Well, the Yankees have dominated the Hot Stove this year by snatching up Sabathia, Burnett and Texiera (Texiera from right under the noses of Boston). There is moaning in Red Sox Nation over that. There is also a sort of forced apathy or cheer from some.
It's the emotionalism of the response to moves like this which keep the game at the forefront. People like to paint Scott Boras (Texiera's agent, as well as the agent for many players) as the devil incarnate. Sites like bostondirtdogs.com help to reinforce that image with photoshopped graphics.
Hey, it's all fun.
But it's all business, too.
What player isn't going to look for the deal that benefits them them most?? The same holds true for management of professional sports teams. Everyone in the business is about bottom line.
Sports is sort of like politics. Spectators (citizens) pay the ticket prices (taxes) to watch the teams and team owners (politicians) do their things. And the spectators are often upset or irritated by it. Then they go home and look to the next game.
The teams (politicians) make promises to the spectators (citizens) throughout the season and the off-season that they are working to get better, often wtih no discernible results.
So, by this line of thinking, it appears that politics is really a spectator sport.
That's too bad. .
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Crisp to KC for Ramirez
Coco Crisp, Boston Red Sox center fielder, has been traded to the Kansas City Royals in exchange for relief pitcher Ramon Ramirez.
Crisp was with the Red Sox for three seasons. He will be remembered for breaking his thumb his first year, the fight with Tampa Bay pitcher James Shields, his ten-pitch at bat in the playoffs this year which ended up producing a run. He will also be remembered for his hustle, his defensive skills and his professionalism, especially when informed he'd be sharing his position with Jacoby Ellsbury.
This is what Coco had to say about the trade.
Crisp was with the Red Sox for three seasons. He will be remembered for breaking his thumb his first year, the fight with Tampa Bay pitcher James Shields, his ten-pitch at bat in the playoffs this year which ended up producing a run. He will also be remembered for his hustle, his defensive skills and his professionalism, especially when informed he'd be sharing his position with Jacoby Ellsbury.
This is what Coco had to say about the trade.
"I know my agent had told me there was a possible trade in the works within this week, and all that waiting and anticipating to see if it even happens kind of keeps you on edge," said Crisp, who was in California and found out about the deal at 7 a.m. PT. "When I finally got the news that I was going to Kansas City, it was exciting."
"It was a learning experience, definitely," Crisp said of his time in Boston. "I had a lot of fun. It's been a great experience for me coming from a contending team like Cleveland to a team that was already in the mix playoff-wise. I've learned on the field and off the field. It's helped me grow.
"The one negative aspect that came out of the whole thing was that I was plagued by nagging injuries, primarily the whole time I was there, with the exception of a month here or a month there and toward the end of this season, when I was fully healed from my hand injury, which I hurt within the first five games of coming over to Boston. It was an up-and-down ride. Most of the time, I enjoyed myself over there, even though it was difficult."
Even facing the prospect of going to the perennial cellar-dwelling Royals, Crisp was positive, professional and good-natured.
Goodbye, Coco Crisp. Your name may sound like a breakfast cereal, but I will always think of you as a consummate baseball player.
You will be missed.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A New Scam
This is one I hadn't seen before. But I've since received two emails saying the same thing. The scam is as follows:
a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.
First, the email was sent to "undisclosed-recipients" which would imply a mass BCC mailing. If the IRS was communicating to me via email, it wouldn't be as a mass mailing.
Second, the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code is a provision granting exemption from the federal income tax to non-profit organizations. It has nothing to do with tax refunds.
Third, I checked out the link provided (without actually clicking on the link and possibly getting directed to a malicious site) and it definitely did not go to the IRS.
So, remember, if someone is emailing you saying that you have money coming to you, there's a 99.999999999% chance it's a scam. If you respond to these scams, you will be one of the reasons they keep propagating.
Be careful out there.
(Please note that I changed the url in the live link portion of the scam email. It will take you nowhere now)
After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity
we have determined that you are eligible to receive
a tax refund under section 501(c) (3) of the
Internal Revenue Code. Tax refund value is $120.50.
Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days
in order to IWP the data received.
If u don't receive your refund within 9 business
days from the original IRS mailing date shown,
you can start a refund trace online.
If you distribute funds to other organization, your records must show wether
they are exempt under section 497 (c) (15). In cases where the recipient org.
is not exempt under section 497 (c) (15), you must have evidence the funds will
be used for section 497 (c) (15) purposes.
If you distribute fund to individuals, you should keep case histories showing
the recipient's name and address; the purpose of the award; the maner of
section; and the realtionship of the recipient to any of your officers, directors,
trustees, members, or major contributors.
To access the form for your tax refund, please click here
This notification has been sent by the Internal Revenue Service,a bureau of the Department of the Treasury.
First, the email was sent to "undisclosed-recipients" which would imply a mass BCC mailing. If the IRS was communicating to me via email, it wouldn't be as a mass mailing.
Second, the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code is a provision granting exemption from the federal income tax to non-profit organizations. It has nothing to do with tax refunds.
Third, I checked out the link provided (without actually clicking on the link and possibly getting directed to a malicious site) and it definitely did not go to the IRS.
So, remember, if someone is emailing you saying that you have money coming to you, there's a 99.999999999% chance it's a scam. If you respond to these scams, you will be one of the reasons they keep propagating.
Be careful out there.
(Please note that I changed the url in the live link portion of the scam email. It will take you nowhere now)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Finally, A Reasonable Voice
From article found here: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Congratulations Tampa Bay Rays!
You earned your first American League Pennant and, in doing so, your ticket to the World Series. You took down the defending 2007 Word Series Champions. It wasn't easy or quick, but you did it. Jon Lester pitched well enough to win, but Matt Garza pitched well and won the game. Unfortunately, the Red Sox bats took a breather at the very wrong time.
They say it's pitching that wins series. To a point, that's true. It only takes one run to win a game. The pitcher who is able to prevent that run can come away with a win.
However, offense is equally important. Am I the only one who thinks that if a team doesn't produce runs, it won't win? The Red Sox spent a fair amount of time this season not producing runs.
They produced enough to win the wild card, but how often was it agonizing to watch them struggle at the plate?
One has to wonder how or if things would have been different if Manny Ramirez was still in a Red Sox uniform. The common consensus is that he probably wouldn't have played anyway either by dogging it or being benched for dogging it.
But can we say that his presence in the lineup - at least his 2007 presence - was sorely missed?:
Jason Bay did a notable job taking over the Manny spot on the roster. He was very productive and an upgrade defensively. But his hitting wasn't electric.
Not like Manny's.
I don't know what the answer is for the Red Sox. Without Manny behind him, David Ortiz isn't the same hitter. Pedroia and Youkilis can't carry the team for the whole season, and it's gotten to the point where the bottom third of the order is a cakewalk for the opposing pitcher. It reminds me of Little League where you have all your good hitters at the top of the order, and you grit your teeth patiently while dying through the bottom.
I don't see the Red Sox doing a lot in the off-season. There are issues to be addressed. I can't, for the life of me, though, see them making major changes to the team.
I guess it all remains to be seen.
For the time being, the kudos belong to the Tampa Bay Rays. Good luck in the World Series.
I hope Philadelphia beats you.
They say it's pitching that wins series. To a point, that's true. It only takes one run to win a game. The pitcher who is able to prevent that run can come away with a win.
However, offense is equally important. Am I the only one who thinks that if a team doesn't produce runs, it won't win? The Red Sox spent a fair amount of time this season not producing runs.
They produced enough to win the wild card, but how often was it agonizing to watch them struggle at the plate?
One has to wonder how or if things would have been different if Manny Ramirez was still in a Red Sox uniform. The common consensus is that he probably wouldn't have played anyway either by dogging it or being benched for dogging it.
But can we say that his presence in the lineup - at least his 2007 presence - was sorely missed?:
Jason Bay did a notable job taking over the Manny spot on the roster. He was very productive and an upgrade defensively. But his hitting wasn't electric.
Not like Manny's.
I don't know what the answer is for the Red Sox. Without Manny behind him, David Ortiz isn't the same hitter. Pedroia and Youkilis can't carry the team for the whole season, and it's gotten to the point where the bottom third of the order is a cakewalk for the opposing pitcher. It reminds me of Little League where you have all your good hitters at the top of the order, and you grit your teeth patiently while dying through the bottom.
I don't see the Red Sox doing a lot in the off-season. There are issues to be addressed. I can't, for the life of me, though, see them making major changes to the team.
I guess it all remains to be seen.
For the time being, the kudos belong to the Tampa Bay Rays. Good luck in the World Series.
I hope Philadelphia beats you.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
They've Got Spirit, but....
After an optional practice today, the Red Sox were upbeat according to an article by Adam Kilgore of Boston.com, the online arm of the Boston Globe.
"We've got nothing but baseball ahead of us," catcher Jason Varitek said. "Belief. It wasn't just '04, '07. We've been able to do it. It leaves an overriding belief. I believe. I believe that if we execute what we can do,we're going to present ourselves with a great chance to win."
Sure, the Red Sox have a chance to win. They've had three chances to win in their last three games.
But they didn't.
It doesn't matter what they believe because the Rays believe THEY can win. And WILL win.
Sort of negates each other, doesn't it?
The objective observer would look at the Red Sox and see too many problems for them to be able to pull off another 07 or 04. It would be a nice story.
If you can believe it.
****************************************
Tampa Bay Rays manager, Joe Maddon, adjusted his regular rotation to have Scott Kazmir start the next game against the Red Sox instead of James Shields.
I find this interesting because Kazmir was the only Rays pitcher the Sox were able to tee-off on. The Rays ended up winning Game 2 in extra innings but only after Kazmir was roughed up for five runs.
This rotation change will mean that Kazmir will go against Dice-K who won Boston's only victory in the series. I wonder if Maddon means for this series to go back to Tampa Bay, so they can celebrate on their home field.
I really do wonder that.
Really.
"We've got nothing but baseball ahead of us," catcher Jason Varitek said. "Belief. It wasn't just '04, '07. We've been able to do it. It leaves an overriding belief. I believe. I believe that if we execute what we can do,we're going to present ourselves with a great chance to win."
Sure, the Red Sox have a chance to win. They've had three chances to win in their last three games.
But they didn't.
It doesn't matter what they believe because the Rays believe THEY can win. And WILL win.
Sort of negates each other, doesn't it?
The objective observer would look at the Red Sox and see too many problems for them to be able to pull off another 07 or 04. It would be a nice story.
If you can believe it.
****************************************
Tampa Bay Rays manager, Joe Maddon, adjusted his regular rotation to have Scott Kazmir start the next game against the Red Sox instead of James Shields.
I find this interesting because Kazmir was the only Rays pitcher the Sox were able to tee-off on. The Rays ended up winning Game 2 in extra innings but only after Kazmir was roughed up for five runs.
This rotation change will mean that Kazmir will go against Dice-K who won Boston's only victory in the series. I wonder if Maddon means for this series to go back to Tampa Bay, so they can celebrate on their home field.
I really do wonder that.
Really.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Win Bigger Than It Looked
The Tampa Bay Rays 9-1 win over the Sox last night was bigger than it looked.
First, the Rays got back their home field advantage with that win. If the Sox want to win the pennant, they will have to do it at the Trop.
Second, it made the ostensible Red Sox ace, Jon Lester, look very human, not so intimidating.
Third, it gave the Rays back the confidence they've had all year. They are now in 'surge' mode.
On the other side of the coin,
It made the ostensible Red Sox ace, Jon Lester, look very human. Besides Jon, who else is there? Dice-K? He manages to get it done but not without a lot of drama. Beckett is clearly no longer the ace, and this starting rotation doesn't look so very strong any more.
Can we quit with the Ellsbury as lead-off batter experiment and put Crisp in there instead? Coco has been hitting, and he's quite fast. Ellsbury has left the building for some reason, along with a few other batters like the once-feared Big Papi.
Speaking of which, it would appear that David Ortiz only got to the place he did in hitting because Manny batted behind him. Take Manny out of the equation and apparently Ortiz is only a nominal hitter.
I predicted to a local radio show that if the Sox win the ALCS, it will be in seven games.
I also predicted that if the Rays win it, it will be in five games.
Everything is on track to come true.
On one good note: the Phillies are now one game away from getting into the World Series. They have a 3-1 lead in the NLCS. I am rooting for them to go all the way.
Unless the Red Sox make it in, of course.
First, the Rays got back their home field advantage with that win. If the Sox want to win the pennant, they will have to do it at the Trop.
Second, it made the ostensible Red Sox ace, Jon Lester, look very human, not so intimidating.
Third, it gave the Rays back the confidence they've had all year. They are now in 'surge' mode.
On the other side of the coin,
It made the ostensible Red Sox ace, Jon Lester, look very human. Besides Jon, who else is there? Dice-K? He manages to get it done but not without a lot of drama. Beckett is clearly no longer the ace, and this starting rotation doesn't look so very strong any more.
Can we quit with the Ellsbury as lead-off batter experiment and put Crisp in there instead? Coco has been hitting, and he's quite fast. Ellsbury has left the building for some reason, along with a few other batters like the once-feared Big Papi.
Speaking of which, it would appear that David Ortiz only got to the place he did in hitting because Manny batted behind him. Take Manny out of the equation and apparently Ortiz is only a nominal hitter.
I predicted to a local radio show that if the Sox win the ALCS, it will be in seven games.
I also predicted that if the Rays win it, it will be in five games.
Everything is on track to come true.
On one good note: the Phillies are now one game away from getting into the World Series. They have a 3-1 lead in the NLCS. I am rooting for them to go all the way.
Unless the Red Sox make it in, of course.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Did the Better Team Lose.... or Win?
It is a day for second guessing after the Boston Red Sox finished off the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, winning their American League Division Series, 3 - 1. The Angels had the best record in Major League Baseball for the 2008 regular season. The Red Sox, on the other hand, entered the series as the wild card team, unable to wrest the top spot of their division from the Tampa Bay Rays.
The Angels were a little flummoxed by their loss. After all, they were the better team as evidenced by the following excerpts:
The consensus in the clubhouse, from starter John Lackey -- seven innings, two earned runs -- to veterans Garret Anderson and Hunter, was that the superior team did not win this series.
"It's totally different [than the 2007 sweep by the Red Sox]," Lackey said. "They were better than us last year. They're not better than us this year."
To [Garret] Anderson, whose future also is uncertain, as the Angels hold an option on his contract for next season, "losing is always hard. I honestly felt we were better than they were, but it doesn't matter if you don't win. We just didn't get the job done and they did."
"You're not going to know who's coming back," [Torii] Hunter said, referring to potential free agents K-Rod, Anderson, Teixeira, Jon Garland, Juan Rivera and Darren Oliver. "You can't say you're going to be in the postseason again and have a team like this.
"This was our chance with this team -- unless everybody comes back. We're a better team than those guys, but they're moving on. They did something right, obviously."
Pitcher Scot Shields and Manager Mike Sciosia were a little more realistic in their assessments:
"I thought for sure that was definitely game over on the play Tex made," Shields said. "They deserve it. They beat us."
"I thought we played much better this series than going back to '04 or '07 against them," Scioscia said. "It's naturally disappointing, but we're going to have to keep trying to get better. That's all we can do."
Were the LA Angels better than the Boston Red Sox?
Conventional wisdom says that the better win-loss record would dictate such thinking. It has been pointed out, however, that the Angels were in a much weaker division than the Red Sox and consequently had a fairly easy go of it for half their games.
The Angels defeated the Red Sox nine times in ten appearances during the regular season. Unfortunately, the Red Sox were constantly dealing with injuries throughout the year, which actually makes their entrance into the post-season even more impressive.
The Angels retooled a bit with the signing of Torii Hunter in the off-season and the trade for Mark Texiera before the deadline. These two players alone provide much needed pop in the middle of the order taking some of that pressure off Vlad Guerrero.
The Red Sox, on the other hand, lost megamashing star Manny Ramirez, perhaps the most feared hitter in baseball today. Without Manny backing him up, David Ortiz' power numbers have dropped drastically (not to mention injury earlier in the season). Mike Lowell, last year's World Series MVP, was no presence in the post season due to a tear in the labrum of his hip. Josh Beckett struggled, causing one to wonder if he was still being nagged by his oblique strain. And post season domineer, Curt Schilling, missed the entire season due to shoulder problems.
In addition to the injuries, two of the club's biggest hitters, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, decided to go cold for the series.
So, how was it that the "superior" team lost?
Baseball is often a series of lucky breaks, opportunities caused by mistakes and intricate strategies working out correctly. There was certainly a mix of all that in the four games. Errors that cost runs. Squeeze plays not performed properly. Stupid base running gaffes.
But neither team held a clear advantage in any of that.
Pitching is crucial to winning. With the exception of Jon Lester, who was basically unhittable, there was no pitcher that stood out as being dominant. Lackey was decent, but the Sox have scored off him before. Sox pitchers gave up runs as well as Angels pitchers, just not as many.
Jason Bay hit a couple home runs, and JD Drew hit one as well. Mike Napoli dinged a couple over the Green Monster during the one game that the Angels won. The series, though, wasn't exactly a clinic for power hitting. Nor was it really a clinic for small ball either.
So, we come back to the question - how did the "superior" team lose?
The only answer I can come up with is that sometimes the numbers lie. Regular season statistics go out the door in the post-season, and the truth of the matter is this....
It is ALWAYS the better team that wins.
The Angels were a little flummoxed by their loss. After all, they were the better team as evidenced by the following excerpts:
The consensus in the clubhouse, from starter John Lackey -- seven innings, two earned runs -- to veterans Garret Anderson and Hunter, was that the superior team did not win this series.
"It's totally different [than the 2007 sweep by the Red Sox]," Lackey said. "They were better than us last year. They're not better than us this year."
To [Garret] Anderson, whose future also is uncertain, as the Angels hold an option on his contract for next season, "losing is always hard. I honestly felt we were better than they were, but it doesn't matter if you don't win. We just didn't get the job done and they did."
"You're not going to know who's coming back," [Torii] Hunter said, referring to potential free agents K-Rod, Anderson, Teixeira, Jon Garland, Juan Rivera and Darren Oliver. "You can't say you're going to be in the postseason again and have a team like this.
"This was our chance with this team -- unless everybody comes back. We're a better team than those guys, but they're moving on. They did something right, obviously."
Pitcher Scot Shields and Manager Mike Sciosia were a little more realistic in their assessments:
"I thought for sure that was definitely game over on the play Tex made," Shields said. "They deserve it. They beat us."
"I thought we played much better this series than going back to '04 or '07 against them," Scioscia said. "It's naturally disappointing, but we're going to have to keep trying to get better. That's all we can do."
Were the LA Angels better than the Boston Red Sox?
Conventional wisdom says that the better win-loss record would dictate such thinking. It has been pointed out, however, that the Angels were in a much weaker division than the Red Sox and consequently had a fairly easy go of it for half their games.
The Angels defeated the Red Sox nine times in ten appearances during the regular season. Unfortunately, the Red Sox were constantly dealing with injuries throughout the year, which actually makes their entrance into the post-season even more impressive.
The Angels retooled a bit with the signing of Torii Hunter in the off-season and the trade for Mark Texiera before the deadline. These two players alone provide much needed pop in the middle of the order taking some of that pressure off Vlad Guerrero.
The Red Sox, on the other hand, lost megamashing star Manny Ramirez, perhaps the most feared hitter in baseball today. Without Manny backing him up, David Ortiz' power numbers have dropped drastically (not to mention injury earlier in the season). Mike Lowell, last year's World Series MVP, was no presence in the post season due to a tear in the labrum of his hip. Josh Beckett struggled, causing one to wonder if he was still being nagged by his oblique strain. And post season domineer, Curt Schilling, missed the entire season due to shoulder problems.
In addition to the injuries, two of the club's biggest hitters, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, decided to go cold for the series.
So, how was it that the "superior" team lost?
Baseball is often a series of lucky breaks, opportunities caused by mistakes and intricate strategies working out correctly. There was certainly a mix of all that in the four games. Errors that cost runs. Squeeze plays not performed properly. Stupid base running gaffes.
But neither team held a clear advantage in any of that.
Pitching is crucial to winning. With the exception of Jon Lester, who was basically unhittable, there was no pitcher that stood out as being dominant. Lackey was decent, but the Sox have scored off him before. Sox pitchers gave up runs as well as Angels pitchers, just not as many.
Jason Bay hit a couple home runs, and JD Drew hit one as well. Mike Napoli dinged a couple over the Green Monster during the one game that the Angels won. The series, though, wasn't exactly a clinic for power hitting. Nor was it really a clinic for small ball either.
So, we come back to the question - how did the "superior" team lose?
The only answer I can come up with is that sometimes the numbers lie. Regular season statistics go out the door in the post-season, and the truth of the matter is this....
It is ALWAYS the better team that wins.
Friday, October 3, 2008
In Dollar We Trust?
There's an email going around instructing you to NOT receive any of the new dollar coins that are going into circulation (or maybe they are already) because the motto "In God We Trust" has been removed from them.
I don't believe we NEED "In God We Trust" on our currency in order to make transactions, however, I understand the principle behind the purpose of the email. It would be one more step in removing any recognition of God in our culture, and that is troubling.
However, the email is incorrect. "In God We Trust" has not been removed, it has been moved. Instead of finding it on the face of the coin, it has been stamped into the edge of the coin. That area that one would normally associate as the rough rim of a quarter, or the smooth rim of a nickel - there you will find "E Pluribus Unum" and "In God We Trust."
So do the person who sends you this email a favor. Enlighten them with the truth. It is in short supply these days.
I don't believe we NEED "In God We Trust" on our currency in order to make transactions, however, I understand the principle behind the purpose of the email. It would be one more step in removing any recognition of God in our culture, and that is troubling.
However, the email is incorrect. "In God We Trust" has not been removed, it has been moved. Instead of finding it on the face of the coin, it has been stamped into the edge of the coin. That area that one would normally associate as the rough rim of a quarter, or the smooth rim of a nickel - there you will find "E Pluribus Unum" and "In God We Trust."
So do the person who sends you this email a favor. Enlighten them with the truth. It is in short supply these days.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
October Baseball - Does it Get Any Better?
The post-season players:
NLDS
Philadelphia vs. Milwaukee
Chicago vs. Los Angeles
ALDS
Tampa Bay vs. Chicago
Boston vs. Los Angeles
Los Angeles and Chicago are having a dream post-season, eh?
So far, the Dodgers have beaten the Cubs, 7-2. The Phillies beat the Brewers, 3-1 and the Red Sox topped the Angels, 4-1.
Good to see the Phillies back in the swing of it. It's been a while. Same with the Cubs. I would have liked to see them beat the Dodgers in their own field, but that's what can happen in baseball. Also good to see Boston show some life. I'm not sure starting Lackey in the first game was a wise move. True, he pitched a great game against the Sox at Fenway not too long ago, but Santana would have been better out of the gate. Historically, Lackey doesn't fare well against the Sox.
Anyway, the end of summer is upon us (post-season baseball) even though the end of summer was a week or two ago. Enjoy.
NLDS
Philadelphia vs. Milwaukee
Chicago vs. Los Angeles
ALDS
Tampa Bay vs. Chicago
Boston vs. Los Angeles
Los Angeles and Chicago are having a dream post-season, eh?
So far, the Dodgers have beaten the Cubs, 7-2. The Phillies beat the Brewers, 3-1 and the Red Sox topped the Angels, 4-1.
Good to see the Phillies back in the swing of it. It's been a while. Same with the Cubs. I would have liked to see them beat the Dodgers in their own field, but that's what can happen in baseball. Also good to see Boston show some life. I'm not sure starting Lackey in the first game was a wise move. True, he pitched a great game against the Sox at Fenway not too long ago, but Santana would have been better out of the gate. Historically, Lackey doesn't fare well against the Sox.
Anyway, the end of summer is upon us (post-season baseball) even though the end of summer was a week or two ago. Enjoy.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Here's the Best Explanation
With regards to the current financial situation, this is the best, most succinct explanation I've read as to its cause.
Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis
Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis
Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
----------------
Miron suggests that the answer to the problem is bankruptcy, not bailout. His reasons can be read here: www.cnn.com
Friday, September 26, 2008
Bailout in Jeopardy
There's gridlock in Washington over the bailout of financial institutions.
I can't say I'm disappointed, and I can't say I'm happy. I don't want a bailout, but I'm not so sure I want the fallout from no bailout either.
As with any bill that involves a large sum of money, the party in control of Congress wants to give away the store and bail out people who took out mortgages they had no business taking out. And, inexplicably, the President seems to be in the same generosity boat. I wonder about George Bush's principles some times.
You know, it was the attitude of "I want me some of that action" that got us here in the first place. That same attitude will always raise its tempting head in times of irrational market bubbles. It's a mob mentality that is driven, in part, by the fear of missing out on the cookies sitting on the table, no matter how poisonous they may end up being. I guess it's human nature, but what is dismaying about it is that the so called experts with cooler heads who should know better (insert your own cliche) seem to be taken in by it as well.
It's about greed, of course. It's about insane profit and power positioning.
I emailed my brokerage, Scottrade, to ask them about their exposure to the financial meltdown.
This was their response:
Dear Mr. Howe,
Thanks for your email. Scottrade has no exposure to any derivatives, or mortgage backed securities. Scottrade invests free cash balances in treasury types of securities. You may view our audited financials at www.scottradefinancials.com.
Then the email went on to talk about SIPC and whatnot. But I was pleased to see that Scottrade, more than anything else, maintained a clear thinking, principled position with regards to how it manages its free cash balances.
With regards to solutions, I received this email, and it seems like a pretty good idea to me.
The Birk Economic Recovery Plan
Hi Pals,
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. Of course this is also for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!
I can't say I'm disappointed, and I can't say I'm happy. I don't want a bailout, but I'm not so sure I want the fallout from no bailout either.
As with any bill that involves a large sum of money, the party in control of Congress wants to give away the store and bail out people who took out mortgages they had no business taking out. And, inexplicably, the President seems to be in the same generosity boat. I wonder about George Bush's principles some times.
You know, it was the attitude of "I want me some of that action" that got us here in the first place. That same attitude will always raise its tempting head in times of irrational market bubbles. It's a mob mentality that is driven, in part, by the fear of missing out on the cookies sitting on the table, no matter how poisonous they may end up being. I guess it's human nature, but what is dismaying about it is that the so called experts with cooler heads who should know better (insert your own cliche) seem to be taken in by it as well.
It's about greed, of course. It's about insane profit and power positioning.
I emailed my brokerage, Scottrade, to ask them about their exposure to the financial meltdown.
This was their response:
Dear Mr. Howe,
Thanks for your email. Scottrade has no exposure to any derivatives, or mortgage backed securities. Scottrade invests free cash balances in treasury types of securities. You may view our audited financials at www.scottradefinancials.com.
Then the email went on to talk about SIPC and whatnot. But I was pleased to see that Scottrade, more than anything else, maintained a clear thinking, principled position with regards to how it manages its free cash balances.
With regards to solutions, I received this email, and it seems like a pretty good idea to me.
The Birk Economic Recovery Plan
Hi Pals,
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.
To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+.
Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.
Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else
Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. Of course this is also for those serving in our Armed Forces.
If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.
If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!
As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."
But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion 'We Deserve It Dividend' more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .
And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion!!
Anyway, be prepared for rough waters still to come. We ain't out of the woods by any shot of the imagination. Best wishes to you and your financial survival.
Monday, September 22, 2008
This SHOULD Be all Voters Need to Know
Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
From Bloomberg.com Article
Unfortunately, voters don't really care about things like this, do they?
From Bloomberg.com Article
Unfortunately, voters don't really care about things like this, do they?
Monday, September 8, 2008
This is Getting Funny
I, like many others, have received numerous emails from Nigeria, Ocean Bank, Gabon and so on, all purporting to want to send me millions of dollars or have me share in millions of dollars of tied up funds simply by becoming a conduit. They are, of course, scam emails. I just delete them, usually without reading them.
However, I happened to read down through this one and found it humorous (not that the writer was trying to be) for the effort the scammers are putting forth trying to conjure up a different angle. Here is the email in its entirety:
Federal Ministry of Finance.
Directorate of International Payment.
Liaison Office - Africa.
This email is to notify you about the release of your outstanding payment which is truly $4.7 million. The Federal Government scheduled a time frame to settle all foreign debts which includes Contract/Inheritance/Gambling/Lottery and other internal loans. News had it that over the past, numerous individual(s) who happen to be impostors (claiming to be individuals, banks and organizations) are claiming to release numerous sums of fund via numerous ways.
With the help of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission we have noticed that you have being asked to pay outrageous amount of money by these impostors for the transfer of your funds to you. We want you to stop all communication that has to do with these fraudsters who have been requesting unreasonable sums of money from you to release your funds which they do not have access to.
We have received a mandate and instructions of the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria: Umaru Yar'Adua (GCFR) together with the EFCC Nigeria, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to commence the immediate release of your funds through one of the following payment options stated below depending on your choice:
1. Payment via Automatic Teller Machine (ATM card): This where you
will be sent an Automatic Teller Machine card also known as ATM card
(Debit Card issued by MasterCard). Upon receipt of your ATM card you
will be allowed to withdraw $10,000.00 per day by default and you are
given the option to increase the withdrawal limit of your card to a
range of $20,000.00 if you want.
2. Certified Cashiers Check or Bank Draft: In this case you will be
sent a certified bank draft or check signed in your favor which you
will deposit in your bank for it to be cleared within 3 to 5 working
days at most depending on your bank.
You are advised to select one out of the two options on how you wish
to receive your $4.7 million. Your ATM card or Check/Bank Draft will
be shipped via Fedex Shipping Company and would get to you within 2
to 3 working days at most.
DO NOT SEND MONEY TO ANYONE UNTIL YOU READ THIS: The actual fees for shipping your ATM card is $96.99 but because Fedex have temporarily discontinued the C.O.D which gives you the chance to pay when package is delivered for international shipping as stated on their website:
http://fedex.com/us/international/irc/profiles/irc_ng_profile.html?gtmcc=us#C10
We had to sign contract with them for bulk shipping which makes the fees reduce from the actual $96.99 to $73.95 nothing more and no hidden fees of any sort!
You are advised to contact the dispatch officer responsible for the shipping of your Check or ATM card with the following information for shipping of your payment Check or ATM card.
Dispatch Officer: Michael Grizla
Email: michaelgrizla@gmail.com
Tel: +234-234-702-638-5998 and 011-234-702-638-5998
And provide him with the following information:
Your full Name...
Your Address:................
Home/Cell Phone:...................
Preferred Payment Method (Check or ATM):................
The dispatch officer will provide you with instructions on how you are to make payment of the $73.95 only for the shipping of your ATM card or Cashiers Check.
This measure is intended to stop the impostors you have erroneously been dealing with. You are to adhere strictly to the instructions above for more information contact the dispatch officer.
Remember that you are not paying any fees extra no matter what. Once again note that the actual Fedex Retail Price: $96.99 Your Price (Because of our contract signed): $73.95 ($23.04 Savings!).
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Jerry Lisbon
Cc: Senate President
Cc: All Foreign Payment Offices
Note: don't ever reply to emails like this. Delete them right away.
However, I happened to read down through this one and found it humorous (not that the writer was trying to be) for the effort the scammers are putting forth trying to conjure up a different angle. Here is the email in its entirety:
Federal Ministry of Finance.
Directorate of International Payment.
Liaison Office - Africa.
This email is to notify you about the release of your outstanding payment which is truly $4.7 million. The Federal Government scheduled a time frame to settle all foreign debts which includes Contract/Inheritance/Gambling/Lottery and other internal loans. News had it that over the past, numerous individual(s) who happen to be impostors (claiming to be individuals, banks and organizations) are claiming to release numerous sums of fund via numerous ways.
With the help of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission we have noticed that you have being asked to pay outrageous amount of money by these impostors for the transfer of your funds to you. We want you to stop all communication that has to do with these fraudsters who have been requesting unreasonable sums of money from you to release your funds which they do not have access to.
We have received a mandate and instructions of the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria: Umaru Yar'Adua (GCFR) together with the EFCC Nigeria, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to commence the immediate release of your funds through one of the following payment options stated below depending on your choice:
1. Payment via Automatic Teller Machine (ATM card): This where you
will be sent an Automatic Teller Machine card also known as ATM card
(Debit Card issued by MasterCard). Upon receipt of your ATM card you
will be allowed to withdraw $10,000.00 per day by default and you are
given the option to increase the withdrawal limit of your card to a
range of $20,000.00 if you want.
2. Certified Cashiers Check or Bank Draft: In this case you will be
sent a certified bank draft or check signed in your favor which you
will deposit in your bank for it to be cleared within 3 to 5 working
days at most depending on your bank.
You are advised to select one out of the two options on how you wish
to receive your $4.7 million. Your ATM card or Check/Bank Draft will
be shipped via Fedex Shipping Company and would get to you within 2
to 3 working days at most.
DO NOT SEND MONEY TO ANYONE UNTIL YOU READ THIS: The actual fees for shipping your ATM card is $96.99 but because Fedex have temporarily discontinued the C.O.D which gives you the chance to pay when package is delivered for international shipping as stated on their website:
http://fedex.com/us/international/irc/profiles/irc_ng_profile.html?gtmcc=us#C10
We had to sign contract with them for bulk shipping which makes the fees reduce from the actual $96.99 to $73.95 nothing more and no hidden fees of any sort!
You are advised to contact the dispatch officer responsible for the shipping of your Check or ATM card with the following information for shipping of your payment Check or ATM card.
Dispatch Officer: Michael Grizla
Email: michaelgrizla@gmail.com
Tel: +234-234-702-638-5998 and 011-234-702-638-5998
And provide him with the following information:
Your full Name...
Your Address:................
Home/Cell Phone:...................
Preferred Payment Method (Check or ATM):................
The dispatch officer will provide you with instructions on how you are to make payment of the $73.95 only for the shipping of your ATM card or Cashiers Check.
This measure is intended to stop the impostors you have erroneously been dealing with. You are to adhere strictly to the instructions above for more information contact the dispatch officer.
Remember that you are not paying any fees extra no matter what. Once again note that the actual Fedex Retail Price: $96.99 Your Price (Because of our contract signed): $73.95 ($23.04 Savings!).
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Jerry Lisbon
Cc: Senate President
Cc: All Foreign Payment Offices
Note: don't ever reply to emails like this. Delete them right away.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Media Never Ceases to Boggle...
A news promo on a local talk station just announced,
"Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has the Republicans wildly enthusiastic about her. Not so with the Democrats. Story coming up..."
How the $@$#@#$ is this a news story? Huh? Can someone tell me?
When have Democrats ever been enthusiastic about a Republican candidate? And when have Republicans ever been enthusiastic about a Democrat candidate?
Yet, they announce it with all seriousness as if it was a real teaser.
The media has such a patronizing view of its listener/reader/viewership.
They don't even bother to camouflage their arrogance.
Give me a fricken break, WGAN of Portland, Maine.
In other awesomely obvious breaking news:
OPRAH REFUSES: PALIN WON'T BE ON
and
Obama-backer [Annette] Bening pillories Palin
____________________________________________________
On a totally different note:
I think people who decide to go into politics should be required to have spent at least five years working in the private sector AND they should be required to spend at least three years in the military.
"Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, has the Republicans wildly enthusiastic about her. Not so with the Democrats. Story coming up..."
How the $@$#@#$ is this a news story? Huh? Can someone tell me?
When have Democrats ever been enthusiastic about a Republican candidate? And when have Republicans ever been enthusiastic about a Democrat candidate?
Yet, they announce it with all seriousness as if it was a real teaser.
The media has such a patronizing view of its listener/reader/viewership.
They don't even bother to camouflage their arrogance.
Give me a fricken break, WGAN of Portland, Maine.
In other awesomely obvious breaking news:
OPRAH REFUSES: PALIN WON'T BE ON
and
Obama-backer [Annette] Bening pillories Palin
____________________________________________________
On a totally different note:
I think people who decide to go into politics should be required to have spent at least five years working in the private sector AND they should be required to spend at least three years in the military.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
And the Winner is....
Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain recently announced their running mates to much fanfare and discussion on the airwaves and internet.
I am not a political analyst or pundit, but I have a few thoughts.
First, it seems to me like there has been a stronger focus on VP running mate picks this year than in the past. I'm probably just remembering it all wrong, but if true it doesn't reflect well on the presidential candidates themselves. I am not impressed with either party's nods to the top political position of our country. I'm guessing there are a lot of people in the same boat with me. Therefore, it becomes paramount to select the right running mate.
On the Democratic side, I have to think that a selection of Hilary Clinton would have really ignited the base, would have signified the party unity that they all kept talking about during their convention. It would have married the old machine Democrats to the New Age Democrats in a way that would have sent sparks throughout the country.
But Obama had to be looking at Hilary as an upstage to himself, and Bill certainly would have been an issue if Obama makes it to the White House. Enter Joe Biden. I may be wrong, but I am assuming that Biden was someone else's choice for Obama. No problem there; both candidates have a bevy of advisors that they listen to.
Joe Biden offers Obama many things Obama doesn't have - experience, many years of experience, and more experience. Plus, I have to add that oft tossed about word: gravitas. That was certainly the reason the machine chose Lloyd Bentsen for Dukakis back in 88. Both Bentsen and Biden are considered elder statesmen of the party.
But Joe Biden doesn't excite, doesn't energize the base, much of which is weeping because Hilary wasn't chosen. I can't imagine that Biden was Obama's desired outcome. I have a tendency to think that someone sold Biden to Obama because the chemistry just doesn't seem to work to me.
On the other hand, McCain's advisors kept pushing Lieberman-McCain, Ridge-McCain, Romney-McCain tickets. In the end McCain selected Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.
The acceptance speech Palin gave was electric. It was powerful for what she said and for what she didn't say. It was a positive message of reform and common sense.
I think the selection of Palin was a brilliant move for McCain. He was having difficulty attracting women voters, and this can only help instead of hinder. He was having difficulty with the Republican base because he is seen too much as a appeaser and ally to the Democratic side of the aisle.
Given that McCain's people were stumping for a different matchup for McCain, I can only assume that Palin WAS McCain's choice, politically strategic of course, but no less inspired. Sarah Palin, by all articles I've read to date, has had the effect of making those who would not vote for McCain look at him in a different light now. The base seems to be swinging back toward him.
I'm still not crazy about either choice for President, because that is ultimately what we are voting for. However, the VEEP choices have cast a new light on things and it will be very interesting to see what transpires in November. Get out and vote!
I am not a political analyst or pundit, but I have a few thoughts.
First, it seems to me like there has been a stronger focus on VP running mate picks this year than in the past. I'm probably just remembering it all wrong, but if true it doesn't reflect well on the presidential candidates themselves. I am not impressed with either party's nods to the top political position of our country. I'm guessing there are a lot of people in the same boat with me. Therefore, it becomes paramount to select the right running mate.
On the Democratic side, I have to think that a selection of Hilary Clinton would have really ignited the base, would have signified the party unity that they all kept talking about during their convention. It would have married the old machine Democrats to the New Age Democrats in a way that would have sent sparks throughout the country.
But Obama had to be looking at Hilary as an upstage to himself, and Bill certainly would have been an issue if Obama makes it to the White House. Enter Joe Biden. I may be wrong, but I am assuming that Biden was someone else's choice for Obama. No problem there; both candidates have a bevy of advisors that they listen to.
Joe Biden offers Obama many things Obama doesn't have - experience, many years of experience, and more experience. Plus, I have to add that oft tossed about word: gravitas. That was certainly the reason the machine chose Lloyd Bentsen for Dukakis back in 88. Both Bentsen and Biden are considered elder statesmen of the party.
But Joe Biden doesn't excite, doesn't energize the base, much of which is weeping because Hilary wasn't chosen. I can't imagine that Biden was Obama's desired outcome. I have a tendency to think that someone sold Biden to Obama because the chemistry just doesn't seem to work to me.
On the other hand, McCain's advisors kept pushing Lieberman-McCain, Ridge-McCain, Romney-McCain tickets. In the end McCain selected Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska.
The acceptance speech Palin gave was electric. It was powerful for what she said and for what she didn't say. It was a positive message of reform and common sense.
I think the selection of Palin was a brilliant move for McCain. He was having difficulty attracting women voters, and this can only help instead of hinder. He was having difficulty with the Republican base because he is seen too much as a appeaser and ally to the Democratic side of the aisle.
Given that McCain's people were stumping for a different matchup for McCain, I can only assume that Palin WAS McCain's choice, politically strategic of course, but no less inspired. Sarah Palin, by all articles I've read to date, has had the effect of making those who would not vote for McCain look at him in a different light now. The base seems to be swinging back toward him.
I'm still not crazy about either choice for President, because that is ultimately what we are voting for. However, the VEEP choices have cast a new light on things and it will be very interesting to see what transpires in November. Get out and vote!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
For Those Who Wait
I have an order in for a box of books (Of Trains and Other Things). As it has been taking a while for fulfillment, I contacted CreateSpace about the turnaround. Just received notice from them basically saying that they are backed up, and I'll get the books when I get them.
So, if you are waiting for a signed copy from me, please know that I've checked into it.
Thanks, Jeff
So, if you are waiting for a signed copy from me, please know that I've checked into it.
Thanks, Jeff
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Of Trains and Other Things
Now available - Of Trains and Other Things.
My new book of short stories:
My new book of short stories:
For more information: www.thejeffhowe.com
An excerpt from A Forest in Forever, one of the stories in the book:
An excerpt from A Forest in Forever, one of the stories in the book:
Just as we reached the door, my cell phone rang.
“Hold on a minute, Maggie,” I said. Speaking into the phone, “Yeah?”
“Dad!”
“Stevie?”
“Yeah, Dad. Just thought I’d call to see if you made it home okay.”
“Stevie, I’m just fine, thank you.”
“Is that music I hear playing?”
“Yeah, Stevie... listen, I’m with your mom right now. I’ll call you back later.”
There was a brief silence. “Dad?”
“Yeah, what?”
“Dad, Mom died three years ago.”
I sighed. “Don’t you think I know that Stevie?”
“So, what do you mean that you are with Mom?”
“I’ll try to explain it to you later, Stevie, OK? Goodbye.” I was getting a little impatient with this conversation.
“But, Da...” I turned off the phone, folded it shut and returned it to my belt.
Smiling at Maggie, I motioned to the door and said, “Shall we?”
“Love to,” she smiled back.
I opened the door. Then I picked her up and carried her into the cabin. She giggled like a teenager as I kicked the door closed behind us.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Facebook vs. MySpace
I have an account with both sites. I set them up as a way to promote books and reconnect with old college buds.
I used to prefer MySpace over Facebook, but I'm not so sure now.
Facebook is wonky - more so than MySpace. It takes a while to get used to its rhythms and methods. But both sites are fairly silly in their own right. MySpace continues to be a spam avenue for people posting porn sites. Facebook allows you to send virtual gifts to others (I haven't figured out the point of that yet). And I've run into people on both sites who've responded to my friend request with "Do we know each other?"
It's a funny thing to be on a networking site where people resist networking.
However, it's more difficult, it seems to me, to do this on MySpace. There seems to be more resistance to networking there than on Facebook. I've sent out oodles of friend invites on MySpace with few to no results (except for the occasional "Do we know each other?")
On Facebook, it seems to be less of an issue. Most people accept the invite and I've only had one questioner during the time I've been doing this.
I don't think all this social networking has really done a darn thing when it comes to book sales. I certainly haven't seen an increase because of it. But I'll keep on keeping on because there's definitely NO benefit in not doing it.
I used to prefer MySpace over Facebook, but I'm not so sure now.
Facebook is wonky - more so than MySpace. It takes a while to get used to its rhythms and methods. But both sites are fairly silly in their own right. MySpace continues to be a spam avenue for people posting porn sites. Facebook allows you to send virtual gifts to others (I haven't figured out the point of that yet). And I've run into people on both sites who've responded to my friend request with "Do we know each other?"
It's a funny thing to be on a networking site where people resist networking.
However, it's more difficult, it seems to me, to do this on MySpace. There seems to be more resistance to networking there than on Facebook. I've sent out oodles of friend invites on MySpace with few to no results (except for the occasional "Do we know each other?")
On Facebook, it seems to be less of an issue. Most people accept the invite and I've only had one questioner during the time I've been doing this.
I don't think all this social networking has really done a darn thing when it comes to book sales. I certainly haven't seen an increase because of it. But I'll keep on keeping on because there's definitely NO benefit in not doing it.
The Truth is Revealed
Let's face it.... this is really why beach volleyball is an olympic sport:
No mystery there!
No mystery there!
Saturday, August 2, 2008
ManRam vs. JayBay
The last second trade which sent Manny Ramirez to Los Angeles and delivered Jason Bay to Boston will go down in Sox history as one of the biggest. Certainly one of the top ten. Ramirez was an iconic figure in Boston, albeit a rather self-absorbed, self-centered, selfish and wacky one. Sort of like Tom Cruise with a bat.
It's already been touted as a top niner by the Boston Herald, so I must be right.
Anyway, the sweet irony to the whole situation is this:
In their respective debuts, Jason Bay scored both runs for the Red Sox which gave them a 2-1 victory over the Oakland Athletics and Manny Ramirez grounded into a double play in the bottom of the ninth to set the stage for Los Angeles' 2-1 loss to the Diamondbacks.
2-1.
On one team, the new guy was the difference-maker. On the other team, the new guy was the yawn-maker.
Manny had two hits in four at bats - neither of them productive.
Jason had one hit in five at bats, two walks and was hit by a pitch. His one hit was a triple, and he brought home the winning run on a Jed Lowrie infield single.
This isn't to infer that the debuts are some sort of harbinger of things to come. (Or are they?)
But look at it from this point of view. Manny bats clean up for the Dodgers, drives in no runs, gets no runs. Jason Bay bats fifth for the Sox, gets on with a walk in his first at bat, goes to third on a JD Drew double and comes home on a sac fly by Lowrie in the second inning. Then in the 12th, he hits a triple and is brought home, once again, by Lowrie, winning the game.
Teamwork. Pure and simple. Setting up scenarios to provide the opportunity for the team to score.
We will miss the Ramirez home run explosions - no doubt about that. But Jason Bay has returned a vital element to the Red Sox, the sense of team.
And it could make all the difference in the world.
It's already been touted as a top niner by the Boston Herald, so I must be right.
Anyway, the sweet irony to the whole situation is this:
In their respective debuts, Jason Bay scored both runs for the Red Sox which gave them a 2-1 victory over the Oakland Athletics and Manny Ramirez grounded into a double play in the bottom of the ninth to set the stage for Los Angeles' 2-1 loss to the Diamondbacks.
2-1.
On one team, the new guy was the difference-maker. On the other team, the new guy was the yawn-maker.
Manny had two hits in four at bats - neither of them productive.
Jason had one hit in five at bats, two walks and was hit by a pitch. His one hit was a triple, and he brought home the winning run on a Jed Lowrie infield single.
This isn't to infer that the debuts are some sort of harbinger of things to come. (Or are they?)
But look at it from this point of view. Manny bats clean up for the Dodgers, drives in no runs, gets no runs. Jason Bay bats fifth for the Sox, gets on with a walk in his first at bat, goes to third on a JD Drew double and comes home on a sac fly by Lowrie in the second inning. Then in the 12th, he hits a triple and is brought home, once again, by Lowrie, winning the game.
Teamwork. Pure and simple. Setting up scenarios to provide the opportunity for the team to score.
We will miss the Ramirez home run explosions - no doubt about that. But Jason Bay has returned a vital element to the Red Sox, the sense of team.
And it could make all the difference in the world.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Sox Knox
So here we are, 1 day away from the trade deadline of July 31. Of course, trades can still take place after that date, but the players must clear waivers first before a trade goes through.
The Red Sox have some issues that need to be addressed. The bullpen could really use some competence and consistency beyond what it's been able to do this year. The catcher position has really gone downhill from an offensive standpoint - Jason Varitek is batting .215 at last look and Cash was never going to be another Pudge Fisk, though he handles Wakefield well. Jacoby Ellsbury has fallen off the map offensively. And there's always the everlasting saga of Manny being Manny.
At this point in the season, the Red Sox' hold on 2nd place in their division seems tenuous. They lost a three game series to the Yankees and have done so as well against the potent Angels. The Rays don't show any indications of rolling over and playing dead either.
The Yankees made a good deal and acquired Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte from the Pirates. The Angels have traded for Mark Texiera from the Braves. They have both improved their teams with players in which it was rumored the Sox were interested.
And the Red Sox have done - nothing.
The "brilliance" of Theo Epstein seems to have been trumped this season. Maybe the Sox don't need to shore up any positions to make it to the post season - there's still a lot of baseball to play.
But as things stand right now, I'd say it's time for RSN to lower expectations.
The Red Sox have some issues that need to be addressed. The bullpen could really use some competence and consistency beyond what it's been able to do this year. The catcher position has really gone downhill from an offensive standpoint - Jason Varitek is batting .215 at last look and Cash was never going to be another Pudge Fisk, though he handles Wakefield well. Jacoby Ellsbury has fallen off the map offensively. And there's always the everlasting saga of Manny being Manny.
At this point in the season, the Red Sox' hold on 2nd place in their division seems tenuous. They lost a three game series to the Yankees and have done so as well against the potent Angels. The Rays don't show any indications of rolling over and playing dead either.
The Yankees made a good deal and acquired Xavier Nady and Damaso Marte from the Pirates. The Angels have traded for Mark Texiera from the Braves. They have both improved their teams with players in which it was rumored the Sox were interested.
And the Red Sox have done - nothing.
The "brilliance" of Theo Epstein seems to have been trumped this season. Maybe the Sox don't need to shore up any positions to make it to the post season - there's still a lot of baseball to play.
But as things stand right now, I'd say it's time for RSN to lower expectations.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Just Had to Post This...
Ran across this quote on someone's Facebook site and loved it!
If a man makes a statement in the forest and his wife is not there to hear it, is he still wrong?
- Unknown
If a man makes a statement in the forest and his wife is not there to hear it, is he still wrong?
- Unknown
Saturday, May 31, 2008
2008 Meets 1987
The Boston Celtics have made it to the NBA finals for the first time since 1987. 21 years ago, the Celtics lost to the Lakers, one of the biggest sports rivalries of the 1980s.
21 years ago (at this time), I had been married for less than a year. My wife and I moved from Georgia to Maine 21 years ago, and it would be another six years before we started reproducing.
21 years ago, I was 26 years old and had hair.
One newspaper story states: "Boston got past an old nemesis to set up a matchup with another rival." The Detroit Pistons were an old nemesis from over twenty years ago. But back then they had Bill Laimbeer, Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman. The Pistons of today don't exude one-one hundredth of the "badness" that those guys did.
Then again, the Celtics of today have a Big 3, but something doesn't seem right to place that moniker on Garnett, Pierce and Allen. As much as they may be a Big 3, they aren't THE Big 3, if you know what I mean. In fact, I would daresay, there'll never ever be a trio like Bird, McHale and Parrish in the history of basketball again.
Yeah, it's the newsies trying to gin up comparative excitement. I don't think it's necessary, though. The NBA was magic back in the 80s for what it brought in terms of talent and entertainment. Now it seems to be resurging a bit from its hip-hop, grunge 90s image, and the new-look Celtics have caused people to notice it again.
Good luck 2008 Celtics. You don't need to worry about the brand legacy. Create your own.
On another note:
Apparently Susan Sarandon has stated that if McCain is elected President, she will move to Italy or Canada.
Didn't she say something very similar when Bush was running back in 2004?
Hey Susan - your credibility is showing! lol
21 years ago (at this time), I had been married for less than a year. My wife and I moved from Georgia to Maine 21 years ago, and it would be another six years before we started reproducing.
21 years ago, I was 26 years old and had hair.
One newspaper story states: "Boston got past an old nemesis to set up a matchup with another rival." The Detroit Pistons were an old nemesis from over twenty years ago. But back then they had Bill Laimbeer, Isiah Thomas and Dennis Rodman. The Pistons of today don't exude one-one hundredth of the "badness" that those guys did.
Then again, the Celtics of today have a Big 3, but something doesn't seem right to place that moniker on Garnett, Pierce and Allen. As much as they may be a Big 3, they aren't THE Big 3, if you know what I mean. In fact, I would daresay, there'll never ever be a trio like Bird, McHale and Parrish in the history of basketball again.
Yeah, it's the newsies trying to gin up comparative excitement. I don't think it's necessary, though. The NBA was magic back in the 80s for what it brought in terms of talent and entertainment. Now it seems to be resurging a bit from its hip-hop, grunge 90s image, and the new-look Celtics have caused people to notice it again.
Good luck 2008 Celtics. You don't need to worry about the brand legacy. Create your own.
On another note:
Apparently Susan Sarandon has stated that if McCain is elected President, she will move to Italy or Canada.
Didn't she say something very similar when Bush was running back in 2004?
Hey Susan - your credibility is showing! lol
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Is It Too Much to Ask?
Can we, as a culture, just stop saying the combo word "ginormous" right now? It's not funny; it's not cute. I don't even think it's particularly descriptive.
Am I wrong here?
Also, can we ban normal retail commercials where the spokesman in the ad at the end says, "I'm so and so, and I approved this message."? It's annoying enough to have to hear it in political ads.
Am I wrong here?
Also, can we ban normal retail commercials where the spokesman in the ad at the end says, "I'm so and so, and I approved this message."? It's annoying enough to have to hear it in political ads.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The AI Finals
First song:
Clive Davis Pick
Second Song
Songwriters Contest
Third Song
Personal Choice
Because of this mindless love for "Imagine" Archie probably won the round. I would have picked DC though. His performance was artistry. Archie's was schmaltz.
So in my world the score ends up David Cook 2, David Archuleta 1.
But I've always preferred art over teenage marketability. Guess that's why I'm not rich.
Clive Davis Pick
- David Cook - “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” by U2
- David Archuleta - “Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on Me” by Elton John
Second Song
Songwriters Contest
- David Cook - “Dream Big”
- David Archuleta - “In This Moment”
Third Song
Personal Choice
- David Cook - “The World I Know” by Collective Soul
- David Archuleta - “Imagine” by John Lennon
Because of this mindless love for "Imagine" Archie probably won the round. I would have picked DC though. His performance was artistry. Archie's was schmaltz.
So in my world the score ends up David Cook 2, David Archuleta 1.
But I've always preferred art over teenage marketability. Guess that's why I'm not rich.
Friday, May 16, 2008
What Could be Done?
American Idol has slipped in the ratings. It's not drawing the same amount of people it has in the past. For its time slot, it still usually leads, however, the decline has been noticed and commented on ad nauseum (sometimes with hand-rubbing glee).
Part of this has to be attributable to being in its 7th season. The bloom is off the rose, so to speak. It has reached saturation and is going through the natural evolution of a show that has run for multiple years. I assume (I don't really know) that Survivor probably doesn't draw like it used to. But these reality shows are so inexpensive to make (relative to other shows) that CBS is still able to make money from it despite the drop in ratings.
That's ultimately what keeps a show running - if it makes money.
One of the other problems with AI, as far as I can see, is that it has become all too predictable. Even if the judges' comments aren't scripted, they often give the appearance of being so. And it seems like they try to shape the 'contest' to go in a specific direction. This year's example would be the final David vs. David face-off.
I think it's time to retool Idol.
I think it's time to turn it into a singing competition instead of a popularity contest.
Here's a few ideas as to what sort of changes I'd like to see.
1. When it gets down to the final 6-8 (or maybe even 10?), the participants should sing the ENTIRE song - not a 90 second snippet. Or at least they should be limited to 3 minutes (this will prevent someone from singing a 10-minute song, but still give sufficient time to build to a climax.
2. The results show needs to go. It's 95% fluff with only 5% of what we want to see. I did not watch any results show beyond the top 10 this year because I am sick to death of Ford videos, group sings, special guest star sings and so on. I just want to know who stays and who goes.
3. The top 6 should have to face off against each other in a steel cage death match. Bo staff optional.
4. There should only be one vote per person. No speed dialing, no multiple text messaging. Then we will actually see that only 100 people are voting each time - not the 300 million they continue to claim.
These are a few ideas. I'm sure that others have many more. Feel free to submit them in comments.
Part of this has to be attributable to being in its 7th season. The bloom is off the rose, so to speak. It has reached saturation and is going through the natural evolution of a show that has run for multiple years. I assume (I don't really know) that Survivor probably doesn't draw like it used to. But these reality shows are so inexpensive to make (relative to other shows) that CBS is still able to make money from it despite the drop in ratings.
That's ultimately what keeps a show running - if it makes money.
One of the other problems with AI, as far as I can see, is that it has become all too predictable. Even if the judges' comments aren't scripted, they often give the appearance of being so. And it seems like they try to shape the 'contest' to go in a specific direction. This year's example would be the final David vs. David face-off.
I think it's time to retool Idol.
I think it's time to turn it into a singing competition instead of a popularity contest.
Here's a few ideas as to what sort of changes I'd like to see.
1. When it gets down to the final 6-8 (or maybe even 10?), the participants should sing the ENTIRE song - not a 90 second snippet. Or at least they should be limited to 3 minutes (this will prevent someone from singing a 10-minute song, but still give sufficient time to build to a climax.
2. The results show needs to go. It's 95% fluff with only 5% of what we want to see. I did not watch any results show beyond the top 10 this year because I am sick to death of Ford videos, group sings, special guest star sings and so on. I just want to know who stays and who goes.
3. The top 6 should have to face off against each other in a steel cage death match. Bo staff optional.
4. There should only be one vote per person. No speed dialing, no multiple text messaging. Then we will actually see that only 100 people are voting each time - not the 300 million they continue to claim.
These are a few ideas. I'm sure that others have many more. Feel free to submit them in comments.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Redirect - Jason Fans, Enjoy
I can't be much of a blogger if I keep posting what other people write, eh? However, I really enjoyed this article. It made me wish I'd written it. It's written by Ann Powers of the Los Angeles Times.
Jason Castro rides off with the fun parade
The question hangs in the air: is “Idol” working? Or do dropping ratings and the strange enervation of the show’s Final Four contenders suggest that it has lost the potential to tap into pop’s fundamental pheromone, cited again and again by exhausted Idol strivers as a goal: simple, fleeting fun?
Jason Castro had more fun than any other contestant has managed in weeks, doing his hippie dance as he romped through “I Shot the Sheriff” after being eliminated. Good for him for reprising a song the judges clearly thought was inappropriate -- a song he obviously loved, and actually sang fairly competently, whatever the panel says.
Think about “I Shot the Sheriff” for a minute. A huge crossover hit for Eric Clapton in 1974, the song definitely sounded more Marley-esque in Castro’s hands. Its lyric is about killing a police officer; its rhythms evoke the off-kilter, skanky reggae of the late Jamaican master’s most revolutionary songs. This choice was way edgier than David Cook’s post-Stone Temple Pilots reworkings of R&B.
Had Castro chosen a more conciliatory Marley song, like “No Woman, No Cry” (also on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s list of 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll) Syesha might have departed before he did. But the good-natured nonconformist, apparently already sensing doom, chose to put his own pleasure first. His loosey-goosey rendition offered an exceedingly rare “Idol” sighting: the kind of spontaneity musicians actually conjure when playing live nearly anywhere but a television studio.
I wanted Jason to be eliminated, because I thought his super-sleepy energy was damping the fire of his more vocally gifted and showmanlike competitors. Now I’m not so sure. There’s something wrong up there: David Cook seems truly drained, David Archuleta’s melismatic runs grow more extreme as his anxiety visibly mounts, and Syesha Mercado is so desperate to figure out why she’s special that she’s taken to embarrassing herself with sweeping declarations about her “Idol” journey’s relationship to the slightly more momentous contest taking place on the primary circuit.
A quick defense of Syesha: I know some people were horrified that she turned the civil rights anthem “A Change Is Gonna Come” into a vehicle for self-aggrandizement. She didn’t make her comparison tactfully, but she’s not the only entertainer to relate personal success to the larger matter of uplifting the race.
Kanye West’s notorious line in the song “Good Morning” –- “I’m like the fly Malcolm X, buy any jeans necessary” –- may or may not have been a joke, but Mary J. Blige was dead serious when she told “Blender" magazine, “My God wants me to bling.” And I’ll bet Halle Berry’s emotional Academy Awards’ speech upon becoming the first African-American to win Best Actress was somewhere in the back of Syesha’s mind when she made her comments.
Of course, Syesha’s hardly the first non-white woman to do well on “Idol.” But she stands alone in that category now. This year’s wide range of personalities could be one reason for the current aura of melancholy –- as their numbers dwindle, each hopeful seems more isolated within his or her niche.
Previous seasons had variety, but there was a sense that the Idols were learning from each other, or at least enjoying friendly rivalries. Now, each fits into a slot so particular that it’s hard to see how they even relate. What can Cook, a grown man who even tried (vainly) to inject some sex into the show this week with a growly “Hungry Like the Wolf,” really have to say to the virginal Archuleta? Can Syesha, whose charisma has unfurled alongside a disturbingly ruthless pageant-queen personality, stand to be around either of them, or is Cookie too grimy and Archie too naïve?
The “Idols” have to love each other for the show’s formula to work. They have to project real glee when they joke around in those silly Ford commercials, and cry in each other’s arms when Ryan gives one the ax. Without camaraderie –- without some whiff of fun, even in the hardest moments -- “Idol” no longer feels like an agent of magical transformation. It feels like an endless casting call.
No one wants to watch careerist kids fighting to be become pawns in a dying music industry. If the last few episodes of this season continue to sink in that direction, it will end in a sad finale, no matter who wins. Come on, Final Three. Bring back the fun. Keep that bit of Jason Castro’s spirit with you.
- Ann Powers
(photo courtesy of Fox)
Jason Castro rides off with the fun parade
The question hangs in the air: is “Idol” working? Or do dropping ratings and the strange enervation of the show’s Final Four contenders suggest that it has lost the potential to tap into pop’s fundamental pheromone, cited again and again by exhausted Idol strivers as a goal: simple, fleeting fun?
Jason Castro had more fun than any other contestant has managed in weeks, doing his hippie dance as he romped through “I Shot the Sheriff” after being eliminated. Good for him for reprising a song the judges clearly thought was inappropriate -- a song he obviously loved, and actually sang fairly competently, whatever the panel says.
Think about “I Shot the Sheriff” for a minute. A huge crossover hit for Eric Clapton in 1974, the song definitely sounded more Marley-esque in Castro’s hands. Its lyric is about killing a police officer; its rhythms evoke the off-kilter, skanky reggae of the late Jamaican master’s most revolutionary songs. This choice was way edgier than David Cook’s post-Stone Temple Pilots reworkings of R&B.
Had Castro chosen a more conciliatory Marley song, like “No Woman, No Cry” (also on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s list of 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll) Syesha might have departed before he did. But the good-natured nonconformist, apparently already sensing doom, chose to put his own pleasure first. His loosey-goosey rendition offered an exceedingly rare “Idol” sighting: the kind of spontaneity musicians actually conjure when playing live nearly anywhere but a television studio.
I wanted Jason to be eliminated, because I thought his super-sleepy energy was damping the fire of his more vocally gifted and showmanlike competitors. Now I’m not so sure. There’s something wrong up there: David Cook seems truly drained, David Archuleta’s melismatic runs grow more extreme as his anxiety visibly mounts, and Syesha Mercado is so desperate to figure out why she’s special that she’s taken to embarrassing herself with sweeping declarations about her “Idol” journey’s relationship to the slightly more momentous contest taking place on the primary circuit.
A quick defense of Syesha: I know some people were horrified that she turned the civil rights anthem “A Change Is Gonna Come” into a vehicle for self-aggrandizement. She didn’t make her comparison tactfully, but she’s not the only entertainer to relate personal success to the larger matter of uplifting the race.
Kanye West’s notorious line in the song “Good Morning” –- “I’m like the fly Malcolm X, buy any jeans necessary” –- may or may not have been a joke, but Mary J. Blige was dead serious when she told “Blender" magazine, “My God wants me to bling.” And I’ll bet Halle Berry’s emotional Academy Awards’ speech upon becoming the first African-American to win Best Actress was somewhere in the back of Syesha’s mind when she made her comments.
Of course, Syesha’s hardly the first non-white woman to do well on “Idol.” But she stands alone in that category now. This year’s wide range of personalities could be one reason for the current aura of melancholy –- as their numbers dwindle, each hopeful seems more isolated within his or her niche.
Previous seasons had variety, but there was a sense that the Idols were learning from each other, or at least enjoying friendly rivalries. Now, each fits into a slot so particular that it’s hard to see how they even relate. What can Cook, a grown man who even tried (vainly) to inject some sex into the show this week with a growly “Hungry Like the Wolf,” really have to say to the virginal Archuleta? Can Syesha, whose charisma has unfurled alongside a disturbingly ruthless pageant-queen personality, stand to be around either of them, or is Cookie too grimy and Archie too naïve?
The “Idols” have to love each other for the show’s formula to work. They have to project real glee when they joke around in those silly Ford commercials, and cry in each other’s arms when Ryan gives one the ax. Without camaraderie –- without some whiff of fun, even in the hardest moments -- “Idol” no longer feels like an agent of magical transformation. It feels like an endless casting call.
No one wants to watch careerist kids fighting to be become pawns in a dying music industry. If the last few episodes of this season continue to sink in that direction, it will end in a sad finale, no matter who wins. Come on, Final Three. Bring back the fun. Keep that bit of Jason Castro’s spirit with you.
- Ann Powers
(photo courtesy of Fox)
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Idol Wrap - Wednesday Night
I don't want to go into any specific comments with regards to particular singers and songs. However, I do have to say that the judges seem to be following some sort of scripted(?) path to carry Archuleta to the finals. I don't know why, but he just didn't deserve the magnanimous amounts of praise heaped on him.
He wasn't bad, but he wasn't THAT good.
I think Jason looked and sounded better during dress rehearsal than the live performance. Syesha did a really nice job, both songs.
And David Cook was David Cook.
With the show creating David Archuleta as some sort of strange standard-bearer, I find my interest levels dropping in the whole process. Next week, when it's only Cook, Mercado and Archuleta, I'm going to be hard pressed to think of a reason to tune in.
But I probably will anyway.
He wasn't bad, but he wasn't THAT good.
I think Jason looked and sounded better during dress rehearsal than the live performance. Syesha did a really nice job, both songs.
And David Cook was David Cook.
With the show creating David Archuleta as some sort of strange standard-bearer, I find my interest levels dropping in the whole process. Next week, when it's only Cook, Mercado and Archuleta, I'm going to be hard pressed to think of a reason to tune in.
But I probably will anyway.
500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll
This is the list that the AI contestants have to choose from this week:
500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll
They pick two from the list. Which direction do you think they'll go in?
Jason - The Weight by The Band?
David C - London Calling by The Clash?
David A - Bridge Over Troubled Water by Simon and Garfunkel?
Syesha - Respect by Aretha?
Tune in and find out.
AND HERE ARE THE SPOILERS:
500 Songs that Shaped Rock and Roll
They pick two from the list. Which direction do you think they'll go in?
Jason - The Weight by The Band?
David C - London Calling by The Clash?
David A - Bridge Over Troubled Water by Simon and Garfunkel?
Syesha - Respect by Aretha?
Tune in and find out.
AND HERE ARE THE SPOILERS:
Performance Order! From Carie
- David Cook - “Hungry Like the Wolf” by Duran Duran
- Syesha Mercado - “Proud Mary” by Ike and Tina Turner
- Jason Castro - “I Shot the Sheriff” by Bob Marley
- David Archuleta- “Stand by Me” by Ben E. King
- David Cook - “Baba O’Riley” by The Who
- Syesha Mercado - “Change is Gonna Come” by Sam Cooke
- Jason Castro - “Mr. Tambourine Man” by Bob Dylan
- David Archuleta - “Love Me Tender” by Elvis Presley
Thursday, May 1, 2008
You Gotta Love Jason Castro
This is a quote from Entertainment Weekly:
If these quotes are true, then I would say to him - "Be true to your vision of yourself. If the mantle of American Idol with all its kowtows and requirements doesn't fit within that vision, then enjoy the run while it lasts and learn something from it. Then you can seek out the venue that best expresses you and your art."
That's what I think is going on with Jason. God bless you, man.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. I like Jason. He seems to me to be a guy who just wants to do music and forget show business. Know what I mean?He made it through Paulagate 2008, but is American Idol’s Jason Castro ready to call it quits? EW’s Jessica Shaw was on the scene as the Idols rehearsed for Neil Diamond week (read her “Why Song Selection Matters” feature in the issue out Friday) and spoke with Castro on Monday afternoon: “I’ll get around to practicing,” he promised her, after noting that his brother and a friend had visited over the weekend and that his Saturday meeting with Diamond had gone “really bad” because he didn’t yet know his songs. “What happens happens. I’ll sing and if people like it, they like it. And if they don’t, they don’t. I’m kind of ready to go home.”
You’re kind of ready to walk off America’s biggest stage???
“It’s been overwhelming,” Castro continued. “I got 150 balloons yesterday delivered to the studio because people heard I was sick last week. That’s cool, but that’s just weird.”
If these quotes are true, then I would say to him - "Be true to your vision of yourself. If the mantle of American Idol with all its kowtows and requirements doesn't fit within that vision, then enjoy the run while it lasts and learn something from it. Then you can seek out the venue that best expresses you and your art."
That's what I think is going on with Jason. God bless you, man.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Paulagate
Sites that follow American Idol are abuzz this morning with Paula Abdul's gaffe critiquing both of Jason Castro's performances when he had only done one. She tried to cover it up, after Randy, Simon and Ryan finally made it clear to her that only one song had been sung, by saying she must have been reading from her David Cook notes by accident. Of course, what she said with regards to Jason's second performance didn't match her David C critique at all, ao it was a pretty lame excuse.
There are two dominant theories as to what happened.
The first says that Paula's (and perhaps Randy's and Simon's as well) notes were taken at rehearsals/warmups. This would mean that their judging comments aren't actually based on the television performance at all, but something that took place before the show started.
The second says that Paula read off notes that were provided by the producers. This theory would basically reveal that the show is not as spontaneous as was originally thought, that it is actually a totally scripted event.
I think there's a third possibility.
Portions of the results show are taped in advance, other parts are live. Maybe the same holds true with the performance show and the portion where the judges were asked to comment before the second performance actually came at the end of the taping, then edited into its normal slot.
Then why wouldn't the producers edit out Paula's flub, you ask.
There are many comments to articles stating that Paula has to go, that her gaffe finally revealed what the show is all about and the producers have to axe her to save their behinds.
I disagree. The Paula trainwreck is one of the reasons people watch the show, no matter how much they bemoan her vanilla spaciness. The Simon acidity is another reason.
Paula gave the blogosphere a lot to talk about today. That kind of PR cannot be bought.
Then again, maybe there will be a public backlash when it is finally realized that the fantasy is no longer being stroked, that it has been tweaked a bit. And don't we hate it when our fantasies turn out to be just that...
a fantasy.
There are two dominant theories as to what happened.
The first says that Paula's (and perhaps Randy's and Simon's as well) notes were taken at rehearsals/warmups. This would mean that their judging comments aren't actually based on the television performance at all, but something that took place before the show started.
The second says that Paula read off notes that were provided by the producers. This theory would basically reveal that the show is not as spontaneous as was originally thought, that it is actually a totally scripted event.
I think there's a third possibility.
Portions of the results show are taped in advance, other parts are live. Maybe the same holds true with the performance show and the portion where the judges were asked to comment before the second performance actually came at the end of the taping, then edited into its normal slot.
Then why wouldn't the producers edit out Paula's flub, you ask.
There are many comments to articles stating that Paula has to go, that her gaffe finally revealed what the show is all about and the producers have to axe her to save their behinds.
I disagree. The Paula trainwreck is one of the reasons people watch the show, no matter how much they bemoan her vanilla spaciness. The Simon acidity is another reason.
Paula gave the blogosphere a lot to talk about today. That kind of PR cannot be bought.
Then again, maybe there will be a public backlash when it is finally realized that the fantasy is no longer being stroked, that it has been tweaked a bit. And don't we hate it when our fantasies turn out to be just that...
a fantasy.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
What They are Singing Tonight - Spoilers & Wrap
Jason Castro - “Forever in Blue Jeans” - I liked this a lot. Liked the vibe, the personality Jason brought to the song. Had a peppery feel to it. Hoped he would big voice the part that Diamond does, but Jason doesn't really have the big voice. I disagree with Simon; I didn't think it forgettable.
David Cook - “I’m Alive” - Of the two David did, I liked this one better than the second. It has a good hook to it.
Brooke White - “I’m a Believer” - decent job with a nice country feel to it.
David Archuleta - “Sweet Caroline” - eh? Yeah, I heard the changes he made to it. Didn't really like them. Sweet Caroline is too iconic a song for Red Sox fans to take to Archie's version.
Syesha Mercado - “Hello Again” - It was OK. Syesha has a nice delivery and she looked hot. But let's face it: she's no Mindy D or Jordin Sparks. She's not even a Lakisha.
Jason Castro - “September Morn” - boring boring boring - sorry Jason. You'd have been better off switching the songs and doing this one first.
David Cook - “All I Ever Really Need is You” - Good rocker. Hard to hear the lyrics at times. Not sure if it was the music or enunciation. Still liked the first better.
Brooke White - “I Am … I Said” - Very sweet presentation. Liked it a lot.
David Archuleta - “America” - predictable. I wish the judges would stop touting Archie as a second coming of something.
Syesha Mercado - “Thank the Lord for the Night Time” - average.
David Cook - “I’m Alive” - Of the two David did, I liked this one better than the second. It has a good hook to it.
Brooke White - “I’m a Believer” - decent job with a nice country feel to it.
David Archuleta - “Sweet Caroline” - eh? Yeah, I heard the changes he made to it. Didn't really like them. Sweet Caroline is too iconic a song for Red Sox fans to take to Archie's version.
Syesha Mercado - “Hello Again” - It was OK. Syesha has a nice delivery and she looked hot. But let's face it: she's no Mindy D or Jordin Sparks. She's not even a Lakisha.
Jason Castro - “September Morn” - boring boring boring - sorry Jason. You'd have been better off switching the songs and doing this one first.
David Cook - “All I Ever Really Need is You” - Good rocker. Hard to hear the lyrics at times. Not sure if it was the music or enunciation. Still liked the first better.
Brooke White - “I Am … I Said” - Very sweet presentation. Liked it a lot.
David Archuleta - “America” - predictable. I wish the judges would stop touting Archie as a second coming of something.
Syesha Mercado - “Thank the Lord for the Night Time” - average.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Idol
In order of how the performances went (in my opinion).
1. Syesha Mercado - “One Rock & Roll Too Many” from Starlight
Syesha stole the show. Most memorable.
2. David Cook - “Music of the Night” from Phantom of the Opera
It was a nice vocal from David. Showed what a mellow/slow song would be like on an album.
3. Carly Smithson - “Jesus Christ Superstar”
Thought it a bit screechy at times, but overall decent.
4. David Archuleta - “Think of Me” from Phantom of the Opera
Good vocals, boring performance. I can't even remember how his song goes today even though I remember all the others.
5. Jason Castro - “Memory” from Cats
I like Jason a lot. This just wasn't a standout performance of the song. Didn't Streisand sing it? Jason needed to power ballad it, not whisper sing it in his style.
6. Brooke White - “You Must Love Me” from the film adaption of Evita
Brooke looked awfully good. Unfortunately that was about it. She had trouble singing through the lower register at the beginning and the rest of the song came across as mostly meh with a few spots of emotion sprinkled in.
Based on performance, Brooke should go.
1. Syesha Mercado - “One Rock & Roll Too Many” from Starlight
Syesha stole the show. Most memorable.
2. David Cook - “Music of the Night” from Phantom of the Opera
It was a nice vocal from David. Showed what a mellow/slow song would be like on an album.
3. Carly Smithson - “Jesus Christ Superstar”
Thought it a bit screechy at times, but overall decent.
4. David Archuleta - “Think of Me” from Phantom of the Opera
Good vocals, boring performance. I can't even remember how his song goes today even though I remember all the others.
5. Jason Castro - “Memory” from Cats
I like Jason a lot. This just wasn't a standout performance of the song. Didn't Streisand sing it? Jason needed to power ballad it, not whisper sing it in his style.
6. Brooke White - “You Must Love Me” from the film adaption of Evita
Brooke looked awfully good. Unfortunately that was about it. She had trouble singing through the lower register at the beginning and the rest of the song came across as mostly meh with a few spots of emotion sprinkled in.
Based on performance, Brooke should go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)