a sad day for the constitution indeed.
if you do not think supreme court justices are important, if you do not think the idealogy of the president who appoints a supreme court justice is important, please consider this article. (Click on header to be directed to it.)
today the court increased the ability for a state or the federal government to sieze a person's private property.
The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says that private property may be taken by the government if fair compensation is paid to the owner. But there is a second requirement: The property may be taken only if it is for "public use."
The precise issue before the Supreme Court was whether a privately owned development project amounts to a "public use" of the homeowners' former properties.
the effect of the court's ruling, is to define "public use," as that which has any public benefit. the case before the court involved a group of citizens in connecticut who were displaced, (and disenfranchised,) because by removing them, the state would be able to increase the value of land in the area and thusly, charge higher taxes. voile, increased revenue for the state is translated to mean, "public use."
it has been said that the bush family got rich via a government invocation of the eminent domain law. the same has been said about the o'malley's in los angeles, in which case thousands of people who lived in chavez ravine were displaced from what was considered a slum housing project.
(in fact, ry cooder has recently worked on an album he says was inspired by the plight of those people. read about the musical project and a bit of the history here: http://csmonitor.com/2005/0623/p11s01-almp.html )
for a real understanding of the history of public housing programs in this country, try reading this paper-it's truly a lucid account of the many factors which have affected the various decisions over the years. http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1102_hoffman.pdf
i'm concerned with the court's decision because i think this country was founded on individual rights. while i am a firm believer the public good is the greater good, and recognize decisions like these sometimes have to be made, i am concerned by the continuing shift in this country toward segregation.
the proliferation of gated communities is alarming. personally, i can't help but feel like tearing down one of those gates every time i see it. they exist on a presupposition that bad people lurk right out there somewhere and these gates may be what keeps them at bay. methinks the division created exacerbates the insecurities of those who might commit crimes to begin with.
where do we stop? when will the supreme court of this country stand up for the little guy? lately they never do and if rehnquist retires as hannity suggested yesterday, the liberals on that court are in for a constant thrashing for a while right along with the little guy.
and how is it that south pasadena has been able to stave off the 710 freeway extension all these years when connecticut can separate people from their property in the name of higher taxes? (Read about that here: http://www.nationaltrust.org/news/docs/19990603_pasadena.html )
reading and trying to understand the implications of many of the laws involved in relevant cases, i see this is an especially complex issue. but it strikes me as fundamentally bad when the government can run people off a piece of land in the name of higher taxes.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
silence speaks
Human character evermore publishes itself. The most fugitive deed and word, the mere air of doing a thing, the intimated purpose, expresses character. If you act, you show character; if you sit still, if you sleep, you show it. You think, because you have spoken nothing when others spoke, and have given no opinion on the times, on the church, on slavery, on marriage, on socialism, on secret societies, on the college, on parties and persons, that your verdict is still expected with curiosity as a reserved wisdom. Far otherwise; your silence answers very loud.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
a friend of mine was so distressed by bushco's underfunding of television programming which is in the public's best interest, he just had to shoot his blog off about it.
you can read about what pissed him off here: http://www.scpr.org/news/features/2005/06/preservefunds.html
or you can read him at:
http://ceep71.blogspot.com/2005/06/screw-putsch-cpbs-war-on-balanced.html
(a quick word about the term "bushco." i borrow this from mark morford, a columnist for the san francisco chronicle who writes a sweetly sour column called 'notes and erratta,' which can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/17/notes061705.DTL morford coined the term to refer to all things of george bush's administration. since bush himself, is hardly a genius divining all this evil and hostility behind the privacy of a black curtain stage left a la the wizard of oz, morford likens him to a corporation, acting on a dark agenda and in support of a set of similar values, but as a corporation with many moving parts, [i.e. cheney, rumsfeld, rice, et. al.])
it makes me cheer when a friend tackles such a heady subject. i think any subsequent debate is vital but more importantly, the individual is nourished by considering these things.
my friend's thoughts about not addressing the issues of our day leaves me cold because i think it is shameful to just walk away from issues which might upset you or which, you might find to be unjust, because you feel impotent.
my thought is: one should do what one can. one engages in intellligent discourse. that's something. any little thing is noble, but pushing against the forces which keep us from evolving is absolutely essential.
i think we have to recognize there will be only so much change in our lives. if one cannot reconcile themself with the idea that in 40 years there will still be much to be ashamed of, progress will have been impeded drastically often in the name of dividends for the few, corrupt men will still be making public decisions, etc., then you need some serious counseling.
that said, these jerks who want to cut public funding are the assholes who want to privatize everything. privatizing what should be the public's domain, what should be publicly funded, is almost always a thinly veiled grab for cash. you can bet the corrupt congressman who supports the privatization of (insert industry here-we'll go w/. . .) prisons!, is getting fat cash campaign support from the wackenhut corporation or whatever other players exists in that realm. (you can read about them here: http://www.eyeonwackenhut.com/ )
the basic idea of socialism posits that the masses should to some degree take care of the weak among us. if you are crippled, if you cannot communicate w/ the rest of us because of autism, if you are loony or criminal, (and it should be noted those who refuse to participate in capitalism are bound to end up being classified as one of these, or they will live on the street,) the socialist aspect of a society may take some responsibility for your well being. this is as obvious a sign of our inherent goodness as a species, as you can possibly identify.
(and isn't it odd that the right, so identified w/ christianity which is said to identify w/ ideals associated w/ feeding the hungry, clothing the cold, medicating the infirm, wants to privatize everything and leave these, the least among us, to fend for themselves?)
one thing bushco and many of us have gotten clearer on these past several years is the fact that controlling the airwaves gives you the best chance to control the mindwaves. propaganda is. prior to bush coming into office, i remember much rhetoric bandied about on how hollywood was corrupting the morals of our country and our children and how they needed to reach into that realm to counter the immoral liberalism springing forth. i can actually remember thinking, (good luck suckers, art is a foreign language to those of your ilk.) but alas, i was wrong in so much as they have been more creative than i gave them credit for.
yes, they've been involved in major motion pictures, but more importantly, they've continued the consolidation of the means of communication. they love rupert murdoch who speaks only the language of wealth, (or so it seems,) and they're happy to see the number of entities they have to deal w/ in trying to affect change in this realm, dwindle. rupert is easy. he already leans heavily in their direction. the corporations are pretty easy-crooked right-wing politicians have been getting scratched and scratching those backs so long you'd think they just grew an upside down hand out their hairy-ass backs.
michael powell facilitated the tearing down of longstanding laws put in place by wise men who knew an easily accessible and diverse array of broadcasters was in the public's best interest. i've noticed the christian networks are making movies, (and i mean besides mel gibson.) they're bad movies but they'll get better and as the dumbing down continues there will be a cosmic meeting in the middle ground.
i'm sure this present darkness or one of those cracky tim lahaye books will get made into a major motion picture and special effects along with evangelism will push it's profits skyward and facilitate more of them being made. . .and i'm sure it will be in the same vein as the hollywood crap of the day which is short on thought and plot but long on technical quality and mind-numbing attributes that titillate and dumb down. these things are coming, son. i have no doubt.
(note: i read 'this present darkness.' this is a piece of crap novel. those who like it, like it because it paints a fantastic picture of fantastical images and events they've imagined many times because they believe they will come to pass but when compared to the classics or even the good novels of our day, to say it pales is a vast understatement. it is rank and amateurish.) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891073906/104-6388507-4743932?v=glance
and what about that area of the gulf of mexico right off mississippi where they are going to allow oil exploration all of a sudden after decades of protecting it? (it is the home of a shitload of dolphins who may just one day rise out of the ocean and speed into outer space singing, "thanks for the fish. . .but your environment has grown increasingly toxic so, sorry, but we gotta go." douglas adams is spinning right next to ben franklin and i swear no one's got any common sense around here any more.)
and you know what, if we love our children, if we love our kind, if we know what the fuck real love is, we have to push back. we have to educate. we have to trust. the bottom line is we are not dunking women in salem anymore. we are not raping and pillaging. our crusades are just gatherings of dumbasses in tents now, or glass buildings.
and this is our lot in this world, the human condition. ours is fat w/ struggle, and it always will be. is there a caveat or a feather we can stick in our caps to lean on in the face of those who would bring the lot of us down? yeah, there is. it's called history.
history doesn't remember the george bush's in a kind light. 400 years from now his name will be a footnote, an obscure reference to a despot long gone. abraham lincoln will still be remembered.
john f kennedy, a man i learned in college, "was a terrible president who could not get anything through congress-he just didn't have the sales and people skills of say, ronald reagan,"-(this is what you get when you attend college in the san gabriel valley of southern california, at mt sac in a district gerrymandered as a means of hoodwinking voters,) will be remembered because of his ideas and because of what he said that was so important. addressing the nation on the cuban missile crisis, he said, "We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth; but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."
big ideas make big men. bushco, (the whole lot of them,) have zero big ideas. if they are remembered at all it will be as tyrants and warmongers.
but we cannot rely on evolution. we must create it. we must be vigilant, constantly pushing against that which brings us down or represents the worst sides of man's character.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
a friend of mine was so distressed by bushco's underfunding of television programming which is in the public's best interest, he just had to shoot his blog off about it.
you can read about what pissed him off here: http://www.scpr.org/news/features/2005/06/preservefunds.html
or you can read him at:
http://ceep71.blogspot.com/2005/06/screw-putsch-cpbs-war-on-balanced.html
(a quick word about the term "bushco." i borrow this from mark morford, a columnist for the san francisco chronicle who writes a sweetly sour column called 'notes and erratta,' which can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/17/notes061705.DTL morford coined the term to refer to all things of george bush's administration. since bush himself, is hardly a genius divining all this evil and hostility behind the privacy of a black curtain stage left a la the wizard of oz, morford likens him to a corporation, acting on a dark agenda and in support of a set of similar values, but as a corporation with many moving parts, [i.e. cheney, rumsfeld, rice, et. al.])
it makes me cheer when a friend tackles such a heady subject. i think any subsequent debate is vital but more importantly, the individual is nourished by considering these things.
my friend's thoughts about not addressing the issues of our day leaves me cold because i think it is shameful to just walk away from issues which might upset you or which, you might find to be unjust, because you feel impotent.
my thought is: one should do what one can. one engages in intellligent discourse. that's something. any little thing is noble, but pushing against the forces which keep us from evolving is absolutely essential.
i think we have to recognize there will be only so much change in our lives. if one cannot reconcile themself with the idea that in 40 years there will still be much to be ashamed of, progress will have been impeded drastically often in the name of dividends for the few, corrupt men will still be making public decisions, etc., then you need some serious counseling.
that said, these jerks who want to cut public funding are the assholes who want to privatize everything. privatizing what should be the public's domain, what should be publicly funded, is almost always a thinly veiled grab for cash. you can bet the corrupt congressman who supports the privatization of (insert industry here-we'll go w/. . .) prisons!, is getting fat cash campaign support from the wackenhut corporation or whatever other players exists in that realm. (you can read about them here: http://www.eyeonwackenhut.com/ )
the basic idea of socialism posits that the masses should to some degree take care of the weak among us. if you are crippled, if you cannot communicate w/ the rest of us because of autism, if you are loony or criminal, (and it should be noted those who refuse to participate in capitalism are bound to end up being classified as one of these, or they will live on the street,) the socialist aspect of a society may take some responsibility for your well being. this is as obvious a sign of our inherent goodness as a species, as you can possibly identify.
(and isn't it odd that the right, so identified w/ christianity which is said to identify w/ ideals associated w/ feeding the hungry, clothing the cold, medicating the infirm, wants to privatize everything and leave these, the least among us, to fend for themselves?)
one thing bushco and many of us have gotten clearer on these past several years is the fact that controlling the airwaves gives you the best chance to control the mindwaves. propaganda is. prior to bush coming into office, i remember much rhetoric bandied about on how hollywood was corrupting the morals of our country and our children and how they needed to reach into that realm to counter the immoral liberalism springing forth. i can actually remember thinking, (good luck suckers, art is a foreign language to those of your ilk.) but alas, i was wrong in so much as they have been more creative than i gave them credit for.
yes, they've been involved in major motion pictures, but more importantly, they've continued the consolidation of the means of communication. they love rupert murdoch who speaks only the language of wealth, (or so it seems,) and they're happy to see the number of entities they have to deal w/ in trying to affect change in this realm, dwindle. rupert is easy. he already leans heavily in their direction. the corporations are pretty easy-crooked right-wing politicians have been getting scratched and scratching those backs so long you'd think they just grew an upside down hand out their hairy-ass backs.
michael powell facilitated the tearing down of longstanding laws put in place by wise men who knew an easily accessible and diverse array of broadcasters was in the public's best interest. i've noticed the christian networks are making movies, (and i mean besides mel gibson.) they're bad movies but they'll get better and as the dumbing down continues there will be a cosmic meeting in the middle ground.
i'm sure this present darkness or one of those cracky tim lahaye books will get made into a major motion picture and special effects along with evangelism will push it's profits skyward and facilitate more of them being made. . .and i'm sure it will be in the same vein as the hollywood crap of the day which is short on thought and plot but long on technical quality and mind-numbing attributes that titillate and dumb down. these things are coming, son. i have no doubt.
(note: i read 'this present darkness.' this is a piece of crap novel. those who like it, like it because it paints a fantastic picture of fantastical images and events they've imagined many times because they believe they will come to pass but when compared to the classics or even the good novels of our day, to say it pales is a vast understatement. it is rank and amateurish.) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891073906/104-6388507-4743932?v=glance
and what about that area of the gulf of mexico right off mississippi where they are going to allow oil exploration all of a sudden after decades of protecting it? (it is the home of a shitload of dolphins who may just one day rise out of the ocean and speed into outer space singing, "thanks for the fish. . .but your environment has grown increasingly toxic so, sorry, but we gotta go." douglas adams is spinning right next to ben franklin and i swear no one's got any common sense around here any more.)
and you know what, if we love our children, if we love our kind, if we know what the fuck real love is, we have to push back. we have to educate. we have to trust. the bottom line is we are not dunking women in salem anymore. we are not raping and pillaging. our crusades are just gatherings of dumbasses in tents now, or glass buildings.
and this is our lot in this world, the human condition. ours is fat w/ struggle, and it always will be. is there a caveat or a feather we can stick in our caps to lean on in the face of those who would bring the lot of us down? yeah, there is. it's called history.
history doesn't remember the george bush's in a kind light. 400 years from now his name will be a footnote, an obscure reference to a despot long gone. abraham lincoln will still be remembered.
john f kennedy, a man i learned in college, "was a terrible president who could not get anything through congress-he just didn't have the sales and people skills of say, ronald reagan,"-(this is what you get when you attend college in the san gabriel valley of southern california, at mt sac in a district gerrymandered as a means of hoodwinking voters,) will be remembered because of his ideas and because of what he said that was so important. addressing the nation on the cuban missile crisis, he said, "We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of worldwide nuclear war in which even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth; but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."
big ideas make big men. bushco, (the whole lot of them,) have zero big ideas. if they are remembered at all it will be as tyrants and warmongers.
but we cannot rely on evolution. we must create it. we must be vigilant, constantly pushing against that which brings us down or represents the worst sides of man's character.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
erstad
darin erstad plays baseball for the la angels.
he epitomizes what someone who specializes in a sport and plays it for big money at the highest level should be, (unfortunately, not what they are.)
erstad is no nonsense. when he holds a runner on first base, he does not talk to him as if it's two guys from the "got-rich-in-the-show club," stepping aside for a brief chat. it's all business w/ him. erstad treats the runner like he's from the other team, the one trying to beat his team so they do not make the playoffs so they do not ultimately win the world series, practically taking food out of his family's mouth. and this is as it should be.
in the last six years (or so,) erstad has changed positions more than john kerry, and like kerry, he did it for the right reasons. he did it for the good of the team, sacrificing the chance to please his agent by establishing a top dollar reputation at one position, (his natural being centerfield where his speed and daring earned him a reputation as one of the best in the game, even displacing a pretty good ballplayer in jim edmonds,) opting instead to play the game to win the game, which has involved shuffling back and forth from center to 1st base a few times.
erstad is a singles and doubles hitter. but, the key word there is hitter. he is the embodiment of that word. he hits in a lineup of utterly undisciplined hitters. vlad guerrero and garret anderson are first pitch swingers who make up for their lack of plate discipline by being great bad ball hitters. in other words, when they guess wrong, as baseball players often do, they often still do damage to hopeful pitchers.
free swinging hitters can be a dream to a pitcher. if he's on and he has some luck getting those guys out, it's a long night for the angels because his pitch count will be so low he can stay around for the late innings.
erstad takes pitches and he does it for the team. he gets many of his hits, (he is currently batting .295,) with two strikes on him. why? for the team, damnit! this is who he is.
i guess he's from fargo, north dakota. i don't really care to know much about his personal life. it's none of my business. but as a baseball fan, (and one who slung some leather in my day,) i appreciate his pro-style game.
a couple weeks ago he gave johnny estrada, (the atlanta brave's catcher,) a concussion bowling him over as he scored a run. he came in hard, saw the ball was going to beat him and that the catcher was partially blocking his path to the plate, and despite the likely pain that would ensue, he crouched forward on the dead run and layed a shoulder into estrada that produced five, square-dancing, tweety birds just over estrada's cranium. had estrada held onto the ball, erstad would have been out. the ball rolled free on contact and from the heap, erstad rose and stretched out over the fallen catcher to record the run.
why do we watch sports? to pad the ego of some guy who spent all his time playing one game in order to excel and cash in instead of reading the works of rushdie and viewing the films of the young, mexican directors, and getting a feel for all the various sports and having a head for politics and becoming a scintillating conversationalist, and understanding the light and dark sides of human nature and growing into a citizen of the world, mostly at peace except in the face of injustice, violence and intolerance?
not that all the rich jocks are dumbasses, but the majority possess a singular focus which is likely why they are able to play at the level they do. it follows then they do not have the luxury of variety, the luxury of time to explore the corporeal world of the modern man, (though surely the cash affords them abilities to see much of the physical world and really, to pursue virtually any endeavor or passion.)
i hope we merely tolerate asshole athletes. i hope we watch sports for the excitement of the contest and for the prowess on display. i think we draw parallels in our lives to the games, and we use them to escape too, or as a pastime.
like many angel fans i booed jose guillen tonight, from my living room. i booed him not for the mistake he made last year w/ the angels that caused mike scioscia to demand the organization trade him at the end of the season while they made him leave the team for the pennant drive and the playoffs. i booed him for losing his temper last night. (no other player lost their temper in any visible way.)
it is said the blue-collar worker gets paid for the sweat of his brow, while the white-collar worker gets paid to swallow the natural urges and tendencies toward aggression that humans have. this means, when someone says something you do not like or disagree with, you practice the ability to not act out, especially with violence or anger. if a person can swallow those natural urges and respond in any other way, ideally w/ reason, besting the act or word that sparked the urge to begin w/, well, the better a person is at it the better they are at white-collar work, the greater their chances of getting promoted and making money, (or, more money,) in that environment.
guillen's behavior suggests baseball is blue-collar work and surely, the players who play games sweat. but w/ compensation so high in professional sports, i think we hope the players also possess white-collar skills.
it is understandable that tensions run high-a game is a competition after all. but today's athlete is conducting himself in front of millions of fans almost nightly. comportment should be a top priority. when a player misbehaves, (in fact whenever i used to see lou piniella acting like a fool out there throwing bases around as part of a tantrum,) i think of his parents and how poorly it reflects on them. (if he grew up an orphan or something like that, he gets some slack in the form of forgiveness but only some.) otherwise? bad parents.
erstad strikes a pretty good balance. he is a fierce competitor as evidenced by his hard-nosed style of game, but he is also utterly classy. five years ago he lead the league in hits, (pre-ichiro,)-he was more of a free swinger then. now he hits for average, getting on base often for teammates to drive in while increasing pressure on opposing pitchers.
even a-rod with his sculpted image, (and similar hair,) does not compare. he is a nice guy but he sounds like a robot, (though his game is absolutely above reproach.) his answers to interview questions sound like they have tested well in demographic studies.
erstad simply avoids the limelight. if a reporter asks him a question, he tries to answer it honestly, from what i can tell. what he says does not make for flashy journalism. good for him. it's refreshing a player does not seek out the limelight and try to make commercials for some hair product or another.
every team that wins a world series in major league baseball has chemistry. a good example, (though they did not come close to winning the championship,) is last year's dodgers. that team had chemistry, which is what took them as far as they went, further than any dodger team during all the years eric karros and mike piazza were there.
last year's champs, the bosox, had johnny damon and david ortiz, (and perhaps a few others.) clutch guys who came up w/ clutch hits. manny ramirez was and is the talent on that team but these guys get manny somewhere he would be unlikely to go without them: winnersville. (in a playoff series in which the sox swept the angels, erstad had a great series but seemed like a one-man show at times.)
in 2002 the angels won it all. erstad was the guy i'm describing. what? down a couple runs in the 7th? erstad will get that key double down the line that starts the rally to win the game.
if baseball had more guys like erstad, contests would be more fiercely fought and the level of play would elevate. (there are other guys like erstad and damon and ortiz around the league too, michael young of the texas rangers comes to mind. looking at a perennial spot in the all-star game he agreed to move to shortstop when a-rod left for the big apple despite the fact he would be an unlikely candidate to ever get there going up against the likes of miguel tejada and derek jeter and the rest of the best infielders in baseball.)
these are the guys we, as fans, should hang some glory on. i'm tired of that guy who has a huge year in a contract season. some guys focus like that constantly, (adrian beltre.)
as for erstad, i don't mean to be his apologist. he's just a ballplayer, though one who is easy to respect for his talent, style and choices.
he epitomizes what someone who specializes in a sport and plays it for big money at the highest level should be, (unfortunately, not what they are.)
erstad is no nonsense. when he holds a runner on first base, he does not talk to him as if it's two guys from the "got-rich-in-the-show club," stepping aside for a brief chat. it's all business w/ him. erstad treats the runner like he's from the other team, the one trying to beat his team so they do not make the playoffs so they do not ultimately win the world series, practically taking food out of his family's mouth. and this is as it should be.
in the last six years (or so,) erstad has changed positions more than john kerry, and like kerry, he did it for the right reasons. he did it for the good of the team, sacrificing the chance to please his agent by establishing a top dollar reputation at one position, (his natural being centerfield where his speed and daring earned him a reputation as one of the best in the game, even displacing a pretty good ballplayer in jim edmonds,) opting instead to play the game to win the game, which has involved shuffling back and forth from center to 1st base a few times.
erstad is a singles and doubles hitter. but, the key word there is hitter. he is the embodiment of that word. he hits in a lineup of utterly undisciplined hitters. vlad guerrero and garret anderson are first pitch swingers who make up for their lack of plate discipline by being great bad ball hitters. in other words, when they guess wrong, as baseball players often do, they often still do damage to hopeful pitchers.
free swinging hitters can be a dream to a pitcher. if he's on and he has some luck getting those guys out, it's a long night for the angels because his pitch count will be so low he can stay around for the late innings.
erstad takes pitches and he does it for the team. he gets many of his hits, (he is currently batting .295,) with two strikes on him. why? for the team, damnit! this is who he is.
i guess he's from fargo, north dakota. i don't really care to know much about his personal life. it's none of my business. but as a baseball fan, (and one who slung some leather in my day,) i appreciate his pro-style game.
a couple weeks ago he gave johnny estrada, (the atlanta brave's catcher,) a concussion bowling him over as he scored a run. he came in hard, saw the ball was going to beat him and that the catcher was partially blocking his path to the plate, and despite the likely pain that would ensue, he crouched forward on the dead run and layed a shoulder into estrada that produced five, square-dancing, tweety birds just over estrada's cranium. had estrada held onto the ball, erstad would have been out. the ball rolled free on contact and from the heap, erstad rose and stretched out over the fallen catcher to record the run.
why do we watch sports? to pad the ego of some guy who spent all his time playing one game in order to excel and cash in instead of reading the works of rushdie and viewing the films of the young, mexican directors, and getting a feel for all the various sports and having a head for politics and becoming a scintillating conversationalist, and understanding the light and dark sides of human nature and growing into a citizen of the world, mostly at peace except in the face of injustice, violence and intolerance?
not that all the rich jocks are dumbasses, but the majority possess a singular focus which is likely why they are able to play at the level they do. it follows then they do not have the luxury of variety, the luxury of time to explore the corporeal world of the modern man, (though surely the cash affords them abilities to see much of the physical world and really, to pursue virtually any endeavor or passion.)
i hope we merely tolerate asshole athletes. i hope we watch sports for the excitement of the contest and for the prowess on display. i think we draw parallels in our lives to the games, and we use them to escape too, or as a pastime.
like many angel fans i booed jose guillen tonight, from my living room. i booed him not for the mistake he made last year w/ the angels that caused mike scioscia to demand the organization trade him at the end of the season while they made him leave the team for the pennant drive and the playoffs. i booed him for losing his temper last night. (no other player lost their temper in any visible way.)
it is said the blue-collar worker gets paid for the sweat of his brow, while the white-collar worker gets paid to swallow the natural urges and tendencies toward aggression that humans have. this means, when someone says something you do not like or disagree with, you practice the ability to not act out, especially with violence or anger. if a person can swallow those natural urges and respond in any other way, ideally w/ reason, besting the act or word that sparked the urge to begin w/, well, the better a person is at it the better they are at white-collar work, the greater their chances of getting promoted and making money, (or, more money,) in that environment.
guillen's behavior suggests baseball is blue-collar work and surely, the players who play games sweat. but w/ compensation so high in professional sports, i think we hope the players also possess white-collar skills.
it is understandable that tensions run high-a game is a competition after all. but today's athlete is conducting himself in front of millions of fans almost nightly. comportment should be a top priority. when a player misbehaves, (in fact whenever i used to see lou piniella acting like a fool out there throwing bases around as part of a tantrum,) i think of his parents and how poorly it reflects on them. (if he grew up an orphan or something like that, he gets some slack in the form of forgiveness but only some.) otherwise? bad parents.
erstad strikes a pretty good balance. he is a fierce competitor as evidenced by his hard-nosed style of game, but he is also utterly classy. five years ago he lead the league in hits, (pre-ichiro,)-he was more of a free swinger then. now he hits for average, getting on base often for teammates to drive in while increasing pressure on opposing pitchers.
even a-rod with his sculpted image, (and similar hair,) does not compare. he is a nice guy but he sounds like a robot, (though his game is absolutely above reproach.) his answers to interview questions sound like they have tested well in demographic studies.
erstad simply avoids the limelight. if a reporter asks him a question, he tries to answer it honestly, from what i can tell. what he says does not make for flashy journalism. good for him. it's refreshing a player does not seek out the limelight and try to make commercials for some hair product or another.
every team that wins a world series in major league baseball has chemistry. a good example, (though they did not come close to winning the championship,) is last year's dodgers. that team had chemistry, which is what took them as far as they went, further than any dodger team during all the years eric karros and mike piazza were there.
last year's champs, the bosox, had johnny damon and david ortiz, (and perhaps a few others.) clutch guys who came up w/ clutch hits. manny ramirez was and is the talent on that team but these guys get manny somewhere he would be unlikely to go without them: winnersville. (in a playoff series in which the sox swept the angels, erstad had a great series but seemed like a one-man show at times.)
in 2002 the angels won it all. erstad was the guy i'm describing. what? down a couple runs in the 7th? erstad will get that key double down the line that starts the rally to win the game.
if baseball had more guys like erstad, contests would be more fiercely fought and the level of play would elevate. (there are other guys like erstad and damon and ortiz around the league too, michael young of the texas rangers comes to mind. looking at a perennial spot in the all-star game he agreed to move to shortstop when a-rod left for the big apple despite the fact he would be an unlikely candidate to ever get there going up against the likes of miguel tejada and derek jeter and the rest of the best infielders in baseball.)
these are the guys we, as fans, should hang some glory on. i'm tired of that guy who has a huge year in a contract season. some guys focus like that constantly, (adrian beltre.)
as for erstad, i don't mean to be his apologist. he's just a ballplayer, though one who is easy to respect for his talent, style and choices.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
favors for favors, or, a lie by any other name. . .
from the favors for favors dept . .
it seems one of our republican congressmen from the golden state is up to business as usual. randy "duke" cunningham recently sold his house in del mar to a defense contractor for at least $700,000 more than it was worth. cunningham sits on the armed services appropriation committee. since the sell, the contractor's business, (which had been flat,) has spiked on government contracts.
but wait. there's more. (ho-hum.)
cunningham's real estate agent brokered the deal and she is a campaign contributor. this one clearly stinks.
you can read all about it here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4441.html
but hey, i'm less concerned with the politics of the day because they'll always be there. there will always be people lying and cheating and stealing, trying to get ahead because they think it will make them happy, (which it won't,) just as there will be those who try to uncover those wrongdoings.
i'm more interested in another story involving cunningham, which made news a few years ago. at that time, cunningham was involved in bringing forth legislation that would impose the death penalty on drug kingpins. later, his son was caught smuggling 400 pounds of marijuana into the country. cunningham appeared before his son's judge asking for leniency, (and getting it.) his son did about 11 months in the big house.
i know, i know, i'll be the first to agree his son was not a drug kingpin but i can't help but think the son saw the father as a liar.
how can a father ask a son to live an honest and decent, (moral even,) life if their own life is filled with corruption?
i would contend, (and this comes from my own experience,) that children recognize the lies we tell them. they see hypocrisy but they feel barred from calling it out. (barred by the belt, most likely.) and so, i believe they act out and rebel based on that. i suspect, on some subconscious level, they lose trust in the person who has always claimed to be the ultimate truth-giver, and so they question much more of what has been handed down, maxims like: drugs bad, justice system just, college good, america free, etc.
and where does this all start? i think it starts with santa claus. such a lighthearted, gnomish, imaginary gift-giver and yet, he is a lie and children invariably figure it out. children come to know the easter bunny is phony and the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
however, they may never come to realize the god they were given was a hoax. they may never suspect our president tells lies. they may never question authority at all, a maxim we were supposed to have adopted in the '60s.
i'm sure "duke" cunningham looked down upon his son after that episode and cried, "why have you failed me?!" and the son probably suffered low self esteem and apologized profusely thinking himself a bad seed.
and dad went to work representing the good people of north san diego county where he brokered shady deals but told a reporter he has never so much as puffed one time on a marijuana joint. still, he probably felt like the paragon of dignity and respect, doing some sort of hocus-pocus shoeshine shuffle in his impish, status quo, establishment, favors for favors head.
it seems one of our republican congressmen from the golden state is up to business as usual. randy "duke" cunningham recently sold his house in del mar to a defense contractor for at least $700,000 more than it was worth. cunningham sits on the armed services appropriation committee. since the sell, the contractor's business, (which had been flat,) has spiked on government contracts.
but wait. there's more. (ho-hum.)
cunningham's real estate agent brokered the deal and she is a campaign contributor. this one clearly stinks.
you can read all about it here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/4441.html
but hey, i'm less concerned with the politics of the day because they'll always be there. there will always be people lying and cheating and stealing, trying to get ahead because they think it will make them happy, (which it won't,) just as there will be those who try to uncover those wrongdoings.
i'm more interested in another story involving cunningham, which made news a few years ago. at that time, cunningham was involved in bringing forth legislation that would impose the death penalty on drug kingpins. later, his son was caught smuggling 400 pounds of marijuana into the country. cunningham appeared before his son's judge asking for leniency, (and getting it.) his son did about 11 months in the big house.
i know, i know, i'll be the first to agree his son was not a drug kingpin but i can't help but think the son saw the father as a liar.
how can a father ask a son to live an honest and decent, (moral even,) life if their own life is filled with corruption?
i would contend, (and this comes from my own experience,) that children recognize the lies we tell them. they see hypocrisy but they feel barred from calling it out. (barred by the belt, most likely.) and so, i believe they act out and rebel based on that. i suspect, on some subconscious level, they lose trust in the person who has always claimed to be the ultimate truth-giver, and so they question much more of what has been handed down, maxims like: drugs bad, justice system just, college good, america free, etc.
and where does this all start? i think it starts with santa claus. such a lighthearted, gnomish, imaginary gift-giver and yet, he is a lie and children invariably figure it out. children come to know the easter bunny is phony and the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
however, they may never come to realize the god they were given was a hoax. they may never suspect our president tells lies. they may never question authority at all, a maxim we were supposed to have adopted in the '60s.
i'm sure "duke" cunningham looked down upon his son after that episode and cried, "why have you failed me?!" and the son probably suffered low self esteem and apologized profusely thinking himself a bad seed.
and dad went to work representing the good people of north san diego county where he brokered shady deals but told a reporter he has never so much as puffed one time on a marijuana joint. still, he probably felt like the paragon of dignity and respect, doing some sort of hocus-pocus shoeshine shuffle in his impish, status quo, establishment, favors for favors head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
