Reflections On Bush

07/2/09 @ 1:20 pm | no comments »

I miss George W. Bush. To be completely honest, I have a lot less to write/blog about since he's left...

Oh, I love Obama's idea on [fill in the blank]. It is such a terrific idea. He is the greatest president ever. I am so proud to be an American right now.

It just doesn't have that zing. It doesn't fill the seats, but it never really has. It simply doesn't light a fire under me. (I hinted towards the demise of the liberal blogosphere a year-and-half ago, when a democrat winning was becoming more and more likely, exactly because of Bush's record and disapproval.¹)

Every person who was alive (voting age, knowledgeable) during the Bush administration will never forget it. I am sure that that could be said of any administration (except possibly Ford's), but the Bush administration was my first. I was not old enough to vote for Clinton. My first vote in a presidential election was for Al Gore when I was twenty.²

Future children will come home from schools (in ten, twenty years) and ask their parents -- "Why was Bush so hated? What did he do wrong?" -- and everyone will answer the question differently.

This is how I would respond to the question, at least today, sincerely...

Never would I have imagined that the president would take such a horrible event -- the tragedy of nine-eleven -- and use it not only for personal political gain, but as an explicit smear tactic against any and all opponents or dissidents, on any and all issues or policies. Bush took a golden opportunity to bring a nation together, and he willingly and blatantly tore it apart. His administration exhibited the most divisive form of government, and the most invidious form of politics.

Notes

1. This phenomenon may only apply to me however. [↩]
2. This was not the first election in which I had ever voted. The first election that I would have been able to vote in was the mid-term general of 1998. I had come down with mononucleosis in the fall semester of my freshman year. The symptoms started on Halloween. I had stayed home that evening, and spent the entire month of November going in and out of the health center. I wouldn't have been able to vote even if I was registered, which I wasn't. It is still something I regret. I have never not voted, primary or special, since. [↩]

Jon Stewart, Secular Jew

07/2/09 @ 9:53 am | no comments »

A long, long time ago (July aught-six), on a blog called DCeiver -- run by a person now reporting for the Huffington Post -- Jason Linkins wrote that he was the "only one who got Stephen Colbert's best joke" that evening...

"Wow. Bill Donoghue really opened my eyes. I had no idea that secular Jews were keeping Catholics down. Food for thought." -- Steven Colbert, a Catholic

I admit, I didn't get it, so I commented...

Okay, I'm thinking... "secular Jew." Is that the joke?

Linkins replied... "Stephen Colbert wasn't exactly 'kept down' by secular Jews, now, was he? One might suggest that Colbert has had a great deal of support from people who fit Donoghue's definition of 'secular Jew.' There is one guy in particular who sort of springs to mind..."

And I commented...

Oh boy, am I slow.

Here is my question: When does a secularist drop the religious affiliation that follows? (e.g., when does a "secular Jew" become a "secularist?")

Does Stewart really believe in the biblical teachings? I have thought that Stewart has been using his Jewish heritage as a punchline, and that he has disavowed of the faith. But the Colbert line is funny, nonetheless.

[...]

Stewart comes across as an atheist (or agnostic) to me, but that may just be his television persona. Who knows what he truly believes? Maybe Larry King does.

Linkins replied, "As for Stewart, I was under the impression that he was a typical Reform Jew. But, fuck, what do I know?"

Yes, I thought that this was "good" enough to share.

Impending Doom

07/2/09 @ 8:23 am | no comments »

"[Twitter's official Facebook application is] quite useful for those of us who don’t want to have to spend all day updating multiple services with the same messages." Or those of us unfortunate enough to read about it.

Note: I am making a serious effort to break my TechCrunch habit. It's just not going that well... yet.

3000 Is Not Important

07/1/09 @ 10:19 am | no comments »

Baseball is funny. It elevates its statistics and creates thresholds that are so unrealistic, however sporadically attained, it precludes many of the greatest ballplayers from being considered elite. Unless you discount the numbers altogether, and without numbers, you do not have baseball.

The most oft-mentioned statistic as categorically "unfair" is the 300 wins for starting pitchers as a requirement to be considered a hall-of-famer. In today's age of middle relief specialists and five-man rotations, it is simply becoming a matter of calculus -- or more accurately, simple algebra (a related form in the language of mathematics) -- that doing such is nearly impossible. For a pitcher to win 300 games, he must register 15 wins for 20 seasons or 20 wins for 15 seasons. That is becoming more and more of an anomaly and doesn't represent "greatness," by any measure, in the sport today.

A lesser mentioned statistic that is equally unfair is the 3000 hit threshold. Using the same math as above, a hitter would require 15 seasons of 200 hits or 20 seasons of 150 hits. Surely any player that would meet such criteria would be hall-of-fame worthy -- besides Pete Rose and Rafael Palmeiro maybe -- or if they had some inordinate number of home runs to complement their hit totals (which may or may not be a function of natural or unnatural strength), like Babe Ruth (2873 career hits) and Lou Gehrig (2721), they would have a key to Cooperstown.

But establishing 3000 hits (or 300 wins) as any sort of threshold of representing greatness is a misnomer. Careers are cut short by injury or death, players can be a part of winning or losing teams (and statistics in playoffs do not count), and who precedes and follows a hitter's place in the batting order has a great effect on pitching decisions (more so today). Having 3200 hits does not necessarily make you a better player than if you had 2800 (unless you also had 540 home runs and 420 steals; then you'd be a god)

Here are some great ballplayers that have not hit 3000, and are either Hall of Famers or should be...

• Frank Robinson 2943
• Barry Bonds 2935
• Mel Ott 2876
• Babe Ruth 2873
• Brooks Robinson 2848
• Andre Dawson 2774
• Roberto Alomar 2724
• Lou Gehrig 2721
• Bill Buckner 2715
• Ted Williams 2654
• Jimmie Foxx 2646
• Tim Raines 2605
• Steve Garvey 2599
• Reggie Jackson 2584
• Ernie Banks 2583
• Joe Morgan 2517
• Fred McGriff 2490
• Frank Thomas 2468
• Ozzie Smith 2460
• Jim Rice 2452

Not every hit is equally important either. A slap single in the ninth when you are down (or up) by six means nothing. The most underrated batting statistic in all of baseball is runs scored. I'd follow that with a statistic that measures all players almost equally, the most normalized batting statistic: doubles. Not every player can belt 50 home runs, nor can every player run-out bunts or infield singles (or stretch doubles into triples). But a double is equally attainable by every player in the league, or it should be, and I'll assume that it is. This is why when you look at the career leaders list for doubles, you immediately recognize not only the greatest players in history, but the best all-around, athletic players; true ballplayers.

When measuring a player's absolute value, assigning an arbitrary number for a given statistic, literally based on nothing (aside from it being a round number), is an unrealistic and inappropriate method. A player's worth should be measured by his contribution to his team (runs, runs batted-in, etc.) and his team's success, not to mention defensive skills¹ and overall gamesmanship.

Notes

1. Defensive skills are nearly impossible to statistically evaluate (and always will be; no two ground balls or fly balls are the same). [↩]

Top 5 Movies of the Past 5 Years

07/1/09 @ 8:34 am | no comments »

These are movies that I would want to watch again, and possibly, which is the only downside to relying solely on Netflix for movie consumption, I would want to own. In other words, these are movies after watching on Netflix, I would consider purchasing, probably for cheap on Amazon.¹ In yet another rewording of a very simple statement, these are the most re-watchable movies.

This is the authoritative list -- and exclusive of any Pixar films, which don't count, because they are always good, and should be measured separately...²

1. Batman Begins
2. Zodiac
3. The Dark Knight
4. American Gangster
5. National Treasure

Runners-up: The Illusionist, Rescue Dawn, 3:10 to Yuma, and Capote.

Notes

1. In fact, I purchased Nos. 1 and 3 last week, in a sweet deal on Amazon. I didn't get the special two-disc, limited edition versions with all sorts of useless extras, like behind-the-scenes shit that I would never sit through anyway. Just the movie, widescreen, and not Blu-ray. [↩]
2. And I am not just saying that because I am friends and neighbors with Pixar animators/designers. [↩]

Duplicity

06/30/09 @ 9:25 am | no comments »

Duplicity at its finest...

Modoc has the highest Republican registration of any county in California, it unfailingly elects anti-tax Republicans to office, and the vote here against last month's ballot measure that would have raised a variety of taxes was one of the most lopsided in the state. And yet, per capita, Modoc County gets more state taxpayer dollars than all but one of California's 58 counties.

The prevailing attitude among the right-wing ranchers and modern hippies who define Modoc County is of fierce self-reliance - but more people here than just about anywhere else depend on welfare checks of some kind to get by.

This is the biggest -- most understated, and undervalued -- issue (or phenomenon) regarding the calamitous budget battle we find ourselves in this state: California is anti-tax. It is sometimes hard to believe, but the state is so big, in both area and population, there is simply no way to provide the social services promised (California is slowly becoming a welfare state) in a state that largely strives -- admittedly somewhat stubbornly -- to not become another Taxachussets.

Currently Reading

06/26/09 @ 2:27 pm | no comments »

Looking through my bookshelf, I've discovered all I have left really are heady books.¹ I've been purchasing books at a quicker pace the last few months on Amazon to build up some sort of a backlog, and none of them are "quick reads" so to speak.

I have always had an interest in what happened in the New World -- long before it was known as America, and later, Columbia -- and this book should at least whet my appetite: 1491 by Charles Mann...²

Notes

1. Or what I'll call "heady," since the definition is anything but settled, or uniform. That being said, I could always pull a Vonnegut off the shelf to give my brain some rest for a week. [↩]
2. I accidentally purchased this book twice. When I couldn't find it on my shelf a few weeks ago, I checked my Amazon history and it wasn't there, so I ordered it (again). I found the second, original copy last night. It turns out I had purchased the book under my wife's account to get her over the free shipping threshold. The book is now a gift in-waiting. [↩]

Ruminating on the Great War and Subsequent Failed Peace

06/25/09 @ 3:59 pm | no comments »

What to say of Paris 1919. It was truly remarkable to learn of such a consequential and ultimately fatal document. Without getting too professorial,¹ this is what went wrong...

• The Germans were not thoroughly defeated in the war. Following the armistice in November, the German armies were greeted as victors in the cities, complete with parades. The communities never felt the defeat, they never saw the Allied tanks rolling through Berlin. They didn't lose.
• The Peace Commission failed to deal with the Germans in a timely manner. It wasn't until May that the Germans even saw the treaty (although they had heard rumors). In the meantime, they were grasping to false hopes of Wilsonian self-determination.
• The Commission was trying to do too much. Alone from righting wrongs in Europe (Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, etc.), the Commission set forth on re-drawing the map in the Middle East and southeast Asia. It went beyond its expertise and spent too much time not concentrating on finalizing the German treaty.
• Colonialism remained a strong sentiment in the European powers. They were unwilling, Germany included, to give up their historic control in the Middle East, Africa and Asia, and they absentmindedly drew new borders.
• France had a great fear of German ambitions. However ultimately warranted, the mood of the peace treaty was tainted with anti-German sentiment. The Germans were forced to unilaterally de-militarize and pay reparations it was unable to afford, despite commission expert warnings that nothing good would amount from such harsh terms anyway.
• Isolationism was the prevailing mindset in Washington. The U.S. was unwilling to develop permanent alliances, unwilling to join and legitimize the mostly powerless League of Nations, and unwilling to push either France or Britain away from their claims throughout the world.
• Italy and Japan were up to no good; nationalism was spreading and nearly everyone declared their independence in eastern Europe; Bolshevism had enveloped Russia; and Greece wanted to restore their great empire of prior millennia.
• The Great Depression of the late twenties and thirties devastated the German economy, and worsened their ability to pay reparations, and made it equally financially impossible for other world powers in the League of Nations (or the U.S.) to enforce the terms of the treaty.
• Lastly, and probably most importantly, Germany was ready to erupt either way. The Treaty of Versailles was a convenient excuse. Hitler was hell-bent on world domination, and the extermination of peoples had nothing to do with the Great War and subsequent peace treaty.

It was illuminating to read of the great efforts (in detail) that were made to right the past wrongs, and to re-draw the map of the world in order to preserve the peace. Unfortunately, almost everything in the treaty has since been undone (except for maybe the Iraq boundary, which may not be a good thing), and the treaty has been cited as the principal cause of the Second World War. That may be too harsh an assessment, but that does not matter. The treaty did not work, and the world is still dealing with its aftermath.

Notes

1. By "professorial," I mean acting as though I know what I am talking about, declaring this or that as fact or fiction, leveling opinion as absolute truths. I read a book. It was fascinating. This is what I learned, or I believe I'd learned, These are my take-away points. Take them as they are; but believe me, it's true and I'm right. [↩]

True Marketing

06/25/09 @ 9:00 am | no comments »

This is a great bit of marketing on packets of hot cocoa...

As much calcium as a glass of milk. (Just add milk.)

The only thing that compares, in my feeble mind, is cholesterol-free vegetable oil. You wouldn't say.

Vanity Fair

06/25/09 @ 8:51 am | no comments »

If this, er, TechCrunch report* is true, there is something horribly wrong with our society... "Needless to say, a lot of people were left in the dust, forced to settle for something other than the [Facebook] vanity URL they’d been dreaming of for weeks."

* Sometimes I cannot help myself. I'm still reading the Huffington Post too. Please help me.