More proof that you're good

Comes in the form of a MLB-best record of 9-2.

Who's yer daddy!?

I noticed that Sim was properly contrite this morning in discussing the Dodger-Padre series this weekend. I'm not sure what I can add to the discussion, but I'll resist the overwhelming temptation to gloat; it's only three games and the season is far too young to get crazy.

My wife and I were out of town part of the weekend so I, unlike Sim, missed the entirety of the series but what I caught on ESPN recaps and the morning box-scores. Two things stood out: First, two complete game--shutout!--victories from "suspect" pitchers, Derek Lowe and Jeff Weaver. Second, the Dodgers outscored the Friers 18-3 in this three-game sweep. Ouch.

There's still plenty of time for pitching arms to tire and bats to go quiet, but I must say this is the most heartening and exciting start to a Dodger season in 20+ years! I for one, am loving it!

Monday Morning Wimp-Out

I'll be a little light in terms of blogging for the next few days. Quite a bit of work to do, but I'll try to chime in when I get some downtime.

P Stands for Punished, Pummelled, Putrid

Fortunately, I missed the first two games of the Dodgers-Padres series this weekend. Both losses. But unfortunately, I did catch yesterday's 6-0 Jeff Weaver shutout. A sweep in Chavez and the loss of Khalil Greene to a second broken finger suffered in LA in under 20 games dating to last season don't bode well for this season's San Diego ballclub.

While it's early, we've come to learn a few things:

1. The '05 Padres look disturbingly like the '04 Padres. Not a big shock given the lack of offseason movement, but this club remains absolutely miserable in RISP situations. X. Nady's good start aside, the Padres' run-producers just aren't getting it done. Brian Giles continues to look like he's on the downside of a fine career (Oh to still have Jason Bay and Ollie Perez *sigh*), a healthy Ryan Klesko has not recovered a power stroke a year into being off the juice, and Phil Nevin's penchant for attempting to pull down and away pitches yield far too many missed opportunities. The loss of Greene for 3-4 weeks further exacerbates the situation. The big hope would seem to lie with the impending return of Dave Roberts and a renewed focus on small ball. *Gulp* Meanwhile, Woody Williams has not looked like David Wells and Adam Eaton and Tim Redding just didn't get it done. Yesterday's performance by Redding had me yearning for the return of Ismael Valdes. Yeah.

2. Dogs pitching has surprised. Lowe's performance on Friday night appeared (from the boxscore, at least) to be dominant. While I am not a big believer in Lowe due to his lack of velocity, his heavy sinker could prove to be more effective in a pitcher's park like Dodger Stadium than in Boston. Weaver allowed only two hits after early trouble in a complete game victory yesterday. There's never been any doubting Weaver's stuff. It's always been his head that's been in question. If these two can pitch like they did over the weekend and join a healthy Brad Penny and Odalis Perez, the Dogs might be able to overcome some of their positional weaknesses. Then again, how much can you really read into their outings when they were going up against an offense as putrid as San Diego's? Jeff Kent's quick start isn't a surprise. The question will come when he hits his wall. I'm still not sold on Jose Valentin as a replacement for Beltre and we're certainly going to see some heavy defensive butchery out of 2B and 3B. Time will tell. One place you won't see butchery is at SS where Caesar Izturis is perhaps the best on defense in the NL. His play on Klesko's richochet liner yesterday was simply as good as it gets.

So where that leaves us is that it's still early, but the Pads look a little worse than expected and the Dodgers look a little better. Round 2 comes later this week in San Diego, I believe, so we'll have a good opportunity to guage how the teams respond.

Early results

Sim's Dogged pursuit of truth is leading me to the conclusion that the Friers are mediocre and the Dogs are, well if not 'best', definitely 'better'. A look at last night's line pretty much says it all:

Dodgers 4 runs, 8 hits, 0 errors. Padres 0 runs, 4 hits, 0 errors.

Derek Lowe pitches a complete game shutout, giving up only 3 hits and striking out 5.

Hhhmm....

Myopic Dodger fans 1, Haters 0

Weird day

Another bizarre Friday. Work as always conspires against blogging. Wives' minor medical emergencies also don't help.

This weekend won't likely see any blogging either. Simian is out of town and my wife and I will, her health obliging, be in Tucson for most of the weekend taking advantage of her last work-freebie courtesy of the Crowne Plaza North Phoenix (nice place to stay, not so great to work for; but I digress).

If I can, I'll be weighing in tomorrow morning about the Frier-Dodger matchup but that will likely be the extent of any weekend offerings. Even bloggers need vacations now and then.

You think you're funny...

But you're not!

Last night's episode of Joey contained two--not one but two!--jokes about the alma-mater. Now, I'm all for free publicity, but within reason!

To start, neighbor Alex represents Michael in a mediation effort with his friend Seth over intellectual property rights. Seth is upset that Michael has dragged a lawyer into the middle of this dispute.

"Well, is she a real lawyer? Where did you go to law-school?"

"Pepperdine."

"Pffft. See!? She's not even a real lawyer!"

Later, Joey is brought in as a witness to a hearing with Seth and his lawyer and Alex and Michael. The nature of his testimony is unclear to start with but soon becomes evident to Seth and his lawyer that he is bluffing about what he knows of this dispute. In the course of the discussion Seth again takes an easy shot when wondering aloud if Joey is so smart that he went to Pepperdine.

I just don't see the humor...

That's my Senator!

Couldn't be prouder, or could I?

Text of an email to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) courtesy of the Blogfather:

April 14, 2005

Senator John McCain
407 W. Congress Street Suite 103
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Via Fax 670-6637 and email

Re: The Filibustering of Judicial Nominations

Senator McCain,

First off, thank you for your service to our country.

A little about myself: I am 37, my wife is 31 and we have two children here in Tucson. I attended the University of Arizona and currently own and operate (among other things) an Assisted Living Center with 20 employees which houses 45 elderly residents of Arizona who need assistance in their daily lives.

I am writing this letter because I quite frankly don't trust myself to make a civil phone call. I am a fairly large contributor to the Republican Party, not because I think they are always right, but because they more often champion the causes and freedoms I believe in. Â Lower taxes, less government (at least that used to be a Republican cause), more personal freedom, etc.

I read the Constitution of the United States again recently and made note of the 7 specific instances spelled out as requiring a supermajority. I'm certain you know them. I also specifically noted that Judicial Nominations were not listed as 'filibuster-able', yet just today I heard a clip of you specifically saying that you would (once again) vote AGAINST both your Party and Leader and WITH the Democrats. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised after the magnificently successful "Campaign Finance Reform" you pushed (I also read in the Constitution (Bill of Rights #1) something about "Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech", but that's another story).

This, to me, is the final straw. I worked hard to help get President Bush re-elected. After the War on Terror (which I believe also includes Defending our Border (Article III, Section 4 "protect against invasion"), there is no more important issue than the totally out of control Judiciary. Legislating from the bench is not listed as a Constitutional Power bestowed upon these un-checked, lifetime appointees, yet that is exactly what they are doing.

Your snubbing of your Leader of the Senate (Senator Bill Frist), your Leader of your Party (President Bush) and the Constitution of the United States (again), while embracing the obstructionist Democrats (again) has caused me to lose all remaining respect I had for you as my Senator.

From this day forward, I will begin to actively campaign against you. In any capacity I possibly can. I will first work to defeat you in your primary and I will subsequently work (if necessary) to defeat you in the general by supporting whatever Democrat runs against you. I have never in my life supported a Democrat, but at least I know my enemy with a Democrat. You still have time to change your mind, but then if you did, Tim Russert might not like you.

It's getting ugly, and it might get a lot worse before it gets better on this issue of judges.

[sigh]

Dogged Pursuit of Truth

A nice compare-contrast of the Trolleywreck's '04 division winning squad and the '05 version. Summarizes my point quite nicely. Names like Choi, Ledee, Erickson and Valentin have to give Dodger fans peace of mind.

The Pads (5-4) and Dogs (6-2) hook up in LA this weekend for their first head-to-head series of the season. So someone here will have bragging rights come Monday. Look for Friday's game to feature the offenses as two junkballers (Woody Williams and Derek Lowe) are on the hill. I expect Adam Eaton to turn in another sterling performance in Chavez vs. Scott Erickson on Saturday. He always seems to pitch extremely well in LA.

In my opinion, the key matchup will be Sunday's finale. Tim Redding will be dealing against Jeff Weaver. Redding was acquired at the end of spring training after having fallen out of favor in Houston. He looked fairly solid in his first start against Pittsburgh despite less-than-spectacular defensive support. He was throwing 92-mph gas, but looked a little wild in the strike zone. For a #5, that's a tolerable combination. But I also expect Friars pitching coach Darren Balsley to work the same magic with him that he has worked with Eaton, Jake Peavy and Scott Linebrink. A solidified tail-end of the rotation in the form of Redding would do wonders for a team that continues to look like it might struggle on offense.

Anyway, here's to hoping for a great series, no injuries and a victory by the good guys.

I'm off to CT. See you Monday.

PS- Happy Tax Day.

Six Years?

Tomorrow I make my second pilgrimage to the great state of Connecticut. I'm headed out there for the weekend with some friends. Interestingly, April 15 marks not only tax day, but it also marks my six year anniversary in New York since moving here from Germany.

Strange, that after six years in the area this will be only my second Connecticut visit. It's also my second in about four months. Needless to say, I'm dangerously clueless about the surrounding area. Even though I technically live on Long Island, I've only made one major foray out onto Long Island. I know northern Jersey pretty well as I drove out there daily for two years. I've made the occasional trips to central Jersey and the Jersey shore. But I don't know them that well and couldn't speak intelligently about them even if pressed.

I made several journeys on the train down to Philly when I was dating the Fortune Cookie. I know downtown Philly fairly well. Love the MacCormack and Schminks off the square. I could tell you where to grab a solid Newcastle, where to buy some last minute peel and eat shrimp and roasted peppers, or even a nice Pinot Grigio. I could direct you to a place to buy your basic Franziskaner, its corresponding glassware and a nice little park in which to to drink it. I know a great place to see live acts like Francis Dunnery. I could also tell you how Philly Cheese Steak sandwiches are, like, not at all good and easily the most overrated local delicacy I've ever experienced. (Well maybe not. The Japanese "traditional sweet" isn't too stellar, either.) That said, I could also tell you which of the massive Cheese Steak Emporiums NOT to visit. Don't remember the name, but go to the one across the street. It's bad. But not as bad as Geno's. So yeah, I know Philly.

But that's not the NY metropolitan area. And that brings us back on topic: I don't know this area. Even after six years.

Of course, during the period I've lived in NYC I have been to Greece, Germany several times, Britain three times, Turkey, South Africa and Japan among other countries. Quite a world we live in. You don't know your immediate surroundings worth a damn, and yet you could give explicit directions to someone about where to go to get the best Sundowners in Cape Town.

Six years? Damn. When I moved here I was't at all enthused about New York. I thought, "a couple years and I'm done." Am I officially a New Yorker now? I'm not from Holland, but that's Veird.

Calling all Dodger-haters

Something here for you.

What We Are Dealing With, Part 2

Yes, folks, it's that time again. And so soon! David's Medienkritik comes through again. (Although in fairness, David's got it easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Or rather, capturing fish in a barrel and then harmlessly releasing them into their natural habitats. But I progress.)

This time we gain some insight on the current German government and its views on the international economic order. It seems that the chairman of The Social Democratic Party (SPD), Franz Muentefering, is vehemently against globalization and the trade liberalization regimes which have characterized the post-war Bretton-Woods international system. Regimes which have been central to the raising of millions of people worldwide out of the throes of deep poverty. Moreover, Herr Muentefering believes the notion of "profit" is inherently undemocratic. In a speech on April 13, he argued:

"The internationally accelerated profit maximization strategies endanger our democracy long-term. (...) Our critique is aimed at the internationally growing power of capital and the total economization of short-winded trade for profit. Because, through that, individual people and the future sustainability of entire firms and regions are lost from sight."

So in other words, profits and economic growth don't enhance democracies by providing opportunities, increasing options and building platforms for the exercise of fundamental freedoms. Capital and trade are not transformative in their power to raise people and communities up from dead-end, cyclical poverty to a state where they can educate, feed, immunize and produce. Rather, capital flows and cross-border trade in the name of profit simply harms individuals and communities by homogenizing and marginalizing them.

Huh. Boy did I have it all wrong.

Of course, when Herr Muentefering talks about the "growing power of capital" and "short-winded trade for profit," he's playing upon anti-American sentiments by making not-so-veiled reference to the "evils" of American-style economics. One often hears such references in Germany. A very common example is "hire and fire mentality," which is code for "American capitalism."

He's also trying to explain away the German government's inability to do anything about close to three decades of an economic malaise so intractable that no one sneezes when unemployment runs at 10% or more. Of course, Germany's economic doldrums are largely rooted in an unwieldly social safety net, inflexible labor markets and...yes...inadequate capital to spawn a true entrepreneurial class. I lived in Germany during the Internet boom and I couldn't begin to quantify the number of young Germans I encountered who wanted to ride the wave. However, they were discouraged from pursuing the dream of starting their own businesses because of a lack of access to start-up cash and a a taxation regime that would heavily penalize them for actually becoming profitable. I dunno, Herr Muentefering, but that sounds fairly un-democratic to me.

And of course, the third pillar of response is neatly summed up in David's article. The hypocrisy of such statements in the face of German arms sales to China and the Middle East is staggering to say the least. We need to protect people and communities from the evils of short-term profits and international capital, right up until the moment that our political offices are at stake and we have to fund the social welfare morass we refuse to reform. Got it.

Of course, this kind of hypocrisy is not shocking when it comes to our friends in Europe. It's deeply embedded in their marrow. But you'd expect to be hearing such outright Marxist ideology spewed by a member of a fringe party rather than the chairman of the lead party in the red-green coalition. Surrealistic isn't even the word. And that's why we call this...

...What We're Dealing With.

Judges, now!

Email a senator or two.

Republicans elected 4 new senators last fall. In part, because they bought the pitch that told them when the Senate was in firmer GOP control the issue of filibustering appellate court nominees would come to a head.

Well, we did our part. How 'bout you guys do yours!

Just the facts, man, just the facts!

The most obvious of which is who is in first place and who is not.

Now onto the response. Simian's post wants to make hay about the Dodgers poor performance in post-season play since the 1988 season. That is a valid point, and in case he wasn't paying attention, one that I addressed in my initial comment on the subject (Something to the effect that the Padres have performed better in the last decade in this regard).

As to the comparison of the two franchises, I was trying to be fair; just citing the number of titles/divisions/playoff appearances is unfair and doesn't take the San Diego franchise's relatively young age into account. I figured picking a 35 year time frame was fair; if not, we can go back to the day of the Frier's birth, that's fine with me. Regardless, the numbers don't favor them. And that was the point. Crow all you like about 'owning' the Dodgers but it really don't mean much when you've got so little hardware to point to!

100K Words Abut Dodger Myopia

...begins today with a little snippet from the North County Times. It seems that my adopted hometown of Brooklyn is exultant in orgasmic delight over the return of a long lost relic: The 1955 World Series pennant of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Only a half-century old, it certainly doesn't have the provenance of a medieval tapestry. But it is a one-of-a-kind, and to millions of baseball fanatics it's probably more valuable.The 1955 World Series championship banner captured by the Brooklyn Dodgers ---- the only one the team ever won ---- was unveiled Wednesday following a $16,000 restoration by experts at the Textile Conservation Laboratory at the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine.

While the storied traditions of this once-proud franchise are well-known to all, I would suggest that citations of glories "since 1970" that fail to mention only one playoff win (One. Last season.) since the first Bush administration would have a relevance on par with that of a decaying 1955 World Series pennant or an uneaten piece of King Edward and Wallis Simpson’s wedding cake.

Obligatory Sports Post

The Dodger Daddy's go down...again. They split with the Cubs today and are sitting at 5-4. How do you spell 'Mediocrity'...?

Interesting notes from the pair at Wrigley: Mark Prior in his first start of the season goes 6 Innings, striking out 6, doesn't allow a run and gets the win. He may just turn out to help in Fantasy-land after all!

Recently added Frier OF Xavier Nady goes nuts today; in two games he finishes 5-for-8 at the plate with an RBI. Just added him in another league and will take that, thank you very much!

Slamming Sy

Sy Hersh has a somewhat mixed legacy. It is fair to say that he created what we today call 'investigative reporting,' when he broke the story of My Lai in 1969. It would also be fair, at least in my estimation, to say that he has in later years allowed himself to get carried away as evidenced by some of his Abu Ghraib reporting and more especially in his Kennedy-bashing tome, The Dark Side of Camelot . See here for an example of what I'm talking about.

While I'm given to slamming Uncle Sy, such criticisms could be classified as casual--not in-depth and elaborate. I leave that to the professionals. And according to Chris Suellentrop, Uncle Sy has a really big mouth.

What Chris examines is the difference between Seymour Hersh the writer and Sy the speaker. Seems that Sy says alot of things that Seymour could never get away with writing:

There are two Hershes, really. Seymour M. is the byline. He navigates readers through the byzantine world of America’s overlapping national-security bureaucracies, and his stories form what Hersh has taken to calling an “alternative history” of the Bush administration since September 11, 2001.

Then there’s Sy. He’s the public speaker, the pundit. On the podium, Sy is willing to tell a story that’s not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”

Are you kidding me? "I can't stretch the truth when I write because I might get sued, but I can say whatever I want when I speak. " Never mind the credentials as a so-called leading investigative journalist. Flat out irresponsible.

Am I jumping to conclusions when I write that statement? Possibly, but I find it hard to believe that there are stronger motives for getting things right in print than the spectre of a libel suit. The difference between the written and spoken standard here is huge, and like I said, irresponsible.

Still, what’s emerged from Hersh’s numerous speaking engagements—dozens of speeches last year, he says, which have drawn as much as $15,000 per university lecture—is a vast, tantalizing trove of what might be termed Hersh apocrypha: unpublished tales of official screwups, ideological intrigue, cover-ups, and government lies that have an influential—and growing—public life of their own.

Irresponsible behavior, complete with examples:

It doesn’t take much prompting for Hersh to supply an example of the sort of story he keeps out of The New Yorker’s pages but will discuss freely elsewhere. He tells me a long tale of the ghastly killing of some Iraqi civilians by U.S. soldiers. He frames his account as a hypothetical set piece: “You’re a soldier on a patrol . . . and you see people running, and you open fire, okay? . . . Maybe they were bad guys, but then they run into a soccer game.” He gradually modulates the story to its climax: “You’re a bunch of young kids. And so maybe you pull the bodies together and you drop RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] and you take some photographs about it because you’re afraid you’re gonna be investigated. And maybe somebody there tells me about what happened.”

Moving back into straight, declarative talk, Hersh lays out how this no-longer-quite-so-hypothetical scenario shaped his on-the-job news judgments. Investigating the tip, he discovered that, even though the photographs he obtained of the incident could suggest a terrible lapse of responsibility in the field, there was nothing here to qualify it as a Hersh story. “It was stupid, it was wrong, it was terrible, but it wasn’t murder. Do I write that? No. I don’t write that. Because then six, eight, ten American kids who did nothing but panic, and did what anybody would, would get in trouble. Do I have some photographs that are interesting? Yes. Do I publish those? No.”

But does he talk about it? Sure. Did this event happen? Who knows? Hersh never subjects these sorts of stories to any kind of public truth test, but he bandies them in his lectures, as part of the ongoing effort to bring his speaking audiences closer to that other reality of the Iraq War.

The most egregious example of Uncle-Sy-out-of-control, in my opinion is this one. Suellentrop delivers a direct quote from Uncle Sy about his behavior in information gathering for the My Lai story:

When Hersh was pursuing the My Lai story, he tracked down the lawyer of William Calley Jr., the man later convicted of participating in the 1968 massacre of Vietnamese civilians. Hersh intentionally inflated the number of deaths for which Calley was charged, in order to get the attorney to tell him the correct number, 109. A few years ago, Hersh told a crowd at Duke, “a word for what I did—an actual word, it has three letters—it’s called ‘lie.’”

Inexcusable. The man's defining moment as a professional journalist and it's built around a lie? When I read this for the first time, it stopped me in my tracks. How can you take what he says seriously in light of such an admission? Suellentrop stops short of where I land:

Few would argue that Hersh’s impropriety should diminish the astonishing coup and public service of bringing the My Lai story to light.

But I would be one of them. Slamming Uncle Sy does not diminish the facts of what he found in this or any specific case. However, his irresponsible behavior in terms of his approach and his loose-tounged oral arguments is inexcusable as far as I'm concerned for a journalist with his credentials.

If Sy wants to speak truth to power, by all means go right ahead. But make sure it's truth and not a lie.

Humorous post of the day

James Lileks is the funniest guy going in my assessment. Today's entry is laugh-out-loud funny.

I like the Second Amendment and all

But this seems a bit, well...bizarre. The Arizona legislature is/has been considering a bill to allow firearms inside bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.

The state House gave tacit approval Thursday to allowing firearms in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, less than a month after a deadly shooting in the parking lot of a Scottsdale nightclub that claimed the life of former Arizona State University football player Brandon Falkner.

That shooting, which has landed ASU running back Loren Wade behind bars on charges of first-degree murder, heavily colored the debate over Senate Bill 1363. Final approval is likely, although it still faces final House and Senate votes before it can move to the governor's desk. Lawmakers and bar owners opposed to the bill say the shooting underscores their primary concern: Guns and alcohol don't mix.

At the risk of sounding like a liberal ninny, I don't think this ranks as one of the greatest ideas in legislative history. I understand the arguments about the built-in safeguards (firearms are allowed but holders can not drink; bar owners can opt out by posting signs outside declaring that no firearms are allowed inside) but the common-sense alarm is going off in my head. Local bar-owner Daryl Chester describes the nightmare-scenario:

"I've seen bar fights escalate with people jumping in because it didn't seem like a fair fight, grabbing pool cues, and the next thing you know you've got 30 or 40 people involved in a brawl," said Daryl Chester of Scottsdale, who manages the Six Shooters sports bar chain around the Valley. "And it all started because a guy looked at somebody's girlfriend the wrong way. I'm a firm believer in the right to keep and bear arms, I just don't think firearms and alcohol mix."

On principle, like I said above, I support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but this seems like needless foolishness. Principled foolishness maybe, but foolishness none-the-less. A bad idea...

For those who would write

Ouch. And you know who you are...

Get crackin'!