The Quest for a Fourth Congressional District in Utah / Policy Brief, Pg 1, The University of Utah
[21] Dylan, Bob, “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding),” http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/itsalright.html, December 11, 2006
[22] Steinbeck, John; 1961, Travels with Charley
An History of Baseball’s Era of Greed: The True Nature of The Game (2008)
“I believe baseball is a beautiful and exciting game, loved by millions–I among them–and I believe baseball an important, enduring American institution. It must assert and aspire to the highest principles–of integrity, of professionalism of performance, of fair play within its rules. It will come as no surprise that like any institution composed of human beings, this institution will not always fulfill its highest aspirations. I know of no worldly institution that does but this one, because it is so much a part of our history as a people, and because it has such a penchant on our national soul, has an obligation to the people for whom it is played to, its fans, and well-wishers to strive for excellence in all things to promote the highest ideals. I am told that I am an idealist. I hope so. I will continue to locate ideals I hold for myself and my country in the national game as well as in others of our national institutions.” — former Commissioner of MLB Bartlett Giamatti
Surely, many fans of The Simpsons have at one time seen the episode “Homer at The Bat” in which Mr. Burns infuses the Power Plant softball team with ringers from professional baseball in order to win a bet with a rival owner.
In my case, I remember when it was new in 1992. The episode seemed to epitomize everything great: baseball, animation, humor and the greats of baseball, animation, and humor. I had the episode recorded to watch and rewatch it on an antique called a VHS tape.
At age nine, it became the first time I remember being able to tolerate watching and rewatching something in its entirety. It also began my hobby of recording every episode of The Simpsons and other shows on VHS tapes, which I recently took to the dump.
Though I do not assert that the writers knew something we did not, I do believe that the episode now seems prescient … in retrospect. In one case, the now infamous incident between George Steinbrenner and Don Mattingly about hair — was in fact foreshadowed by The Simpsons rather than mocked after the fact.
What seems prescient to me is that the fictional team-owner Mr. Burns supplies a performance enhancing substance to the animated likeness of Ken Griffey Jr. The writers meanwhile portrayed Jose Canseco as a hero when the writers had originally intended a storyline in which Canseco was a sleazebag — sounds like they had it right the first time. Also to, that, the authority would condone the advantages of drug abuse so long as that behavior produces lucrative benefits — sounds like Bud Selig if you ask me; who should also be barred from the Hall of Fame. (That though makes me wonder if the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame should apply asterisks to the psychedelic musicians of the 1960s for writing songs while on performance-enhancing drugs).
The last I checked though, Ozzie Smith never fell from the face of the Earth (that honor belongs to Rafael Palmeiro), yet Barry Bonds has been the one with a grotesquely swollen jaw from performance enhancing substances rather than Ken Griffey Jr, and Roger Clemens is only similarly clucking around like a chicken. The following though is not so much another dissertation on who juiced when, why, where and with what… but rather, juice for thought.
[I do not insinuate juicing by anyone not already accused by the Mitchell Report]
___________________________________________________________________
I remember that spring, summer and fall in 1992 quite well, but also 1993 and 1994. Though I do not recall every-last detail, I still recall the chronology and those memories from this, there and to that. From the dreams and obsessive desire for a Super Nintendo (another antique) the previous Christmas and the fever I had the night before that Christmas in 1991. Not sure if it was because I decided to read a Nintendo Power about the new Super Nintendo during the pro-life rally in downtown Santa Cruz in the summer of 1991.
There were newborn kittens that March in 1992 and one of which, named Rascal, was run over by a car. I mention that, because I thought it was interesting that the band Rascal Flatts is named after a dog named Rascal that was run over by a car.
To learning geography at the breakfast table and then mastering the GeoSafari and learning the Erector set, both of which were received rather than the Super Nintendo. For those who don’t know me, I would one day astound people with what seemed like a completely trivial mastery of world capitals (there was more to it than that but superfluously it did seem trivial). My mechanical abilities however, are not exactly up to the same par – good but not the same level.
There were original Ninja Turtles and trips to the local card shop, Collector’s Corner. Ten years later at the age of 19 in 2002, I would find that store-sign by a dumpster behind a Quik Stop and lug it home. There began my process of shedding body weight and the weight of memories, by hauling home a heavy-ass piece of my childhood, walking up the hill as cars sped by, and past Soquel High School and “Blue Ball Park,” and past the graveyard along Old San Jose Road. My dad would eventually use that board after a full teardown of a chimney. He used the board to cover the hole on a house that looked eerily similar to that of my great grandmother’s, a house that I had not seen since the age of four. When I mentioned that the house reminded me of Vovoo’s, my dad’s response was, “Good memory.”
That was the summer of 2003 and the “Total Recall” campaign of Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor of California, in which I wrote many sketches for a radio producer, Bruce Maiman (who is now a host at KFBK in Sacramento), and college essays while on RockStar highs. The summer of the rise of the machines; a reloaded matrix; a Claymation version of Conan O’Brien with Johnny Knoxville and later the 10 year Anniversary of Late Night with Conan O’Brien, and the beginning of futility for the Oakland Raiders after losing to their former coach in the Super Bowl. The summer in which I watched Finding Nemo, Punch Drunk Love and The Graduate (at Yosemite National Park), and the Great Grid Blackout which seemed fitting after the rest of the country had mocked California in 2000 and 2001 for the Enron manufactured rolling brownouts. Of course, 2003 was also the first year in which the war in Iraq began. Alas though, nothing like “Oh, What a Night” by The Four Seasons.
___________________________________________________________________
I tangentially digress though, as usual.
There were little league games in 1992 in which I was hit by a pitch. Games played with Russell Martinez, Matt Morales, Mickey Adams, Robert Stratton, Morgan Bouchard, Max Hodges, Landon, Willie, and others (I probably have the yearbook somewhere, so I apologize for not taking the time to look). Watching in awe as Russell, Matt and others would regularly hit home runs, while the only one to my credit had occurred the year before and earned the nickname, “Homer-bob.” Faded memories by now, even for me; only the true knowledge that it happened, and evokes feelings reminiscent to that of Bob Wills & Texas Playboys singing “Faded Love.”
The name of that little league team in 1992: The Yankees. So please, don’t call me a Yankee hater. We would lose in the Capitola-Soquel little league playoffs to the Padres. They eventually lost to the Twins, who were coached by my first little league coach, Charlie Thomas, who I didn’t particularly like and would even target on the annual Closing Day water-fight, but it made want to win even more. In future years, I would have one homer robbed by Michael ‘Hammerin’ Hearst in a little league playoff game between us, The Padres, and the Red Sox in 1994, when he quickly climbed and then jumped from the centerfield fence with an extended arm, which sparked a rally in which they still lost, but it went to the bitter end.
We defeated the Braves a few days later for the little league title. That became the pinnacle achievement in my elementary school days, which had been an emotional rollercoaster that would eventually rear its ugly head once again. That summer, the OJ Simpson saga began and Major League Baseball went on strike. There went my faith in baseball and the feeling of victory in baseball … and well, life.
___________________________________________________________________
I then thought of pro baseball players as mostly greedy-ass jerks — though my only grief then with OJ was that the Bronco-chase preempted Urkel.
Though a year later in 1995, I would again play in the little league title game. I was a Met and we lost to the White Sox, in spite of the fact that their banner said, “Go Wihte Sox.” That game was played on June 15, 1995 and came after a game on the previous Saturday of June 10, 1995 against the little league A’s, in which I which I had fulfilled my friend, John Shippy’s, worst nightmare: to be the last out of a game. Perhaps my jadedness with baseball motivated my decision to catch that foul ball, but I cannot say that with certainty.
Had I simply dropped the ball — when I knew that it was John’s worst nightmare — perhaps, the game on June 15 would have ended differently; perhaps I would have been more aware socially, and less unintentionally selfish. Instead, that symbolically began my life as a social chameleon/comedian on a weekend that premiered an episode of Spider-Man entitled “Day of the Chameleon.” I would also throw-up on John’s leg the next day during a birthday party, at the end of the Wipeout ride at the Boardwalk in Santa Cruz (the ride is no longer there). Though my jadedness did lead my interest in movies that summer, when I decided to watch the Siskel & Ebert show, which featured a review of A Walk in the Clouds.
Though in 1998, my interest in baseball reignited with of course, the home-run race between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. That though was after being jaded by the idea that achievement has meaning. I had turned to science fiction instead, and ultimately won tickets to a Star Trek convention by answering a question about an episode I had never seen (“Arena”). My interest though re-began nonetheless.
__________________________________________________________________
Here I go back again, going down the only road I have ever known.
I would spend that summer of 1992 at games in Oakland against Minnesota and the White Sox. The 1992 Oakland Athletics won the division that year and featured of course, Dennis Eckersley, Rickey Henderson, Rich ‘Goose’ Gossage, Ruben Sierra, Bob Welch, Terry Steinbach, and of course, Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco. It would be Oakland’s last divisional title of the 1990s and the beginning of the futility that led to Billy Beane and the ways of Moneyball, and the last divisional title until the Jason Giambi and Miguel Tejada powered A’s eight years later in 2000…when I was seventeen.
Although my year at seventeen was definitely unlike that of Frank Sinatra: Endless pedantry in high school, video games, recording Law & Order episodes, and listening to Simon & Garfunkel sing “Old Friends” in Central Park would hardly qualify. The year also involved Elian Gonzalez down in Florida, The Whole Nine Yards and X-Men, the old John McCain which ironically was a younger John McCain, Dennis Miller on Monday Night Football, the Monday Night Miracle, the FALN controversy, an endless recount of chads down in Florida. I also cannot forget either the start of the short-lived revival of the Oakland Raiders with Tim Brown, Rich Gannon, Jon Gruden, Bruce Allen, and Al Davis.
___________________________________________________________________
All right, back to future.
I still remember some-guy yelling, “Minnesota sucks,” in 1992, and so I asked my dad in confusion, if he thought the Twins could hear him. I was only nine; at least though it provides proof for where I was. I do remember though, watching the Twins and A’s in July of that summer, when a no-name named Randy Ready hit a grand slam and how cool I thought it was because I had his baseball card.
The game I remember was in Oakland against the White Sox. My dad, aka ‘coach’ had took me and a kid from the team, Willie, because he wanted to do something nice because of Willie’s tumultuous home-life, which my dad understood from his own. What sticks out in my mind the most however is looking through the binoculars to see Frank Thomas, aka “The Big Hurt.” Though this connection is only superficial, it leads to a tangential parable on the state of modern baseball and all walks-of-life. Those superficial connections with tangential parables are often what create loyal fans. Just ask Arizona Cardinals owner Bill Bidwell, who was a ball boy for the Chicago Cardinals in 1947 when the Cardinals won the NFL championship.
Perhaps this mythically ecumenical “Big Hurt” pervades us all; motivates us to succeed on the far-away thought that success might fill that void yet then comes more and more, then the catharsis sets in and you’re numb to its effects until the bottom drops out; while others revel in pleasure rather than try, before the bottom drops out. The question then is how you fill that ‘big hurt’ and with what, when, where and why. Refrain from indirectly denigrate however, the parents who do make active attempts to be role models. They aren’t the problem – money-grubbing liars who subvert the dreams of kids are the problem.
___________________________________________________________________
For those who wonder: what exactly justifies your righteous indignation? I would say — they did. The players earn their money on the assumption that fans want to see statistics that lead to wins; therefore, they went to steroid means to achieve those statistics and in effect their paycheck, which is paid by loyal and sometimes fair-weather fans. Thus, if the juiced players want money and thus strip the subjectively human love for the game and in effect part of what makes people human — then I say, that makes the fans more than justified to berate those players and to say they don’t belong in the Hall of Fame. They are no better than thieves angered by fellow thieves that steal what they have stolen.
They were young once to: How would they have felt if they learned their sports-heroes had been frauds? Players like: Jim Rice, Carlton Fisk, Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Joe DiMaggio, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Jackie Robinson, Carl Yastrzemski, Roberto Clemente, Willie Stargell, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Denny McLain, Al Kaline, Bob Gibson, Mickey Mantle, Lou Brock, Ted Williams, Maury Wills, Sandy Koufax, Don Driesdale. Continuing on, Juan Marichal, Willie McCovie, Reggie Jackson, Nolan Ryan, (but not Pete Rose) and so on and so forth.
___________________________________________________________________
How would you have felt if you learned they cheated for greatness? Perhaps had that been true, the course of sports history would be completely different — because the players of today might never have wanted to play.
To me, the only way that the writers should induct the juicers into the Hall of Fame, is if and only if, the juicers turn over 90% of the money they’ve made from endorsements and other contracts while juicing to their former teams or to charities. To promote awareness a) against steroids, b) against dishonest achievements, and c) of the game’s true legacies, because I do not accept the belief that because they are statistically the “best” that they then earn an unconditional induction into the Hall of Fame.
It is like arguing that: if I can fake it ‘til I make it, then you can’t deny me the fruits of what I so rightfully stole. Thus, the only means for their redemption is, chose what matters more: their ill-gotten money or their legacy. They only get one. The Baseball Writers of America though, hold the keys to the juicers kingdom, and so, if those players want in: then the Writers have an obligation to demand answers and changes rather than just simple apologies. Hold their legacies for ransom. Until then, they are just bums who thought they could transcend the legacies and embodiment of the game by running-up the stats. If they truly love the game, they’ll pay-up for their redemption. The cure is NOT worse than the disease.
I truly would say — throw the baby out with the bath water unless they sacrifice themselves for the achievements that they stole and now want a legacy for. The bottom line is — the juicers should have to humble themselves before the fans, if they want recognition from fans through the history books. I have no problem with blacking-out/whiting-out them from history unless they do so, as they blacked-out/whited-out the dreams of an untold number of fans after the 1994 strike. Perhaps ‘roid rage hindered their abilities to negotiate in 1994, but I cannot prove that with certainty. They though can accept the amalgamated truth of what they know, but that which we cannot prove.
___________________________________________________________________
By now, you the reader must be wondering: if baseball and sports has jaded you, why do you watch and write about it, and why do you ramble along a tangential timeline? The answer is simple, I still believe in the idea that some players and teams transcend the fray of Hall of Fame snake-oilers and truly believe in the game they play and that sports heroes exist, as those abstractly amalgamated as Joe DiMaggio by Paul Simon in, “Mrs. Robinson.” Like Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald or Adrian Wilson and the Arizona Cardinals. Alternatively, David Eckstein, Mark Ellis, Eric Byrnes, or Marco Scutaro and I still believe to in Ken Griffey Jr and Frank Thomas.
As for the tangential timeline thing… not sure — that is just how I think when it comes to retrospect. What happens later sometimes proves something after the fact, on something that happened earlier; and what happens earlier sometimes affects the future. It is either that, or I watched Citizen Kane too much, but also thought too much about that token trophy from Charlie Thomas with that mythically ecumenical inscription, “All Heart.”
An History of Baseball’s Era of Greed: A Juicing Man’s Game (2009)
“I believe baseball is a beautiful and exciting game, loved by millions–I among them–and I believe baseball an important, enduring American institution. It must assert and aspire to the highest principles–of integrity, of professionalism of performance, of fair play within its rules. It will come as no surprise that like any institution composed of human beings, this institution will not always fulfill its highest aspirations. I know of no worldly institution that does but this one, because it is so much a part of our history as a people, and because it has such a penchant on our national soul, has an obligation to the people for whom it is played to, its fans, and well-wishers to strive for excellence in all things to promote the highest ideals. I am told that I am an idealist. I hope so. I will continue to locate ideals I hold for myself and my country in the national game as well as in others of our national institutions.” — former Commissioner of MLB Bartlett Giamatti
Before people continue to demand criminal penalties against baseball players for “obstructing justice” rather than illegal use of steroids. Read on. But before that, I must say — if Bud Selig is reading this — Miguel Tejada should not be deported.
Selig is no better than Bernie Madoff; except his victims aren’t dopey rich people, but the millions of innocent kids that have been robbed (literally and figuratively) by the promises of baseball (“larceny by false promise”).
If you ask me, the MLB no longer represents baseball — just corporate buffoons playing shell-games between each other, and who pull strings to misuse the government to assasinate the careers of baseball players in order to extract steroids from the MLB so that Owners would no longer have to pay the players that become beloved for juiced-stats, all to put an end to a monster that they gave life to. The players are just fools and tools that followed the money. The players though, may deserve derision but they do not belong in prison or to be deported.
Selig can change that rather than trivial records, and I will — and I hope others — continue to hold Selig’s hand to the hot-plate until real changes are made. Be ‘the good face’ of baseball, rather than ‘the goon face.’ A real solution to the problem would be a true salary cap rather than a luxury tax, and to adopt models similar to that of the NFL.
____________________________________________________________________
Put Me in Coach, I’m Ready to Prosecute
The US Department of Justice should consider anti-trust investigations against Major League Baseball since 1996, with the motive being, the false-promises of homeruns, memorabilia, and PAYING to see history in motion; all in order to restore the trust of the public that they had eviscerated with the 1994 strike.
There is clearly nothing sanctimonious about the MLB anymore, and should be treated like any other corrupt corporation. They don’t care about legacies as they’ve claimed: Why else would the Yankees ‘burn’ down the house that Ruth built? Yankee Stadium should be designated by Congress as a national landmark and thus prevent the relocation of it.
After all, the Yankees justify the relocation of Yankee Stadium for their new stadium, because they need more money to pay the players. Yeah, the price-tags of which were inflated by the culture of juiced-stats created by the Commissioner and Owners. I mean, what other corporation in America would tolerate substance-abuse in the workplace (other than The Home Depot)? Not only have the Owners and Commissioner tolerated the abuse of substance in the workplace, they profit from it. Despicable.
And I would have thought more from Selig who helped establish the child abuse prevention network and serves on the board for businesses against drunk driving. He is also a trustee of the Boys and Girls Club, and was lauded by Senator Chris Dodd for doing so, when Selig officially became MLB Commissioner in 1998. Speech about Bud Selig.
They may or may not have known *specifically* which player used what if anything, and under which trainer — they did however know that substance-abuse was a ‘global’ problem in their sport and did nothing to stop it, because they in fact, supported it and promoted it. Until of course the fans started to herald the juiced-players rather than the executives who knew the ‘global’ truth.
_____________________________________________________________________
How to Fix The Hall of Fame: Be The Good Face not The Goon Face
Face the facts, we’re stuck with juiced stats. Stuck with players that epitomized the game transcendently by the abuse of substances. Here though is my simple solution to fix the cancer of juiced-stats.
Change the parameters of who gets inducted into the Hall of Fame. Rather than partition the players within the Hall for trivial stats, simply employ a more open view of who to induct in order to restore the true virtues of the game. Rather than only recognize those who dominated the game, recognize the people and communities that put those players in position to dominate.
By that I mean in all seriousness, recognize people that have dedidcated significant periods of time to the health of Little League Baseball, to High School Baseball and College Baseball, not just the players that dominated Major League Baseball. Plus, rather than induct individual juicers — induct them collectively as the ‘the BALCO bombers,’ or something like that.
As of now, the Hall does not recognize the great sacrifices made by parents, community organizers (ahem) and teachers that ultimately put people like Barry Bonds in position to dominate the professional game. The truth however is, that s sign of a healthy and vibrant community is the total success of local sports.
I would even consider international players and women’s softball players for induction. If the Hall of Fame won’t allow for changes, then just junk the juicers in a Hall of Shame. Seriously.
_____________________________________________________________________
Sympathy for The Juicers
Despite what Jerome Holtzman thinks, Bud Selig is the Worst Commissioner Ever! Not just in baseball, but in the cumulative history of prehistorical and historical world sports. Period. And it’s not just because of some Rafael Palmeiro rookie cards that aren’t worth the cheap labor they were packaged with.
And neither just because the record breaking home-run balls of Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds that had been foolishly purchased by comic-book artist Todd McFarlane for millions — are now only metaphysically and fittingly worth being in the yard of “the beast” from The Sandlot.
Clearly though, these juicers might stab their butts with steely syringes but they just can’t kill the beast. They are all just prisoners here of their own device! Welcome to the Hotel California!
Here are the other reasons.
Now that people like Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada and Barry Bonds face prison time or deportation because they lied to Congress about steroid-use in March of 2005 (remember that date), it begs the question: Why were they called before Congress to begin with?
____________________________________________________________________
El Destructor de los Grandes Juegos (You Tell Me What Is)
Though I’ve been critical of athletes for steroid-abuse, the heart of my ire is mostly that they went along with corruption and deceit in pursuit of greed, rather than stand-up to that fray by speaking out. They can run-around with all the excuses in the world, but the reality is, they didn’t have the *balls* to do the right thing. Funny thing is, Human Growth Hormones don’t appear to do much in the way of human growth.
They didn’t do so, because they knew they would have been shunned from the game and would have potentially lost everything they had; plus the Commissioner and Owners were peddling those drugs, regardless of the physical or moral health issues those drugs would have on the game and society. So who cares?
Sure, steroids have medicinal purposes (for people with breathing-problems) but another drug also had medicinal use once: heroin. Like Lou Reed, they commonly stuck a spike into their vein and didn’t know where they were going in pursuit of money and baseball’s kingdom known as the Hall of Fame.
They though would not abuse heroin and think it was okay, but apparently they will in effect steal the medication of those they probably picked on in school. Funny thing is, steroids might pump testosterone around the tailbones of the spineless, but they don’t make men. Funny how, ‘heroine’ has become a dirty sounding word in society thanks to drug-abuse. So maybe steroid should be a dirty sounding word to.
In fact, there are greater heroes (or heroines) in sports in general than those dirtbags, people like Brandie Chastain or Jennie Finch that play the game regardless of whether they get praised or receive paychecks far more bloated than the skull of Barry Bonds. (Actually, softball was recently removed from the Olympic games.)
The purpose of the sport has always been to channel competition, angst and victory; not for gilded bums to show-off the affects of drug-abuse. After all, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.
_____________________________________________________________________
Get Up, Stand Up For What’s Right (Even If It Herniates Your Testicles)
It took a no-name to write a book called Juiced in which that writer would double-dip by profiting from running-up the stats in baseball, and then profiting from a book to expose everyone else who did.
We need more Roberto Clemente’s and Sandy Koufax’s and fewer dirtbags that profit from the truth about their deceit. I truly don’t want to fathom the idea of the Hall of Fame becoming the Hotel California and an empire of dirt.
Dishonesty (cheating) becomes the mean (middle) of their legacies, so yes, I’m more than willing to arbitrarily impose that frame on their legacies. For they decided to base their careers on stats and so, I have no qualms about imposing the rules of statistics onto their hollow humanity.
That being that everything in their career is just in standard deviation of the mean — dishonesty in pursuit of (ill-gotten) money. Should they get inducted into the Hall of Fame? My opinion is, only by extraordinary action do those players deserve consideration; otherwise, the answer is no. And the writers who induct players into the Hall of Fame should be the vanguard, rather than sit around and wait for bent facts from the Commissioner and Owners, and the reactionary mutterings of paycheck puppets. After all, it was a delivery boy for the New York Journal-American that is credited for *discovering* Sandy Koufax, not the scouts and combines of neo-yore. The journalists need to stop acting like defense attorneys in the court of public opinion, and more like prosecutors – in pursuit of the truth – in the court of public opinion.
Even though, Jason Giambi is currently the only baseball player to be treated for cancer that likely resulted from steroid-abuse: the deceit of steroids has become so malignant that it has only served to spread cancerous growths in the record books that Bud Selig needs to extract in order to restore the legacies of baseball. There is a cure for that type of cancer. However, Selig is too lost in his own ineptitude and complicity with Owners that he to does not have the *balls* to do the right thing. Selig, once a visionary, has now become knee-deep in the corruption of the shell-game between the players and Owners by being beholdent to the Owners. Rather than be a true independent voice. Selig now, wants to stand by and indirectly accusing his critics of hurting his feelings, when the reality is — if you can’t address significant problems as head of your organization, or if a problem spurns during your tenure, then it your obligation to fix the problems with extraordinary action. Rather than sit by and watch the river flow and hope that your rocks change the current.
“History does nothing; it does not possess immense riches, it does not fight battles. It is men, real, living, who do all this.” (guess who?)
______________________________________________________________________
The Dingers of Summer
For all I care, the Steroid Era can become known as the Selig Era of Baseball as one facet in a dystopian New Gilded Age of Wall Street corruption and Web 2.0 co-option, but only radical action can save the game from the course it’s on.
Otherwise, the game will slowly fade into the ether as a meaningless game in which buffoons hit a ball, scratch their shrunken nuts, and collect a paycheck because no one really cares how they do what they do. In redundancy, Selig needs to take extraordinary action to restore the humanity of the game.
After all, the only reason that Milwaukee has the Milwaukee Brewers is because of the small piece of humanity in the orginal owner, Bud Selig, who cherished a minor league team in Milwaukee as a youth named the Milwaukee Brewers.
So after the Braves left Boston and stopped in Milwaukee en route to their eventual home of Atlanta, Selig purchased the Seattle Pilots in 1970 (in bankruptcy court) and relocated that franchise to Milwaukee which of course, became the Milwaukee Brewers.
One day, a Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, and a Representative from Michigan, John Conyers, would sponsor legislation in 2001 to prevent those type of actions with the Fairness in Antitrust in National Sports (FANS) Act of 2001 and prevent the contraction of the Montreal Expos, Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Oakland Athletics and Minnesota Twins.
The legislation, “seeks to make baseball subject to normal antitrust laws when seeking to move or eliminate franchises.” http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/60906
ESPN Magazine’s Peter Keating wrote contraction “is just another of the owners’ misguided stabs at grabbing back cash they’ve been throwing at players” (ESPN MAGAZINE, 11/12 issue).
The Expos now reside in Washington DC as the Nationals, the A’s and Twins have contended in the postseason, while Tampa Bay dropped the ‘devil’ and appeared in the World Series of 2008.
And Bud Selig has done nothing but look like a fool. In 2002 for ending the All Star game in a tie and having to clean-up the mess of steroids made by his office and the owners with the dystopian complicity of the ethically diminutive, who have now been forced to shoulder the blame with prison.
Perhaps, one day their rookie cards will be used as shivs because they aren’t worth much more than that. I’m not sure that those cards would be a warm place with no memory of the bloated stats. But they once gazed upon the dingers of summer flashin.’
“The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.” (guess who?)
____________________________________________________________________
Their Sons are Doomed by their Own Invisible Hands
With that said, the real issue at hand is: Who created this cesspool in which the difference between an Average Pro and an Average Joe is a connection to a drug-dealer? In this ret-con universe created by Bud Selig, Cloudy Russo as a hotdog vendor could potentially be just as capable of playing pro-ball as the players on the field.
But as Jesse Jackson might say: Those players deserve derision, they don’t deserve prison! For all in all, they are just another brick in the wall. And behind that brick wall: You can still hear the pleas from Fortunato to Montressor to the tune of Toby Keith, and like Fortunato, the Selig Era can’t die with a cough for unintentional grievances.
As I’ve made fairly clear, the juicers deserve poetic justice in the court of public opinion as a means to compel true human growth. They do not however deserve to be locked-up for not knowing how to explain to Congress why they went along in a dystopian manner with what had been condoned by the Big Brothers of the Commissioner and the Owners, and in effect, be forced to carry the burden of executive incompetence.
“Men’s ideas are the most direct emanations of their material state.” (guess who?)
____________________________________________________________________
The Nature of Their Game
Why exactly did Congress call those players to testify and not drill the Owners and Commissioner and force them to expose the compromise of their integrity and face prison time for lying before Congress?
Hmm… could it be that the President of the United States in 2005 was, former owner of the Texas Rangers George W. Bush, who — until the steroids controversies — had looked like a buffoon because he had traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox in the early 1990s?
So maybe just maybe, the President of the United States was willing to pull strings and abuse the purpose of Congress and government to settle contract disputes (and personal grievances) for his buddies by exposing a bunch of neanderthals who would demand more money from owners via usage of the drugs peddled by the owners.
So maybe just maybe, the owners believed that the success of the juicers had just *trickled down* from the top, and could no longer bare to deal with agent regurgitation of, ”show me the money,” for players who they knew had not truly earned it. Their humanity must be better than your humanity. Paging Dr. Frankenstein! Code blue for egos, stat!
Even in 2005, I had a feeling of ‘deja vu’ while watching the coverage of the Steroid Hearings that March, and then made the abstract leap that it was reminiscent of the McCarthyism in the House on Un-American Activities against Communists in Hollywood back in the 1950s. Why?
Why were those players called before Congress? Perhaps, the Commissioner and Owners needed scapegoats for the mess they created, and those scapegoats now face prison for simply towing the company line and not knowing how to explain it before Congress, because they didn’t realize that the choices they made to juice-up were just the creation of the creeps above them.
Congress was just a giant chess piece in a shell-game between the Owners and players over skyrocketing contracts.
______________________________________________________________________
Why The Jury Should Nullify the Verdict Against Bonds (It’s Alive! It’s Alive!)
Perhaps, the Commissioner and Owners had come to the conclusion that steroids had run their course in baseball, and that contracts were becoming too pricey and a financial burden that could potentially lead to more revenue sharing that was needed to save those franchises that were nearly *eliminated* from the game in 2001 because George Mitchell had concluded that those teams could not *compete* with their finances. Those franchises had been saved only because Paul Wellstone and John Conyers had stepped in to prevent contraction in the political cloud of September 11, 2001 and eventually Enron.
“I don’t think that any of us ever believed that the disparity, both in terms of payroll and gross revenue, would get to what it is so far,” baseball commissioner Bud Selig, the former owner of the Milwaukee Brewers. In other words, they got in over their heads with their facilitation of steroids, and thus wanted to end it.
After all, it was Alex Rodriguez who signed with the Texas Rangers (ahem) to the tune of 250 million in the year 2000, and Jason Giambi who signed with the New York Yankees to the tune of 120 million in 2001. And who could forget Scott Boras? O, Manny Ramirez where art thou?
And so, Selig and the Owners wanted to remove the steroids that they had promoted in order to bring down the price-tags in order to help those franchises survive within their monopoly and prevent further revenue sharing, because the more money they had to pay for a player, the more revenue that they had to share with a team like the Twins. The Minnesota Twins in fact had been in the black as a result of revenue sharing, yet the state of Minnesota was unwilling to finance a new stadium.
The only way to turn off the Manchurian Candidates from the juice was to expose them, and thus prevent contracts from continuing to skyrocket. They then were able to capitalize on the sublimated public hatred for Barry Bonds via steroids and altruism in defense of sport’s records. Yeah, Bonds is an ethical dirtbag — but so was Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter. Yet, neither of them belong or belonged in prison; thus, I hope that the jury is implored to nullify a verdict against Barry Bonds.
They had of course, former Senator George Mitchell to expose those players, who of course, had chaired a blue-ribbon committee in Congress which concluded that money was the only way to compete in baseball—those conclusions of course, were disproven by the Moneyball ways and The Unbearable Truth of Billy Beane.
The former front office employee of the Boston Red Sox, George Mitchell of course, *coincidentally* did not report steroid use by a player of the Boston Red Sox, except Mo Vaughn. And we all know how the management of the Boston Red Sox felt about him. Hmmm. Must have been Mitchell’s reward for executing their witch-hunt to settle contract disputes. The other Owners got to burn the legacy of the book Moneyball in a way that would make George Orwell and Ray Bradbury wince.
Ironically, the failure of Billy Beane as a pro, and the simultaneous ascension of teammate and juicer Lenny Dykstra in the 1980s, is likely what turned on the light-bulb as to the benefits of steroids. After all, power can be acquired but contact cannot be taught. http://www.slate.com/id/2180070/
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” (guess who?)
____________________________________________________________________
I Was So Much Older Then I’m Younger Than That Now
In all the time that Congress spent questioning baseball players about steroids in a witch-hunt, thanks to the connections that Selig had with President George W. Bush, in an effort to ‘clean up’ the game by exposing those who collected big paychecks from the Owners by juicing-up: the truth was ranted but never cogently so (at least, to my knowledge). That being, why should Congress waste time on contract disputes when there was a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war on terror, and an inflated real-estate economy that would eventually bring down an economic house of cards made entirely from Queens of Spades?
More importantly though, the true victims of this shell-game of steroids (but who’s running the shell game?) are not the baseball players, not the owners, not the baseball or sports fans, not even those who just collect crap in hopes that it will unlock the universe of their egos in a way that rhymes with the bleating animals from Pet Sounds.
I might argue against making money for injecting drugs in your butt, but some might assert that I’m doing nothing more than speaking out of my ass. Pish, posh!
The true victims were back in 2005, when the Congress and government in general, could have been preparing for, I dunno, natural disasters. Turned out, that deep down in Louisiana back in the summer of 2005 along the Gulf Coast: Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita would destroy the city of New Orleans. Instead, the country was forcibly more enamored (pro or con) earlier that year, by a shell-game and witch-hunt between owners and players over who gets to cash-in from shooting-up. I guess that as long as, “I get mine” is the sum and whole of the law, that will be the true legacy of the Selig Era.
Won’t someone please tell me why Bush should not be in prison for wasting the public’s time to settle contract disputes for his buddies to the ultimate detriment of the people who truly needed the government’s assistance? Those are the questions in need of investigation, not questions about steroids.
I’m not saying that Bush should be tried for murder in the cases of Hurricane Katrina and Rita, but it is clear to me that his abuse of power to settle private contract disputes and personal grievances detracted from the valuable time and services of a government that was unable to diligently respond to the people of the Gulf Coast in the summer of 2005.
After all that Bush has done and has been accused of doing, wouldn’t it be great for him to go down for abusing power by wasting government time and money in order to help his buddies settle contract disputes and the personal grievances he must of had about his own ineptitude as owner of the Texas Rangers? Now that would be poetic justice.
–In Memoriam of the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Rita–
–In Memoriam of Senator Paul Wellstone and Family from Minnesota and the Others Aboard that Plane–
_____________________________________________________________________
Abstract References (used for or influenced opinions):
“1984″; Orwell, George; 1948
“Abstracts”; James, Bill; 1977
“Another Brick in the Wall, Prt 2”; Pink Floyd; The Wall; 1979
“Burning Down the House”; Byrnes, David; Talking Heads; Speaking in Tongues; 1983
“Cask of Amontillado, The”; Poe, Edgar Allan; 1846
“Centerfield”; Fogerty, John; Centerfield; 1984
“Chimes of Freedom”; Dylan, Bob; Another Side of Bob Dylan; 1964
“Communist Manifesto, The”; Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich; 1848
“Dollar Sign on the Muscle”; Kerrane, Kevin; U. of Nebraska; 1984
“Even Such is Time”; Raleigh, Sir Walter; 1618
“Get Up, Stand Up”; Marley, Bob; Tosh, Peter; 1973
“Hang on to Your Ego”; Wilson, Brian; Pet Sounds; 1966/1999
“Heroin”; Reed, Lou; The Velvet Underground; The Velvet Underground and Nico; 1967
“Homer at the Bat”; Swartzwelder, Jon; The Simpsons; 1992
“Hotel California”; The Eagles; Hotel California; 1976
“Hurt”; Reznor, Trent; Nine Inch Nails; Downward Spiral; 1994
“Fahrenheit 451″; Bradbury, Ray; 1953
“Fifteen Minutes of Fame”; Warhol, Andy; 1968
“Frankenstein”; Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft; 1891
“French Connection, The”; Tidyman, Ernest; 1971
“If—”; Kipling, Rudyard; 1895
“It’s a Little Too Late”; Keith, Toby; CMT Video; 2006
“Jerry McGuire”; Crowe, Cameron; 1996
“Johnny B. Goode”; Berry, Chuck; 1958
“Koufax: A Lefty’s Legacy”; Leavy, Jane; 2003
“Man of Constant Sorrow”; Unknown; O, Brother Where Art Thou Soundtrack; 2000
“Manchurian Candidate, The”; Condon, Richard; Frankenheimer, John; 1962
“Me and Bobbie McGee”; Kristofferson, Kris; 1969
“Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game”; Lewis, Michael; 2003
“Mr. Greed”; Fogerty, John; Centerfield; 1984
“My Back Pages”; Dylan, Bob; Another Side of Bob Dylan; 1964
“Night Game, The”; Pinsky, Robert
“Nullification”; Law & Order; 1997
“Oedipus The King”; Sophocles; 429 BC
“Sandlot, The”; Evans, David; 1993
“Sanctuary”; Law & Order; 1994
“Shawshank Redemption, The”; King, Stephen; 1994
“Sympathy for The Devil”; The Rolling Stones; Beggars Banquet; 1968
“The Gilded Age: A Tail of Today”; Twain, Mark; Warner, Charles Dudley; 1873
“Three Men and a Comic Book;” Martin, Jeff; The Simpsons; 1991
“To an Athlete Dying Young”; Housman, A.E.; 1896
“Traffic”; Gagan, Stephen; Soderbergh, Steven; 2000
“Unbearable Lightness of Being, The”; Kundera, Milan; 1984
“Vanz Kant Danz”; Forgerty, John; Centerfield; 1984
“Wealth of Nations, The”; Smith, Adam; 1776
“White Rabbit”; Law & Order; 1994
“Worst Episode Ever”; Doyle, Larry; The Simpsons; 2001
An History of Baseball’s Era of Greed: An Owner’s Coup (2009)
“I believe baseball is a beautiful and exciting game, loved by millions–I among them–and I believe baseball an important, enduring American institution. It must assert and aspire to the highest principles–of integrity, of professionalism of performance, of fair play within its rules. It will come as no surprise that like any institution composed of human beings, this institution will not always fulfill its highest aspirations. I know of no worldly institution that does but this one, because it is so much a part of our history as a people, and because it has such a penchant on our national soul, has an obligation to the people for whom it is played to, its fans, and well-wishers to strive for excellence in all things to promote the highest ideals. I am told that I am an idealist. I hope so. I will continue to locate ideals I hold for myself and my country in the national game as well as in others of our national institutions.” — former Commissioner of MLB Bartlett Giamatti.
I accept it, even if I cannot prove it. I accept that my relentless pursuit of the truth by the reporting of facts combined with literary perceptions has made me a man on an island too many. I accept the fact that I am as brutally honest about myself as I am about others because I am not a hypocrite. I accept that others believe that a person must earn an air of credibility in order to speak their mind, because they think that acceptance of their opinion is the only thing that separates them from the crazily amongst us.
Although, I would definitely like to get a call from ESPN (I need a job): Does Around the Horn take bloggers? Probably not after I suggested major changes to be made to that show.
I though, believe that what drives a person crazily is the relentless pursuit to have their will accepted by others (e.g. cult leaders) I may speak my mind, and I articulate it the best I can via sarcasm, satire, abstractions, literary perceptions and stone-cold facts, but I by no means expect that you must agree.
All I can be is a witness.
__________________________________________________________________
What Would Billy Do? / You Break It, You Buy It
Unfortunately, ‘facts’ do not always tell the whole truth. I hope though that I at least serve as a catalyst for your own thought process rather than rely on drugs and alcohol to lower your inhibitions and thus not care about the acceptance of your will.
George Steinbrenner for instance was a convicted felon because he gave illegal contributions to Richard Nixon during the Watergate period. Thanks, however, to former President Ronald Reagan and a pardon in January of 1989, Steinbrenner was absolved of those crimes. However, the truth is, the behavior of Steinbrenner has led him to act illegally, and so it might not be a ‘fact’ that Steinbrenner is a felon, but for informal purposes—it is the truth.
Just ask Billy Martin.
A true leader is supposed to shoulder the onus of responsibility and accountability for all the problems in their organization, regardless of culpability rather than point-fingers or regale us with ret-con tails of how you tried or thought about trying. If you cannot do that, then everything else is irrelevant because you failed.
If you benefited in any way while failing to fulfill your job-description as leader—then you should be the target for derision, just as much as anyone else, and you should be expected to take the extraordinary action in order to fix the erosion of your organization.
In other words, “You break it, you own it.” As leader, it’s yours to break.
After all, it was you Bud Selig along with other Owners like George Steinbrenner that deposed former Commissioner Fay Vincent with an 18-9 no-confidence vote. A vote based mostly on Vincent’s support of the players after the Owners had colluded against the players between 1985 and 1987 and had to pay in excess of 250 million dollars (that’s A-Rod money). Clearly, the Owners wanted no part of giving players their fair share, so they usurped Vincent for ridiculous reasons.
They then replaced Vincent and implanted Bud Selig (the first Owner to become commissioner) as acting commissioner. And oh, one of Selig’s first acts as acting commissioner would be to reverse the life-time ban against owner George Steinbrenner that was levied by Fay Vincent. It is now often referred to as a ’suspension,’ when the reality is, Steinbrenner would still be out of baseball if not for Bud Selig’s decision to overturn the act by Vincent.
Then people wonder why the players Union had been resistant in negotiations with the Owners back in 1994. But oh, point the finger at the players and it all goes away, right? The players are the only Million Dollar Babies amongst us, right? Well, not to me, Bud.
You wanted it that badly Bud, it’s yours. You broke it, you fix it. What goes around comes around.
___________________________________________________________________
The So-Called Good Life
I also accept that the same people, who relativize the difference between good and evil, are generally the same people that claim to live ‘the good life.’ Just ask Jose Canseco.
I may not know how those people can say they do not know the difference between good and evil, yet begin to know the definition of ‘good,’ because I can just as easily call their life the bad or evil life. I accept that some would rather pursue evil than to do the right thing, and that some who object to it are just as soon, willing to immerse themselves in the same destructive behavior of drugs and alcohol.
Drugs are merely a form of control, in which the user is oblivious to whom is in control. After all, the British took over Hong Kong and other parts of China by forcing Opium onto their populace. The line between good and evil might be hard to see, but I certainly know the difference between constructive and destructive.
Just ask David Crosby, the counter-culture of the 1960s was right about civil rights and was right about gender equality—but was wrong about the drugs. I am inclined to agree.
Nevertheless, I accept that some people define their youth by what they think they can get-away with only while young, only to grow old and want to relive their youth. I though, had decided to act like an adult when I was thirteen by reading the newspaper, which is why I supported Ron Paul at the age of 14 in 1997 (primarily on the issue of currency).
I guess I am just reliving my youth today (and so is the Dow Jones) without the destruction of drugs because I wrote-in for Ron Paul; even though, many young people supported Barack Obama and Ron Paul.
Obama said what people wanted to hear, but his actions so far have driven a schism between those words and his actions.
__________________________________________________________
“What on Earth are you talking about?”
The deception of the MLB that has been the Selig Era (a.k.a., Steroids Era). My belief has been that while the players have been unethical in their pursuit of more money from teams by way of steroids (rhymes with Robin Hood)—it was the Owners (e.g. Bud Selig, George Steinbrenner) that drove the players to such unethical means.
The collusion against free agents between 1985-1987 (Bush took control of the Rangers in 1989) from which the Owners had to pay over 250 million in damages to the players.
Only for the players to be once again colluded against in 2005, only this time, with the US Senate as a front for the Owners and former Owners Bud Selig and George W. Bush in order to help their buddies settle private contract disputes.
Moreover, the Owners facilitated steroids in baseball, as they continued to increase the profitability of baseball by fan attendance and television contracts under Commissioner Ueberroth.
After all, who wants to see strikeouts on TV? As Crash Davis in Bull Durham said, “strikeouts are boring.” Bud Selig now claims that he tried to push ‘testing’ on the players Union in 1995.
My problem with that statement is one that Selig had yet to see the home run race of 1998 and its effect on baseball’s popularity. Furthermore, Selig says ‘testing’ but for all I know, that could have referred to anything: Steroids, alcohol, other drugs, prescription medication (have you read Ball Four?).
It is too vague, and that is probably why the Union rejected it, especially after the Owners Collusion of 1985-1987. My gut says that the Union was merely worried that the Owners and former Owner Bud Selig were trying to create mechanisms of fishing for anything to use against the players (Can you say Dave Winfield?).
But now, the Owners and former Owner Bud Selig, point the finger at the Players that they colluded against time and again.
__________________________________________________________________
Why the Yankees *Can Be* Bad for Baseball
The Owners would change their minds on steroids when the price of the players went so high that it forced the ‘rich’ teams (e.g. the Yankees) to bankroll the small market teams like Oakland and Minnesota with revenue sharing from the luxury tax.
That allowed those teams to stay in the black with low payrolls but also spoil the successes of the ‘rich’ teams (e.g. the Yankees). So the MLB tried to contract (or eliminate) those teams from their midst in 2001 (and might be at it again) but were impeded by then US Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone and House Rep John Conyers from Michigan with the FANS Act of 2001.
It also begged the question: Why should historical teams — or with World Series titles – like the Athletics, Marlins and Twins be under the microscope for contraction?
Consider that Bud Selig’s team the Milwaukee Brewers has been in existence only since 1970 and has produced only three postseason appearances.
Hey, Bud: It’s your inept Brewers that cannot compete, so if you wanna eliminate a team, then eliminate your own. Otherwise, develop another solution.
___________________________________________________________________
Yankees Core No More / The House that A-Rod Built
And if the Yankees would rather not share-revenue with fellow franchises—then leave the MLB; be a floating franchise outside of the American League and Major League.
Alternatively, deal with it; or perhaps, do not buy the snake oil on players like Carl Pavano. If you need a lesson on why being a rich organization that spends like drunken sailors can be a bad thing for everyone—just look to Wall Street and AIG.
The Yankees have merely been the rich spoiler, as their small-market foes had been poor spoilers; ever since the mad spending began after the 2001 World Series, in which the Yankees signed 2000 AL MVP Jason Giambi for $120 million, and have since thrown money for snake oil.
Since then, the ‘Yankee Core’ has quickly declined. Bernie Williams’s semi-retired, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, and Andy Pettitte have crept towards retirement and Derek Jeter has lived under the shadow of Alex Rodriguez.
And now the Yankees have ‘burned’ down the House that Ruth built in order to make more money to pay players like Alex Rodriguez. Yet, the same people claim to care about the legacies of baseball. No one fears the Yankees. No one is hallowed by their presence. The Yankees now are nothing more than a bloated payroll and a declining legacy.
__________________________________________________________________
When “The Say Hey Kid” says hey to you (as a kid) / Elephants Never Forget
As critical as I have been of Bud Selig and the other Owners, I like the WBC. Baseball needs a new direction, in light of a now meaningless *stat-book*, and I think the inclusiveness of the WBC is the right direction.
In my mind, the greatness of baseball was the human element of it, not the Human Growth Hormone element of it. Just ask my dad, who as a kid would ride his bike to a bus in Santa Clara, and for five dollars, got a ride and a ticket to Candlestick Park.
He would sit in the stands out in center field so close to the park that Willie “The Say Hey Kid” was close enough to see him and would often say ‘hey kid.’ As my dad said, it was like he playing just for him.
In another event, my dad would also be able to stay-home from Vietnam after Nixon ended the draft in the early 1970s and was to enjoy the first of three World Series titles by the Oakland Athletics between 1972-1974.
As my dad often said, regardless of what Richard Nixon did as president, he ended the draft. If not for that act, his lottery number had been near and had he gone to Vietnam, I probably would not be alive because that act by Nixon altered the course of his life.
In those dualist years, where the opposite could have just as easily been true, the truth was, he stayed home and was able to watch the Oakland Athletics and that is one reason that I continue to be a fan of the A’s.
The funny thing is, George Steinbrenner illegally gave money to Nixon in his reelection of 1972, thus Steinbrenner helped reelect the man responsible for allowing my dad to stay home and watch the the Yankees rival win the World Series three times in a row.
________________________________________________________________
Show Me Your Expenses when You Demand More Money /
You Might as Well Face It, You’re Addicted to ‘Roids
It’s hard to find the spiritual mean between good and bad. Somet / imes bad things lead to things that are good for you, while good things can sometimes lead to bad things for others. If you think I’m just some high-horse malcontent, you should reconsider.
I’m unforgiving in my assessment of the league under the ‘roid because I believe that the MLB has collectively stolen money from innocent patrons and now squabble over that money. So for me to impugn them all and let the reader sort it out, is only a pittance in what the MLB has taken over the years. You know, in the MLB, 390,000 is around the minimum salary.
In order to eviscerate the incongruity of 390,000 and ‘minimum’ consider this: millions have lost their jobs, including me. I particularly am underwater as they say because of medical bills that are equal in totality to that of a small fine in pro sports. By small, I mean roughly $10k. To some that’s nothing because their debts are assets, whereas my debts are for medical reasons and living expenses.
The next time a player says, they cannot live on less than a million dollars a year, I hope the reporter reacts like Simon Cowell. I as a consumer of the sport, DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THAT B-S.
With that, I put the onus on the leader who clearly wanted the job for an unfair advantage against the players Union, thus, the players were more than willing to take the unfair advantage of steroids. Meanwhile, the other Owners were more than happy to profit from that, even if their lip-service said otherwise.
If you Bud Selig knew more than the public did, prove it with extraordinary action, but my gut says that you’re in line with the John Fogerty song “Mr. Greed” from Centerfield in that, “the bones you hoard, can only bring you shame.” If not—prove it.
You wanted it Bud, you got it. It’s on you. No one else.
__________________________________________________________________
FAIRNESS IN ANTITRUST IN NATIONAL SPORTS (FANS) ACT OF 2001
Seventy-nine years ago, Major League Baseball consisted of 16 teams clustered in the Northeast and Midwest. Players were paid what was generously described as a pittance. Ballparks were privately owned, and genuine fan loyalty was built upon stars playing with the same team for most of their careers.
Today 30 teams play in major cities throughout the country except one, the Nation’s Capital. Players receive astronomical salaries, the newer parks were largely built with taxpayers’ money, and free agency sends the stars from one team to another almost before they can warm their places in the dugout.
The major argument for using taxpayers’ funds to build new stadiums has been the economic boom brought to a community by having a Major League Baseball team.
At this hearing we will receive testimony that baseball is in dire financial straits and that the antitrust exemption should remain.
One of the many questions which baseball must answer is why so many teams are in financial peril with the protection of special legal status when major league football, basketball and hockey teams are not?
Perhaps the help given to baseball by the Supreme Court in 1922 really has not been so helpful after all.
And another question to be answered by baseball is how a sport which grosses over $3 billion a year is still not a business when the presence of a team obviously stimulates business throughout the lucky communities.
For years, baseball has told Congress that it can heal itself, and it obviously has not done so, even though this year baseball has had record attendance and the best World Series in history.
The numbers do not add up. Success on the field and at the box office should bring success to the bottom line. So maybe the Supreme Court’s help in 1922 has outlived its usefulness, and the market should be allowed to work in baseball like it has in other major sports.
I guess there may be somebody in America that really believes that baseball is not a business, but it is just a sport. And you may recall that in 1994, Congressman Mike Synar had thought this through and thought that the time had come to forget the partial exemptions, and every time the people in baseball screw up, that we take away a little piece of their exemption.
So I come here very interested in what I have heard to be some tremendous accounting theories that the Commissioner will put forward about how tough things are. And, God knows, I support the underdog, economically or on the field.
I mean, let’s—that is the American way of doing business.
Let’s root for the little guys in baseball, like the owners that are hemorrhaging. You know, I mean, this is—this is a tough situation that brings us here.
We have—we are still—reacting to the Curt Flood episode in baseball history, and we remember that the owners got together—some say collusion, but I don’t use those kind of legal terms—among themselves to reduce free-agent salaries and were forced to pay a record $280 million in damages.
The record in minority hiring makes me wonder if the term ”affirmative action” has ever entered into the considerations of the—of these meetings. No minority owners. One single minority general manager.
And we remember what happened to your predecessor, Mr. Commissioner, when he thought that he could dare put the public interests ahead of anybody else’s: eight work stoppages in the last 30 years, more than any other professional sport combined, including the longest work stoppage in professional sports history in 1994.
And there is the Minnesota Twins episode, which we won’t go into now. This is going to be pretty interesting. I have got—one of my colleagues from Pennsylvania was asking me about the fate of Eric Gregg. We have got some letters for you to consider what is happening to him.
And then finally, I wanted to just close by reminding the Commissioner of the determination of the Commissioner’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Baseball Economics. You recall that one; it examined the question of whether the league’s current system has created a problem of competitive imbalance in the game.
Independent panel. Former Senate leader George Mitchell, former Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volker, Yale president Richard Levin, and, of course, our old friend George Will.
And after a year and a half, the—the Commission issued a report, and they found that—they recommended that the teams significantly increase revenue-sharing among its teams with new national broadcasting licensing and Internet revenue distributed to assist low-revenue clubs. Okay.
Last sentence. The contraction should not be the first option taken by the Major League Baseball owners, and the Commission’s panel stated that if the recommendations outlined in the report are implemented, there should be no immediate need for contraction. That was on page 44 of the report.
How The New England Patriots Run The Super Bowl Hustle (2008)
Now it just don’t feel the same
Gotta blame it on something
Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain (rain)
Blame it on the stars (stars)
Whatever you do don’t put
the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah
You can blame it on the rain
–”Blame It on The Rain,” Milli Vanilli
___________________________________________________________________
This story is in continuance of my efforts to evoke thought on the lack of ethics in sports as described in The Truth of Victory and Tangents on Trivial Things, because the apparent conformity of fans to unethical victories, in my estimation enables the same type of unethical behavior that had infested Wall Street and is now destroying the economy.
It has become apparent that fans of American sports have been brainwashed by scumbags into acceptance of dishonesty so long as someone gets to satisfy their hunger for more and more ill-gotten gain.
If you ask me, the Patriots should be contracted from the NFL and replaced by a team in Los Angeles, Canada, or Mexico.
“Never again will you be capable of ordinary human feeling. Everything will be dead inside you. Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.” (George Orwell 1984)
When the stories about steroids first began to surface in the late 1990s, many fans turned their heads and said they didn’t want to hear rumors and wouldn’t care even if those rumors were true. Eventually, the problem became so evident that no one could ignore it, and thus, fans began to deplore it.
That is why I continue to opine on the fraudulent New England Patriots as nothing more than a franchise rooted in a poisonous tree of fraudulence, as described in The Greatest Game Never Played.
“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time.
“But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.” (Orwell 1984)
You Patriot fans are not alone in your need to admit you invested yourselves in frauds. I as a fan of the Oakland Athletics had to accept that I as a kid invested myself in frauds: Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco, as described in Talkin’ Steroids: An History of Baseball’s Era of Greed (From a Fan).
“We are not content with negative obedience, nor even with the most abject submission. When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.
“We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him. It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.
“Even in the instance of death we cannot permit any deviation…we make the brain perfect before we blow it out.” (Orwell 1984)
I, in fact, rooted for New England to defeat the Rams, and had to standup to fellow Raider fans in doing so, because I wasn’t a sore loser IN JANUARY of 2002. I’m still not a sore loser (why else would I continue to support the Raiders?), because the Raiders didn’t choke, the Patriots clearly cheated.
The Patriots are just deplorable “winners,” and the NFL and sports media (particularly ESPN) are just as shameful for enabling the same type of dishonesty that has destroyed the nation’s economy.
“From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” (Orwell 1984)
_____________________________________________________________________
I cordially disagree with you Patriots defenders.
A) If you don’t gain a competitive edge from stealing signals, then why do it—why waste the time?
B) There’s a thing called innocent until proven guilty—so please don’t sell “everybody does it,” because until they are proven guilty of it, I won’t impugn a team for an unproven accusation.
C) The Patriots cheated—they are guilty.
D) Arguing that “everybody does it” is like a violent mental patient ranting that everyone’s crazy, so why hold him responsible for his behavior?
E) The Boston Herald, in my estimation, fabricated that story about the walkthrough in order to detract all lines of questions towards the Rams and the Super Bowl of that year, rather than the pivotal Tuck Game against the Raiders of the same postseason.
In fabricating that story, the Patriots now act like they are victims of the whole Spygate story, when really, they are just dirty rotten cheaters that don’t belong in the NFL.
F) Patriots fans contend that because the Patriots went 16-0—that it proves that they didn’t need to cheat. Oh, contrary. 2007 was merely a culmination of New England’s ill-gotten gains.
By cheating their way to victories in 2001-2006, the Patriots thus inflated their image which attracted better free-agents whom were willing to play for less money: in other words, their cheating made them a beacon of “success.”
The only craft exhibited by the Patriots is their understanding of the NFL Draft, by trading picks for future picks, which have invariably supplied better picks—for instance, the Patriots had their first-round pick docked for Spygate, yet they still owned a top 15 pick from San Francisco, which they had acquired in the previous draft (used to select LB Jerod Mayo).
BUT, if you are going to continue and cover your ears about the truth because “everybody does it” then I submit this to you: Why watch the game? If you’re saying “everyone cheats”: why watch a bunch of immoral buffoons hit each other?
“A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.
“And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.” (Orwell 1984)
Conspiracy of Silence: Internment, The A-Bomb, and the End of the Second World War (2003)
by David Xaviel (2003)
The world of World War II brought home to many people the cruel reality of what war is, ranging from those who fought, those who died, and those suspected of being an enemy who wants to fight to die. My grandmother was one who fought and never saw a Japanese internment camp, nor was around one during World War II, but experienced a similar reactionary distrust of the member of the enemy’s race during her service in the British military in the 1940s as many Californians did against Japanese residents. Both the Axis and Allies filled the world my grandma fought in, however, with propaganda that, combines with an ill desire to discuss of question anything, rather than to just fight the war and be done with it.
She left her family’s English farm in 1943 to fight in the war after many offers to marry the sons of other families, because of her advanced farming skills – particularly interested were the mothers whom wanted her to do their farm work. Referring to that life as ‘countrified,’ where she ‘never saw a black man,’ or many new people at all, nor knew about the Pearl Harbor bombing in 1941, because of the lack of news sources. She took the train to join the army and essentially see the world, even though it was against all the wishes of her family, because as a farmer – the British government technically exempted her from military service.
Then began the journey: She trained as an airplane plotter (someone who plots the positions of aircraft on a large board, and sends out plots to other sites) along with other female enlistees where the pressures of military training afforded scant time to read periodicals about the war. Soon after military-training, she was then sent to London on what was the first night of German buzz-bombing for The Battle of Ardennes (Bulge), and frantically sent out plots from an assigned command post to anti-aircraft sites as the ‘shot like mad,’ at German planes which sent shrapnel everywhere, and even injured the gunmen.
Living on the edge of life and death took an emotional toll, however, and my grandmother was no exception. With the enemy defined by propaganda as any member of an Axis race (and vice versa), tensions ran high to self-preserve against in particular the hated German and Italians (Italians – also known as ‘chickens’) as the cause of war – as the Japanese were in America. So heated was the rivalry that at one point, British antiaircraft shot desperately at a Nazi plane that wanted to land, and when it did, the gunmen were shocked to discover that the pilots were British hijackers (unable to send out the Royal Air Force code). They remarked, “We spent all that effort trying to escape from the Germans, only to be shot at by our own.” Upon the knowledge – acquired from the now accessible papers – of the Concentration Camps throughout Europe though, hatred against the Germans rose even further. She was not sure of the conditions, but sure, of the purpose of the Camps, yet even then, war against the Axis was the task and there was no time to waste on matters out of their control.
However, as the reality of the Camps became firsthand upon the sight of ‘two emaciated men going to Belsen,’ who were yellow in complexion and likely Camp escapees – the US interned the Japanese, she believed, on reasonable grounds. For ‘Japan did man bad things,’ especially since ‘they attacked,’ and ‘you can never really know a person.’ Believing that the US could not risk the threat of potential spies (especially since she remembered a ‘man with a radio in a field,’ outside her farm in 1939), she just passively ignored the reality of the Internment Camps.
When the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 though, it was more or less a relief. Was had ended in Europe, and now it seemed to be over in the Pacific theater – after living for years on the brink of death, it was just good to see the end of war, no matter how ugly; an vision seen only though the eyes of the newspapers. In addition, people generally considered it ill mannered to converse about atomic bombs in any way for you might reveal secrets to the enemy. Thus, what was to Hiroshima and Nagasaki essentially an atomic big cultural crunch was a big bang to the trend of European unity.
To the Nisei in California however, it was European paranoia (except by Americans) to win the war at all costs by white Americans remembering only their life and that of a race member or allied nation – which drove Japanese from their homes and possessions into camps of misery; supposedly to protect Americans from the Nisei. Ironically, a similar passion amongst Japanese-Americans driven to prove their loyalty, but responsible only to members of the Japanese race in the 442nd Infantry, eventually liberated people like Solly Ganor; subsequently, the more people who fell under the banner of ‘American’ thus became responsible in war to them. Bound in hatred otherwise, or as Clarence Matsumura stated, ‘You are free now. We are American Japanese. You are free.”
As well, as my grandmother departed England to witness the world after life in an isolated and rural part of England of no significant diversity, it was into a world where the Axis powers led by Adolph Hitler attempted to essentially, ‘countryfy,’ Europe. Nevertheless, due to the fighting, no one had time to worry about what was happening to which race, only to protect your life and that of a fellow national of ally.
Just as the US, government’s internment of 110,000 Asian Americans in the wake of the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 is a thorny era that many Americans have ignored. “Farewell to Manzanar” by Jeanne Toyo Wakatsuki and James D. Houston follows Jeanne, her family, and Asian Americans along a three-decade-long journey of silent denial and racial degradation. Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston recalls life at the Manzanar internment-camp through the innocent eyes of 7-year old child she was, seeing the cruelty of the camp only in hindsight. She tells of her fear, confusion, and bewilderment as well as the dignity and great resourcefulness of people in oppressive and demeaning circumstances. Written with her husband, Jeanne delivers a first-person account that reveals her search for the meaning of Manzanar. The Japanese – as my grandmother was one who fought — were those suspected of being an enemy who want to fight to die. However, Houston essentially tells the story of being trapped and locked out from the world, while in the case of my grandmother, she told the story of being essentially trapped on the farm, but in her case – she had the option to leave for the world, unlike anyone interned in a camp. As well, the Japanese returned from the Internment camps to face a new world and in need of help to recover from the loss of property and possessions often because their families were split up or members died. While for my grandmother, she left the England farm into a war-wracked world and with no one for help except the other women who also left for the military. Both sides braving new experiences in hopes of something better on the other side.
________________________________________________
“Farewell to Manzanar is” the true story of one spirited Japanese American family’s attempt to survive the indignities of forced detention . . . and of a native-born American child who discovered what it was like to grow up behind barbed wire in the United States.
The U.S. government’s internment of 110,000 Asian Americans in the wake of the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 is a thorny era that many Americans have ignored. “Farewell to Manzanar” is a factual narrative by Jeanne Toyo Wakatsuki and James D. Houston that follows Jeanne, her family, and Asian Americans along a three-decade-long journey of silent denial and racial degradation. Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston recalls life at the Manzanar internment-camp through the innocent eyes of 7-year old child she was, seeing the cruelty of the camp only in hindsight. She tells of her fear, confusion, and bewilderment as well as the dignity and great resourcefulness of people in oppressive and demeaning circumstances. Written with her husband, Jeanne delivers a first-person account that reveals her search for the meaning of Manzanar.
After Jeanne’s father Ko was detained for suspicion of supporting the Japanese government, the Wakatsuki’s became one of the first families to arrive at Manzanar, but only after the Wakatsuki’s were ordered to leave their fishing business in Long Beach and take with them only the belongings they could carry. However, they could not let go of the life they built very easily; Jeanne’s mother, and eldest brother Woody tried in vein to preserve their family, but ultimately left; with a past shattered amongst the shards of china plates. They moved into the Manzanar internment camp, because of Executive Order 9066, which FDR wrote, mainly because of American fear of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. For Jeanne Wakatsuki, Manzanar became a way of life in which she struggled and adapted, observed and grew. Manzanar camp was a harsh environment for anyone living there – small housing, no privacy, lousy food, searchlight towers, and armed guards. However, irony was (seemingly) not lost on the camp runners who ludicrously featured cheerleaders, Boy Scouts, sock hops, baton twirling lessons and a dance band called The Jive Bombers who would play any popular song except the nation’s #1 hit: “Don’t Fence Me In.” However, dignity was not lost. And, when the Wakatsuki’s left, Ko refused to feel pushed from the camp and refused to take the bus out of camp; he still had a sense of self-worth. The camp was degrading yes, but they went in human and came out human – at least, to each other. For the Wakatsuki’s still faced discrimination outside of the camp, but Jeanne felt a need to fit in outside the family and essentially outside the Sansei. However, she soon realized that she was not allowed a place was bitter, but also, somewhat expected.
For me, the most interesting moment in the entire book was early on when Jeanne’s mother refused to sell her china plates to cheaply to an American. It summed-up the whole book for me. It was a metaphor of what someone’s past is worth. The Wakatsuki family built a life in America that they were proud of; it had history, but to fearful and wound-up Americans, Americans past was all that mattered. The plates were symbolic of what the Wakatsuki’s built in America – the hard work, the success, the failure — and Jeanne’s mother simply wanted respect for her treasured plates – and essentially herself — but the man was indifferent to her emotion. To him, she was just one more ‘Jap,’ to take advantage of, but she would not relent to him and stood up – destroying the plates rather than sell her past at bargain-bin prices to someone who couldn’t care less about the value they had to her. I related to this moment more than any other – I never having been locked into a camp – because of every time I see video games from 10-years ago at bargain-bin prices. That is always a cold realization that the value of those games was always built-up in my mind, but the price value is near nothing, “Here’s your past, David. It’s worth 3.99.”
The Soiled Red Carpet: How The Academy Awards Have Failed
by David Xaviel (2003)
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and sciences has consistently failed the American public in their yearly assessment of films from the previous twelve months for best picture, because they do not award the best movie with the win. The Academy awards the most innocuous title, which is a problem (in my opinion) because they do not honor the most deserving film.
Scenario: “Here they come down the red carpet for what promises to be a fabulous night of award winning … and tedious speeches mixed with some good ol’ fashioned pretension!” The TV announcer said that, as Hollywood’s biggest-but-faceless stars strolled along the carpet towards the entrance of the Shrine Auditorium to begin the ceremonial awards show of the Academy of Arts and Sciences. “From what my sources have told me, every star that you the viewer loves, will win an Oscar tonight, because they neatly arranged for Martin Scorsese to be beaten and dumped in a basement, while Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick are dead so we shouldn’t have to worry about them: Now won’t we? The announcer said with a smirk. “So let’s begin with the festivities, I’ll see you after the show!” Lights fade away from the announcer.
I chose three movies to focus on, because they are American movies that the Academy of Arts and Sciences judged, but did not reward the title of Best Picture too — I also limited the list to what I have seen. These three movies, in particular, standout as the most significant snubs by the Academy Awards, because the three movies also stand (internationally) amongst the greatest movies ever, as proven by a poll of international critics and directors taken for the magazine Sight & Sound, which found each one of the listed movies amongst the best of the late-19th and 20th century.
2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick, 1968
Kubrick again directs an awesome picture, predating the original Star Wars Trilogy beginning in 1977 in its use of special effects to create a world stretching from the dawn of time to 2001 where men create robots that have only one fallacy: Men created them.
Roger Ebert on 2001: The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely confident that he doesn’t include a single shot simply to keep our attention. He reduces each scene to its essence, and leaves it on screen long enough for us to contemplate it, to inhabit it in our imaginations. Alone among science-fiction movies, “2001” is not concerned with thrilling us, but with inspiring our awe.
Citizen Kane, Orson Welles, 1941
Citizen Kane broke through the barriers of what a movie could do for generations to come, literally reinventing makeup, cinematography, lighting, sound, script writing, and directing — all in one movie.
Roger Ebert on Citizen Kane: It is one of the miracles of cinema that in 1941 a first-time director; a cynical, hard-drinking writer; an innovative cinematographer, and a group of New York stage and radio actors were given the keys to a studio and total control, and made a masterpiece. “Citizen Kane” is more than a great movie; it is a gathering of all the lessons of the emerging era of sound, just as “Birth of a Nation” assembled everything learned at the summit of the silent era, and “2001” pointed the way beyond narrative. These peaks stand above all the others.
Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick, 1964
Made during the tumultuous years of the Cold War in the early 1960s, Kubrick directs Peter Sellers to perfection in his three roles as Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove, to tell a comically dark story about a series of errors that lead to nuclear holocaust.
Roger Ebert on Dr. Strangelove: Kubrick made what is arguably the best political satire of the century, a film that pulled the rug out from under the Cold War by arguing that if a “nuclear deterrent” destroys all life on Earth, it is hard to say exactly what it has deterred.
Note: The synopsis of each movie is my opinion, but I referenced IMDB and S&S to check facts; I also referenced S&S for confirmation that the movie choices are listed amongst the favorites)
“Every time you see a great film, you find new things in it.”
–Roger Ebert
Roger Ebert’s last quote summed-up what is (in my opinion) the main criteria to decide whether a movie is great. You could watch Citizen Kane the first time and understand certain things, but watch it a second time – already knowing the story – and you can see many subtleties that helped convey each aspect of Citizen Kane. Such as camera-angles to suggest power and weakness or the circular structure of the script to recount the memories that other people had of Charles Foster Kane. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick is able to pull the viewer into the plotline and make you contemplate each extended silent scene
The Academy of Arts and Sciences however, honored the title of Best Picture to How Green Was My Valley instead of Citizen Kane in 1941, while 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968, and Dr. Strangelove in 1964 did not receive nominations for Best Picture. The following movies won Best Picture in the respective years that the studios released Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane and 2001: A Space Odyssey:
Oliver! Carol Reed, 1968
Murray Chapman on Oliver: Musical adaptation of Charles Dickens’s classic tale of an orphan who runs away from the orphanage and hooks up with a group of boys trained to be pickpockets by an elderly mentor.
How Green Was my Valley, John Ford, 1941
Ed Stephan on How Green was my Valley: At the turn of the century in a Welsh mining village, the Morgan’s (he stern, she gentle) raise coal-mining sons and hope their youngest will find a better life: Lots of atmosphere, very sentimental view of pre-union miners’ lives.
My Fair Lady, George Cukor, 1964
Tommy Peter on My Fair Lady: Gloriously witty adaptation of the Broadway musical about Professor Henry Higgins, who takes a bet from Colonel Pickering that he can transform unrefined, dirty Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle into a lady, and fool everyone into thinking she really is one, too! He does, and thus young aristocrat Freddy Eynsford-Hill falls madly in love with her. But when Higgins takes all the credit and forgets to acknowledge her efforts, Eliza angrily leaves him for Freddy, and suddenly Higgins realizes he’s grown accustomed to her face and can’t really live without it.
As you can see, critics of My Fair Lady, Oliver, and, How Green was my Valley clearly appreciated the movie, but: What do those movies provide for future filmmaking, what have they influenced? Nothing, they are just above-average movies of their respective year, but they do transcend generations, because they have not affected filmmaking (Citizen Kane, 2001) or stand as a pinnacle of their genre (Dr. Strangelove).
To me, Sight & Sound has more credibility than the Academy Awards, because S&S includes the opinions of international critics, rather than the Academy method of polling just their American member-voters. S&S does not stand alone in naming Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Citizen Kane amongst the greatest movies either, even the American Film Institute (http://www.afi.com/) agreed in their list of 100 Great Movies of the 20th Century, ranking each movie in the Top 25 with Citizen Kane at number 1. This in effect compounds the fact that the Academy of Arts and Sciences erred with their original presentations.
The Academy may look back on past presentations and realize their blunder, but that is of little consolation, because according to Wiley and Bona, the popular stance in 1941 was to boo Citizen Kane; Louella Parson’s even applauded vigorously when How Green was my Valley defeated Citizen Kane for Best Cinematography and cried foul when Kane won Best Original Screenplay. In fact, according to Bona and Willey, Gregg Toland’s deep-focus cinematography was the predicted winner in the Best Cinematography category, but still lost to How Green was my Valley. I do not deem that the Academy believed they erred in neglecting Citizen Kane in 1941, so I do not consider that it is appropriate to give the Academy the benefit of the doubt that the snub was merely just a timely mistake, and that no one could really know the future impact of Citizen Kane in 1941 upon filmmaking. Neglecting A Space Odyssey for its innovative special effects and story telling that predates Star Wars (which means that 2001 affected movies in future years). In all that, does not help the credibility of the Academy, either.
If the Academy can fail to recognize Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, and 2001: A Space Odyssey as the Best Picture of their respective years: Why should we believe that they have not failed in recent years? Gladiator trumped Traffic in 2001, they did not nominate The Truman Show in 1998, and Saving Private Ryan lost (in 1998) to Shakespeare in Love while Martin Scorsese did not win for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Mean Streets, or GoodFellas. Yet, Sight & Sound not only named those movies amongst the 50 best, but also named Scorsese amongst the Ten Best Directors of the century.
How long will the Academy of Arts and Sciences subject the American public to the non-innovative, the time-dated, and to generally shaft the most deserving movie? The Academy is thus, obsolete, because it cannot provide the American public with an accurate assessment of the Best Picture of the year; it needs to be changed, they can no longer base their voting on the votes of just their American member-voters; they generally need a wider range of opinions.
Sources:
· Academy of Arts and Sciences at www.academyawards.org
· American Film Institute at www.afionline.org
· Inside Oscars: The Unofficial History of the Academy Awards – Wiley and Bona
· Internet Movie Database at www.imdb.com
· Roger Ebert at http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/
· Sight & Sound at http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/
3D Communication Needs No Glasses (2003)
by David Xaviel (2003)
Without a uniform language for communication, society does not operate as a whole, but in smaller individual groups. Doublespeakers mean to disinvolve, disassociate, and disconnect (3D) the overall society by using words and phrases to keep others out of the world they chose to build or chose to join for reasons ranging from personal insecurity to preventing threats to their power.
Scenario: Jack walked down the street with his hands nestled in the pockets of his long trench-coat, while the smell of garbage penetrated deep into his nostrils, which made him choke several times as he pushed open the bank-door at the corner. Inside, he stood for a moment to cough again before walking to the back of a long-line to the teller, so he could deposit his paycheck after the long month of data processing. Waiting, waiting, waiting … in the poorly lit section of the bank where no one desires to communicate with strangers, because people just want out and the bank likes it that way. ‘Don’t linger, just get out. We must serve the next customer,’ reads the plaque near the door. The clock ticks away in the corner to sound of ancient musak once regaled as a mastery of art; the smell of the street lingered within the bank every time a disgruntled customer forcefully pushed the door wide-open, which provided plenty of bandwidth for unknown but painful odors. Finally, with a sigh, Jack reached the front of the line to hand his check to the teller. Her paper name tag read, ‘Rita, with an Attitude,’ and she had a half-smile upon her face until she remarked that Jack did not fill-out the bank deposit slip — as was instructed by the standing-sign near the back of the line.
“Am I your mother, sir?” Rita snipped.
“No … of course not,” Jack remarked with a sheepish tone.
“Apparently so, because you could not read a simple instruction. You want others to do it for you,” Rita blasted at Jack with an arrogance that rode on every word she spewed from her stained-yellow teeth.
“I read that sign; it said nothing about a bank deposit slip,” Jack said rising slightly with confidence due to Rita’s apparent arrogance.
“Hey! What’s the friggin’ hold-up? We’ve been here all day,” shouted an unseen man within the line.
“Yeah!” A woman shouted in support, as the rest of the line began griping to each other over the poor service, but not complaining with one group statement.
“The sign reads, ‘Preparation for pecuniary declaration commences with the inscription upon your certificate of deposit, the allotted quantity you arrange to transact,’” barked Rita.
“What the hell did you just say?” Jack remarked cynically.
“Don’t use that tone with me, sir. I won’t take your abuse!”
“Look, just calm down. This is my first time here, so can we just agree to disagree, so I can deposit my money and leave this bank?”
“And you barked at me for telling you the plain facts — the plain facts I wrote on the sign that stands near the back of the line! Agree to disagree? Why don’t we just learn French from a Portuguese tutor?” Rita said hysterically as the murmurs of the crowd intensified.
“I can see this is going nowhere … just give me a deposit slip, and I’ll leave,” Jack said with hopelessness.
“Give me a deposit slip? You are in no position to demand, sir!” Rita said – not content that Jack gave up on the argument.
“Fine … if I pay you a dollar will you just hand me a deposit slip?” Jack asked, trying to avoid further arguing.
“Ten dollars.” Rita said while folding her arms — realizing she had the upper hand.
“Whatever …” Jack said under his breath as he paid the ten dollars and filled out the slip, turned around and forcefully pushed the door wide-open. Jack no longer noticed the smell of the streets that bothered him only shortly before, but sprinted down the sidewalk in fear of the oncoming month of work that would lead to the paycheck that would lead back to the bank.
That was just a scenario to provide an idea of what I plan to elaborate upon in the upcoming paragraphs on the 3D communication.
To disassociate a listener through doublespeak means that the speaker tries to set himself or herself apart from the listeners in order to feel superior and outside of the world inhabited by the listener. Take a movie like, “High Fidelity,” for example. The actor Jack Black plays a character that rejects speaking to the record-store customers unless they know the details of music terminology. Black’s character tries to disassociate himself from the average customer by alienating every one, so that he never has to worry about challenges to his ideas, so that he can build the empire in his mind where he is king and chooses who shall enter his realm (metaphorically).
To disconnect through doublespeak is to separate yourself from the level of the listeners, because you feel they are ignorant or stupid, but you do not want to sound like them, because it would make you feel ignorant or stupid. An instance of the role of jargon is: When someone uses unnecessary words to feel smart: “Organoleptic analysis,” “fused silicate,” and “discontinuity,” (Lutz, pg. 352). The three examples are unnecessary words that mean ‘smelling,’ ‘glass,’ and ‘a crack in metal,’ and the words are generalized, rather than specific, which leaves an untrained ear confused and disconnected from the situation, because it does not know how to react, or even if it needs to react.
To disinvolve a listener through doublespeak is to confuse the listener by using either a nonsensical string of words that sound impressive, or words that mislead. Jargon for instance, disinvolves the listener mentally but not physically. When someone such as former vice president Dan Quayle said in the 1988 presidential campaign: “Why wouldn’t an enhanced deterrent, a more stable peace, a better prospect to denying the ones who enter conflict in the first place to have a reduction of offensive systems and an introduction to defense capability. I believe this the route the country will eventually go,” it confuses the listener (Lutz, pg. 353). The comment (clearly) did not stop voters from voting for Bush-Quayle though, so people were physically involved in the process. The fact that Bush-Quayle received more votes than Michael Dukakis did in 1988 proves disinvolvement of the listener. It seems safe to say, though, that Dan Quayle’s comment disinvolved voters mentally — unless (by chance) they understood what he said, as they spell potato with an, ‘e,’ I suppose.
Another example of disinvolving the audience is an Alan Greenspan speech in 1974 before a Senate committee. “It is a tricky problem to find the particular calibration in timing that would be appropriate to stem the acceleration in risk premiums created by falling incomes without prematurely aborting the decline in the inflation-generated risk premiums.” (Lutz, pg. 353) This gobbledygook sounds impressive, so that it gives an air-of-intelligence to the speaker — because the speaker is in a position of authority. At the same time, the listener becomes disinvolved in the process that Alan Greenspan is involved with – in 1974 he was Nixon’s economic-advisor and he is currently the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, but still speaks the same way (as Lutz pointed out).
With all this said, it is important to note that society accepts some forms of doublespeak, because it is informally appropriate, such as saying (Lutz, pg. 351), “passed away” instead of “…is dead” which does not lighten the blow of an emotional moment. Another example is to say ‘sleeping with’ instead of ‘having sex,’ because the specific detail is inappropriate. These are just a few examples of where society accepts doublespeak; thus, it becomes a part of an overall societal language and does not disinvolve, disassociate, or disconnect others – at least, not intentionally. Doublespeak is a destructive form of communication that only separates people from communicating with each other, similar to the aftermath of the biblical account of the Tower of Babel.
William Lutz was very effective in proving his point to me, as shown by the earlier 3D analysis where I extrapolated upon his ideas. I think I come away from this essay with a better sense of the way people talk, which I had paid attention to before, but never had any organized theory on. “Doublespeak,” instantly reminded me of “American Buffalo,” when I played Donnie for a TA class, and no one in the class understood the dialogue. The class wanted to know, though; they wanted to be on the inside of the conversation between Donnie and Bobby. Doublespeak kept the audience on the outside through the 3Ds, though. However, an inherent sense of curiosity made the audience want to understand, and that is where doublespeak dies — confuse people all you want, but you can never silence human curiosity.
Subterranean Campaign Blues (2008)
Subterranean Campaign Blues
With all the talk about the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers, it seems only fair to point something out. William Ayers, co-founder of The Weather Underground, is not the one who has created a world that parallels the song “Subterranean Homesick Blues” which is the inspiration for the namesake of the group co-founded by Ayers. That all-powerful being is… George W. Bush. How then about a parody of the music video for, “Subterranean Homesick Blues?” This one though with John McCain dropping the cards.
“Subterranean Campaign Blues”
(Ideas for Cards stated parenthetically [this one not included])
Obama’s in a swing stance (Is Obama a swinger?)
Puttin’ voters in a trance
I’m on my last chance
Rantin’ that we turned to France (Hannitize This!)
–
The Senator from Scranton (Joe The Senator)
Knows not, worse half
Says he’s made a bad gaffe
Wants to get the last laugh (Laughing Gas = Cheaper than Gas)
Keep it up kid
It’s somethin’ you said
Fox knows when (Bow down to FOX!)
So you’re sayin’ it again
You better duck down alleyway (Spin Alley)
Fearin’ what you now defend
The man in the Turban wrap (Osama bin Laden)
With the Quran
Wants death to America
Here comes Taliban (Where’s Rambo?)
Russia comes fleet foot
Wants what Cold War took (And to face-off in Deadly Game of RISK)
Sayin’ that the fall put
Allies to the West but (NATO)
George Bush went astray (Dick Cheney May Have Shot Him)
Russia preys like rivals prey
Will invade crusade some day (Bring it on, Russia!)
Then I ascend the fray.
Cheer up kid
Don’t matter what we did (Earth Has Reset Button)
Blame it on foreign foes (Ignorance is Bliss)
Just like Average Joes (Joe The Plumber)
Better stay away from those
That think to question what they know (Go to Hell Keith Olberman)
Don’t feel low
Just watch Palin pose
You don’t need a market man
To know which way the money flows (That’s you Neil Cavuto)
Goes bull, goes bear (And to Hell with Keith Olberman)
Run around with stock share
Ring bell, hard to tell
If any stocks didn’t sell (GOLD! GOLD!)
Sigh hard, get tarred (Foghorn Leghorn)
Get back, white whale (Moby Dick)
Get bailed, set sail (Captain Ahab)
Take a bath, if you fail
Cheer up kid
You’re gonna get pork (Lewinsky?)
But putters, callers
Dow Jones flutter
Save the fat-cat haulers (Bush & Dick’s Rescue Rangers)
Puppets in cesspool (Shout Out to Lisa Simpson)
Use fiat as their tool (Shout Out to Ron Paul)
Don’t follow leaders (Shout Out to W.)
Watch our credit teeter (Shout Out to Leaning Tower of Pisa)
Ah get torn, in swarm
Straight talk, chagrin, learn to spin (Straight Talk Express Got Bad Mileage)
Set back, Surge back
Tried to be a maverick (But Not Mel Gibson)
Please her, please him, sell votes
Just flip, just flop (John Kerry is a Pussy)
All those years of prison
And they blame me for party’s lot (Me – Hanoi Hilton, Obama – Paris Hilton)
Cheer up kid (Kenny Chesney Now Makes Rum)
They can’t lose it all
Better start at the grassroots
Fight yourself to vote (Like I Fought the Voices in My Head)
Don’t snort coke
Stay away from those that dote (Old White Guys Like Me)
Don’t wanna be ACORN
You better learn form (Community Organizers?)
The gas ain’t cheap
‘Cause the spoilers are the oilers (Where Has all the Ethanol Gone?)
Corporate Babylon: The Reality of Reality (2008)
People today seem to clamor more and more for art to reflect “reality.” The word “reality” though has just become bastardized by shallow people with no creative bone in their body, and is merely an excuse for the mediocre to be triumphed as art. I expect a good writer to digest the day-to-day and create something that spoofs the monotony, provides insight, and leaves you wanting more. The irony is that, if that results in something so realistic that it makes a Performer feel unreal in reality — then the writer has done their job right. I just ask then that Performers and Critics alike: don’t tread on my reality by demanding that “reality” reflect the most bane and asinine surly bonds of life that we peons of reality seek to escape, but can’t. Hollywood performers though like to sound chic by complaining that Hollywood is “not real” and all that jazz. But that is likely because the reality of being a Performer is that you work from a script which when done well, will surely result is a moment of reality where you deal with reality with what you learned from a script. Reality though is a corporate Babylon — Where Brevity Dies and Nouns Become Verbs. No one really communicates with each other: “How’s it going,” “It’s going,” “How are you,” “I’m here,” “Having fun,” “Living the dream.” All that is ever said in the hustle-and-bustle of the day-to-day reality is merely what is needed to implement the human flow of events that leads to more sales, “And a time to every person for love of money.”
Fear Thy Neighbor (2008)
by David Xaviel (2008)
Fear Thy Neighbor, or
How the Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Terrorism
Fear has been around since the dawn of time. The Bible teaches to fear God and love thy neighbor. The mentally disturbed or socially destitute have also been around as long and longer as horses have been lowered onto royalty. Fear of each other though is what drives schisms between communities.
Why do people commit disturbing behavior, which sometimes escalates to violence? The answer to that riddle may lie in one of the earliest acts of violent yet romanticized psychosis – John Wilkes Booth. A nationally famous actor in his day once named “Handsomest Man in America” which was then the equivalent of “Sexiest Man Alive.” Yet, Booth never received the acclaim he wanted as an actor, and thus, did the next best thing to gain respect and remembrance: Became a hero to the South by gunning down the President. Problem solved. Heroes get remembered, and legends never die. Beware the celebrities, Smalls – they are the most dangerous amongst us, and some will endeavor just for celebrification. I guess, deep down, it really is not an honor just to be nominated for an engraved image made of gilded gold[1], and the chance to hold, “My precious!” [2] Inversely, the once castigated from society for wicked acts — are now celebrified by the media. Great minds are ignored as loons — or as that asshole, they once worked with – while those who induce fear are celebrated: Fear of failure, fear of meaninglessness, fear of not fitting in, fear of death, fear of poverty, fear of being un-hip, and on and on and on. How else would explain why someone would fall in love with Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez? Am I also the only one who thinks “Where’s Caylee” sounds like, “Where’s my baby?” Never mind the fact that media attention enables psychopathic behavior, blame something else. To be fair, not every psycho killer sent their Letters to the Editor, some (like Jeffrey Dahmer) just wallowed in the empire of their mind until the Trojan horse known as the law broke-down the mental walls they constructed to protect the justifications for their existence, and where of course, they were the last man standing.
Why do people seem attracted to horrific/disturbed behavior, and not inspirational behavior? I suppose it is because, inspirational behavior is often voluntary[3], and of course, we all know what that means… community organizers! Run! As Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin at the GOP convention made clear, community organizers are people to castigate and laugh at as worthless. In other words, Giuliani would like people to fear the events of September 11, 2001 – but if you volunteer in order to inspire as a means to eviscerate fear induced by September 11, 2001: You’re a bum! For of course, where would the GOP be without fear? Fear, like sex, is what sells. Just ask Rupert Murdoch. If not for the fear spread by the Murdoch owned New York Daily Post about the, “Son of Sam” murders in 1976, and 1977, then the New York Daily News would have likely gone bankrupt. Lesson learned. Fear sells so load up on guns. All of the religious on the right then (who bow-down to Fox as their counter to the evil of liberal-media) can find solace in the fact that Rupert Murdoch directly profited from the murders of what was likely a Satanic cult, if not just a Satanic loner. Here we are now — entertain us.
Through the years of crime after crime of kidnappings, high-jackings, serial murders, suicide-bombers, threats of terror, terror, mass murders, cult suicides, “celebricide,”[4] sexually based crimes — all the journalists seem to believe is “we didn’t start the fire.” Meanwhile, the so-called religious amongst us, who claim to love God, yet fear thy neighbor. Don’t work to bring a community together – fear those who don’t want to fight wars with all that is emblematic of sublimated fear: Terrorists! No one really knows who and where they are: just fight ‘em! So play it again, Sam. Keep perpetuating fear by fearing those who believe that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
[1] If there was a movie but no awards shows around to give awards: Would it still be a movie?
[2] Some however, should be thrown into the La Brea Tarpits
[3] Unless you want to join the military and shoot down some guy you never met to gain your sense of pride
[4] CELEBRICIDE – The murder of or the murder by a celebrity, which may or may not, receive a conviction
Are You Factophobic? (2008)
In an age where people have taken to the idea of self-diagnoses and trying to decide how screwed up they think they truly are, so that they can passively or actively judge whether others are overcoming obstacles or just wallowing in self-pity; all in order to feel comfortable in doing nothing. Here then is the newest test, the “Moment of Truth,” a test to determine whether you are afraid of FACTS. The word is “Factophobia” — an intense fear or aversion of the TRUTH, and rather, a fixation on what you can create in the vacuum of your mind, free of facts.
(Note: Even I have fallen prey to some of the following).
01) On a scale of 0-10: How often do you base conclusions from what you heard from FoxNews?
02) On a scale of 0-10: How often do you base conclusions from what you heard from Rush Limbaugh or mainstream talk-radio?
03) On a scale of 0-10: How often do you base conclusions on rumors or tabloids?
04) On a scale of 0-10: How often do you base conclusions on what your college professor said, and then party all-night?
05) On a scale of 1-10: How often to you base conclusions on what you heard at a Phish concert or from a Michael Moore movie?
06) Do you support wars for humanitarianism when a Democrat is president but protest when a Republican is president (and vice versa)?
07) Do you believe that Britney Spears (or other past and future pop stars) is symbolic of the moral decline of today’s youth? If you said yes, then why do you continue to contribute to the profitability of it by watching it on TV or buying the magazines and even talking about it? Is it because you would feel left out? Frankly, it would be an honor to be shunned for that. For as it is said, ANY publicity is good publicity. And that’s all I have to say about that, EVER.
08) Do you believe that Mexicans are stealing jobs? Do you believe that everyone in America should speak English? If so, what were your grades in English? Maybe just maybe, you should worry first about your English abilities. For as it is said, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, especially since, you will need Juan Martinez from Oaxaca to fix it.
09) Have you ever debated the significance of a, “controversy?”
10) Have you ever flashed a sticker that says, “Support Our Troops” on the front and “Made in Taiwan” on the back?
11) Have you ever bought two Big Macs, a large-and-greasy ‘freedom fry’ an extra large Diet Coke, and then told yourself that your obesity was just genetic? You can be sure that though that it will lead to a red, white, and blue heart attack.
12) Did you *actually* care about Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” rather than your kids growing-up with a “health care malfunction,” an “education malfunction” or getting killed by some kid with, “social malfunction?”
13) Did you *actually* care about who fathered the baby of Anna Nicole Smith?
14) Did you *actually* care about Don Imus shooting-off his mouth rather than just believe that Don Imus should have been fired?
15) Be honest: Could you locate Afghanistan on a map before September 11 (can George Bush?) or even now?
16) How often do you replace words with numbers? 2B or not 2B — that B the question.
17) Quick, spell the name of Iran’s president (answer is below).
18) Has anyone ever complemented you on your mullet?
19) Did the vast plight of the Sudanese people only concern you when George Clooney began to care?
20) Did you only notice the downward spiral of the US economy when Budweiser became Belgian?
21) Are you more concerned with the Roger Goodell inquisition against the exploits of NFL players like Pacman Jones (and the behavior of pro athletes in general) than with the corruption of US politicians?
22) Are you more concerned with the NFL Draft than in the possible reenactment of the draft?
The question is not whether you fit into one or two of those criteria, but how often. Not whether you supplement your opinions with those sources, but whether those are the primary source of your conclusions. Remember, the first step to recovering from Factophobia is admitting that you have a problem. Make it rain, baby!
Notes:
Definition of rumor: A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth
Definition of tabloid: Lurid or sensational, a newspaper of small format, giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material.
President of Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Location of Afghanistan: Uhhhhhhh… along the border with Pakistan, which is along the border of India (look ma, no map)
From Foley to Foley (2006)
I thought I’d start this rant with an interesting fact. The 1994 election, in which the GOP took over the House and Senate, is often symbolized by the defeat of the 30-year incumbent Democrat from the Spokane-area and then Speaker of the House, Tom Foley. The 2006 election meanwhile will indubitably be symbolized by the scandal involving none other than, Mark Foley. Interesting. Some might say that the 2006 election is a reversal of the 1994 fortunes and the correction the Democrats needed to regain their “rightful” position as the majority party of the US Congress. Democrat Ted Strickland for example was defeated in a House race in Ohio back in 1994, but has now won the gubernatorial election of Ohio over Kenneth Blackwell.
I though see it differently. Many of the Democrats elected were elected in districts or states that usually vote Republican and have high levels of registered Republicans. In fact, Democrats nationally garnered 33% of the “white evangelical Christian” vote. As well, voters in 6 states decided to ban same-sex marriage. Obviously though, people aren’t governed by statistics, but stats can at least provide evidence for certain opinions and conclusions. That being the fact that the Democrats will now be represented in the House by Speaker, Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco. Interesting. In other words, the Democrats just took the majority in the House by winning traditionally Republican districts by the votes of white Christians with conservative-leaning Democrats, and will now be represented by a Democrat from San Francisco. Now that will surely be a treat for the GOP. Not only do people outside of California, generally resent California in one way or another, but San Francisco is the epitome of all the worst pre-conceived notions non-Californians have about California. So me thinks that after 2 years of Nancy Pelosi in charge — the Republicans in the districts and states that were long held by Republicans will go back to the GOP. That’s not to say that the majorities will change, but at least, a closing of the gap, and probably a return to power in the Senate.
That is why I decided to end this email on another interesting note. The voters of the 11th district of North Carolina decided to elect one of the biggest flops in sports history, Heath Shuler. Shuler, if you didn’t know, held out of NFL training camp for more money after being selected 4th overall in the 1994 Draft by the Washington Redskins. It’s as if he’s returning to the scene of the crime.
The Dune Beetles (2008)
The Dune Beetles
Since 1948, the history of the geographically amorphous blob of ballistic oafs — or GABBO – known as the ‘The Middle East,’ has been marred with violence in the form of terrorism and unilateralism. Attempts to broker peace have been mostly futile and reminiscent of the story-structure of Memento, Citizen Kane, and Pulp Fiction.
The question of course has been, how and why: How to stop the violence and why did it begin? I cannot begin to pontificate on why without this becoming a dissertation. I can however, pontificate on how to end the violence. I then want to say one word to you. Just one hyphenated word. Are you listening? Pop-culture.
More particularly, pop music and not movies, and the reason why is not to pooh-pooh the smell of napalm in the morning. It is because — if history has taught us nothing else — it is that pop-music can be a therapeutic channel for un-needed aggression. The fact is that, unless you are doped-up or drunk, a person will sometimes have aggressive feelings. The question is how you channel them, not how you fjord them; and of course, how often they occur.
As any observer of a concert by The Beatles in the 1960s would know, the answer is, crazily fanaticism in the form of random physical outbursts, but only as long as no one gets hurt, because then, who cares? At least though the only war that occurred between fans is who the most important Beatle is; thus, you have facilitated a harmless aggression towards others over trivial things. One might start to feel trapped by the innocuousness of debate over: whom the best actor to play James Bond was or Captain Kirk vs. Captain Picard, or just how crazy Britney Spears is; my hope however is that it will just lead terrorists and unilateralists to yearn for the friends of FRIENDS.
That then is exactly what the, ‘The Middle East’ needs (and hardcore rappers). For pop-culture is now the opium of the masses. I myself would kill just to see Osama bin Laden sing, “Hey, Jude,” or “I’ll Be There For You.”
Thus, what the ‘Mid-East’ needs in a pop-music super-group — The Dune Beetles. Their hits will include:
“Ramadan” ß “Yesterday”
“Jihad” ß “Help”
“Spittin’ Camel Stead” ß “Yellow Submarine”
“Sand-Duney Plains Forever” <– “Strawberry Fields Forever”
“Virgins in the Sky with Dates” ß “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”
“Gasman” ß “Taxman”
“I Wanna Cutoff Your Hand” ß “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”
The Undecided Voters (2008)
People wonder what will sway the minds of the undecided voters. I have the answer. They have yet to decide for they are still unsure of what prize they will win if they pick the winner… possibly a plasma TV or enough gasoline to be equal in value to a plasma TV.
Who can blame them when the state of network news is so poor? It was better in the olden days of yore. If you wanted to watch sports news, you watched ESPN; and if wanted Entertainment news, you watched E! If you wanted news about brutal murders and ice cream socials, you could watch the local news. And if you wanted the truth about the nation and world, you could watch a test pattern. Now, the network news is just one big hodge-podge of serial killers, Runaway Brides, steroids, and Paris Hilton. Of course to, the paradox that will unravel the universe — the stock market. To remind the world of what little they have, but how much they should want — but that if those on top fail, they have the *obligation* to pilfer the poor to save the poor.
That leads me to something I forgot. Elections — the network news will also cover elections, because they know just how much Americans love to win. The issue is not who will do better by the country, but who will win the one election to rule them all. That is why winning an election is much like winning a baseball game. In baseball, the maxim for victory is pitching, defense, and timely hitting. Conversely, the maxim of victory in elections is rhetoric, spin, and timely scandals. The irony however is, sometimes the politician also pitches, and no one will ever accuse Dennis Kucinich of being juiced.