The New Center

I have a theory. Now, I watch Glenn Beck at least a couple of times a week. Glenn has a lot of theories, I think the last one involved Woodrow Wilson secretly traveling back in time to start the slave trade. My theory isn't a Beck-style, category five crazy theory. I'm a bit more of a moderate, and that's sort of my point, this is a theory about moderation.

I've been trying my best to get engaged with the 2010 midterm elections, my efforts are meeting with limited success. The Democrats are undisciplined, somewhat cowardly and really failing to zero in on a message. Ya know, they're acting like Democrats. I can't imagine a way a party could more thoroughly squander a huge majority, but I'm sure the Democrats can.

Meanwhile, the Republican party seems to have been taken over by crazy people. Their nominee in Nevada, Sharron Angle, can generously be described as totally insane. Of course, she still has a decent chance of winning because she's running against Harry Reid's politically dynamic combination of unspeakably boring and unimaginably ineffective. Should be a real barn burner out there.

The Republicans in my current (but, thankfully, soon to be former) state have nominated Linda McMahon. Seriously, the wrestling lady. I swear I'm not joking. But she also still has a decent chance because she's got about a trillion dollars and she's running against a Democrat who kept telling people he served in Vietnam even though he didn't.

I've also noticed the Florida Senate race. Florida has the rare three-way race going. Independent and former Republican Charlie Crist vs. tea party Republican and former hair model Marco Rubio vs. a couple of Democrats who can't even poll at 20% in a pretty 50/50 state. Crist leads the real clear politics average of polls no matter which Democrat you plug in. This brings us to my theory. I think Crist is the leading edge of a big wave of successful independent candidates.

Look at where we are right now. People are rightfully fed up with both parties. The imagineers at Fox News keep telling me the Republican party will win back a majority in the house and maybe the Senate in November. How many times do you think people will go back and forth like this before they realize nothing ever changes? I think Crist wins by double digits in November, partially because he won't be weighed down by the stupidity of either party. That's why I think he should change his campaign slogan to "I'm Charlie Crist, and I don't like either of these guys". I also like that slogan because it's a little punchier than Marco Rubio's "I'm Marco Rubio, and I'll say whatever Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin tell me to say".

In the past, independents struggled because they couldn't raise any real money and they didn't have enough name recognition. Next time you go vote, take a look at the candidates on your ballot after the two major parties. It's a veritable who's who of who the f*ck are these guys. People generally aren't fans of voting for people they've never heard of, or giving them money.

But Sean, you protest, Ross Perot had money and everyone knew who he was, and he still only got just under 19% in the 1992 election. I can't argue with you there. Sure, part of what Perot was known for was his trademark bat-shit insanity, but still, he was well known. So what's different now?

As usual, part of the problem is the internets. An independent candidate doesn't need the party establishment to raise big money anymore. Even major party candidates do a decent amount of fundraising on the internet. I'm not saying an independent can get even with the big parties on money, but I think they can get close enough, if people know who they are. That brings us to culprit number two.

Cable news. People are more well informed about politics now than ever before. Well, maybe I wouldn't say we're well informed, but we're certainly more informed. I live in Connecticut and know who Marco Rubio and Sharron Angle are. Do you think I would have known who they were in 1992? Probably not.

So, here are the factors:
1) People are genuinely fed up with both parties
2) Fundraising is way easier now than it was even 10 years ago
3) Name recognition in politics is almost universal at this point
4) I say an independent is about to destroy both big party candidates in a pretty visible Senate race in Florida

Over the next five/ten years, I think we'll see a wave of moderate, reasonable politicians running for office as independents, and winning. I wouldn't be surprised if the 2020 Senate looked something like 43 Republicans, 41 Democrats and 16 independents. Of course, this means Congress will do even less than it does now. Impossible, you say? That sounds like a challenge.

Further down the road, maybe this even gets us a new third party, which will inevitably become just as corrupt and ineffective as the current two parties. I said I had a theory, I didn't say it was a good thing.

Mosques and Marriage

I haven't been writing a lot lately. It's possible I've just run out of new ways to call people stupid. It's also possible that the summer heat has melted some of the outer parts of my brain and left me less creative. I've decided that the second possibility is more likely. First of all, I'll never run out of ways to call people stupid. Second of all, it's been a little cooler this week and, voila! Here I am.

I've seen two seemingly unrelated stories in the news lately to which I've had, essentially, the same reaction. The first is this thing about the mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site. Before I get into this, here are a couple of disclaimers:

Disclaimer #1: I'm from New York. If you're also from New York (or at least long island), then whatever opinion you have about this, no matter how much I might disagree with it, is perfectly valid in my eyes. On the other hand, if you're not from New York, if you've never called The Only Real City In The World home, then I couldn't possibly be less interested in what you think about this. Be quiet Sarah Palin, worry about your own town's problems (I don't what problems they have in Alaska, bears? too much snow? ice road trucker camera crews eating all the moose jerky?)

Disclaimer #2: We've got some religion involved in this issue, so anyone who talks about it winds up being labeled anti-muslim or pro-muslim. I assure you that I feel the same way about islam that I feel about all other invisible friends and space gods.

Anyway, I agree with what the President said about the ground zero adjacent mosque on Friday. Not only do I agree with what he said, but I love how he said it. He used his condescending, "why are you people so stupid sometimes" tone that is absolutely my favorite thing about him. Of course private citizens have the right to build a mosque on privately owned land. At the same time, other private citizens have the right to argue and protest about what they do and do not want built in their neighborhood.

Now, if I were a guy looking to build a mosque, would I build it two blocks from the World Trade Center? Probably not. This sounds like a poorly thought out plan, right? I mean, did these people honestly think this would go off without a hitch? I don't know if they've noticed, but people in New York are still pretty touchy about the whole 9/11 thing, and even though we know (well, most of us know) terrorist groups don't represent all muslims, building a mosque two blocks from the giant whole in the ground left by muslim terrorists really does strike me as a dumbass idea. If your goal is building a community center focused on fostering interfaith relations and understanding, this really isn't a good start.

I think, if you live in New York, and this thing stirs up old negative feelings and opens up an old wound for you, or maybe pours salt on a wound that hasn't even healed yet, and you feel like it shouldn't happen, that's a perfectly valid concern, and I think you should voice it. Just don't get mad when elected officials don't have your back. They took an oath to protect the Constitution, not our feelings.

If it seems like my personal opinion on this near ground zero mosque thing is a little hard to nail down, that's because it's one of those things I don't really have a strong opinion about. I sort of don't care. I know I'm supposed to, I don't though.

The second story was the overturning of proposition 8 in California, clearing the way for legal same-sex marriage in the state, ya know, at least until the next court rules, and then the next one. This story is different from the first in that there are no valid opinions on the other side. Of course homosexuals have the right to marry each other and it is the job of the courts to protect the rights of minorities from the opinions of the majority. Even the Republicans seem to mostly get it at this point, they've been pretty quiet since this court decision happened.

Still, some people have expressed their usual outrage about the dangerous gays and their fabulous marriages, and that brings me to how these two stories go together in my head. Some people just don't like homosexuals. They say same-sex marriage threatens opposite-sex marriage, but even the lawyers for Prop. 8 couldn't come up with a story for how that might actually work. They claim they're just looking out for children, but when you take an argument like that into a courtroom, judges generally want to see some of that evidence stuff. Tough break. Really, they just don't like homosexuals.

Similarly, some of the people who are arguing against the almost at ground zero mosque just don't like muslims. I've acknowledged that others arguing against the mosque have valid opinions, but some of them just don't like muslims (when I say "some of them", I'm talking about the outsiders from Alaska and Texas and everywhere else other than New York who suddenly give a crap about all the New York elites they usually hate so much).

My point is, if you don't like muslims or homosexuals, just say that. I wouldn't call it a valid opinion, but it's your opinion and you're stuck with it. And, if you're truthful with us about why you're against these things, then we can have an honest debate with your ignorant ass.

PS...this was a pretty heavy topic, so I felt like throwing in some mostly unrelated comic relief at the end. The title for this post reminded me of the theme song for Married With Children. On Thursday, a guy I work with was talking about cool new shoes he wanted to buy and my other co-workers seemed to be split on the idea. I took a look at the shoes he was talking about and, as it turned out, he was getting ready to by the shoes that Al Bundy invented after seeing god wearing them, only without the built in socks. This may not be comic relief for everyone, but if you were a big Married With Children fan, like my dad, you will laugh your ass off if you haven't seen these before. Enjoy http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

New Toys

The trade deadline is one of the best parts of the baseball season, so much better than the deadlines in the other sports. The combination of the deep minor league systems and the clear distinction between contenders and non-contenders creates plenty of movement and the chance for us to see good teams get some new toys to play with.

In contrast, nothing ever happens at the football deadline. The basketball deadline is OK, but nothing special (plus, the basketball deadline, for the last few years, has been less about teams getting better and more about the endless quest for cap space). And hockey, well, as I've mentioned before, hockey doesn't really appear on my TV anymore.

As a fan, it's always fun to speculate on where different guys might end up, so let's do that.

The Yankees are the best team in baseball, and some people would say that means they don't need anything. Not me. I think the Yanks need a pitcher. I feel like Dan Haren might wind up in New York, but I really don't think he's a good fit. He's a terrible second half pitcher and he'll give up a ton of homers at the stadium. I'd look for the Yankees to go outside the box a little bit. Watch for them to make a run at the Royals, for Joakim Soria or Zack Greinke, or both.

The Mets are a catastrophe. I've watched the Mets quite a bit since the all-star break, they are awful. Unfortunately, the Mets don't really have any prospects that anyone else wants, and they don't really have anywhere to put a new bat. Maybe Brett Myers goes to the Mets, he can start or pitch the 8th inning. That's probably the best they can do. I also hear the Mets have been shopping Jeff Francoeur around. Good luck with that. A power hitter who doesn't get on base and really doesn't hit home runs anymore, where do I sign up?

Sidenote: The Mets really need a new manager. Jerry Manuel is awful, AWFUL! How awful? I saw him bring Oliver Perez into a game yesterday. I rest my case. Hey, they should get Willie Randolph! Oh wait, they already fired him for no good reason. Oh well.

The Red Sox don't really have anywhere to put a new bat or a new pitcher. I'd watch for them to add to their bullpen, if they do anything. What they really need is a doctor, Boston's season has been murdered by injuries. They should trade for House, the entire cast of Scrubs or Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.

Tampa needs a right fielder. I've heard reports about them sniffing around Philly's Jayson Werth, but I'm not buying it. I don't see the Phillies quitting on this season, so they'd need something back that can help them right now. From Tampa, that's probably James Shields or Matt Garza, and I don't see Tampa doing that. I'd probably bet on Tampa doing nothing. Too bad they can't trade for a new stadium, the Pirates have one they're barely using.

Speaking of the Phillies, I don't know what's going on there. They seem to need a bat too, but they're another team that doesn't really have anywhere to put one of those, which adds them to the list of teams looking to add a pitcher. I'm guessing Ted Lilly winds up in Philadelphia, they don't need an ace and they can get Lilly pretty cheap. Also, Lilly rhymes with Philly, so there's that.

I'm not sure the Braves need anything, they look really good, and they recently got Jason Heyward back healthy. They're pretty old at the corner infield spots, so maybe they add some insurance there. If Atlanta's really feeling froggy, watch for them to get in on Dan Haren. I wouldn't be shocked if Haren ends up in Atlanta.

The Cardinals got really jumpy around the deadline last year, hell of a lot of good it did them. This year, word is they'll have to trade top pitching prospect Shelby Miller to get anything interesting, and I'm not sure they're willing to do that. When I look at the St. Louis roster, I think they ought to be able to get it done with the guys they already have, and I think they'll come to the same conclusion.

Part of the reason I don't expect anything from St. Louis is I don't expect the Reds to do anything either. However, if the Reds make a big move, I'd expect to see St. Louis get serious again in the Oswalt/Haren discussion. If Oswalt goes anywhere, I'm betting it's St. Louis, but only after a Reds move. Actually, if I had to put money on it, I'd probably bet on Oswalt staying put. He's got a no-trade he needs to waive and a 2012 option he wants picked up, lots of moving parts there, those deals often get left on the table at the deadline.

The White Sox are my guess for the annual terrible deadline deal, overpaying for Livan Hernandez or Zach Duke seems right up Chicago's alley. Meanwhile, I don't see the Twins doing much because, well, they're the Twins. I would have said the same thing about the Tigers, but now Magglio Ordonez is hurt and I expect them to be looking for an outfield bat, maybe Jose Guillen.

I really like the Giants. Buster Posey is better than any hitter they could have traded for. If Pablo Sandoval has a good second half (I think he will) they can probably win the division. I still expect them to pick up an outfield bat. I wonder if they could get Cleveland to trade Shin-soo Choo (or as I call him, the choo choo train, all aboard!).

Don't ask me about the Padres, I still wouldn't be surprised if they finish under .500. Between them and the Mariners, I don't think I should try making picks for either western division next year. I stand by my pre-season assessment of Seattle's roster. What can I say? Baseball's crazy sometimes, and Milton Bradley's crazy all the time.

If I'm the Dodgers, I get some extra bullpen help. George Sherrill has been terrible. Also, Joe Torre has destroyed so many relief pitchers that he should have an arm surgery named after him, so they'll need someone for whenever Jonathan Broxton's shoulder explodes. Either way, unless they get Manny back healthy for the last two months, the Dodgers are heading for third place.

I don't like Colorado's chances. Ubaldo Jimenez doesn't look right anymore, and they can't win without him. They might add an outfield bat, but I bet they stay put.

Texas may be the only AL west team worth talking about, and they already made their move. I may be the last baseball fan in the world to be totally sold on Cliff Lee, but I'm sold now, Cliff Lee is the man. I don't see how the Angels catch Texas. The Angels are interesting because I could see them getting in on Oswalt or Haren, but I could also see them being sellers. Bobby Abreu would make an interesting addition to a lot of teams looking for an outfield bat.

So, to wrap up:
Oswalt - staying in Houston, or maybe going to St. Louis
Haren - Atlanta, or maybe the Yankees
Ted Lilly - Philadelphia
Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman - Boston
Jeff Francoeur - San Diego, serving drinks at a Chili's near the ballpark
Mets - Brett Myers and 81 wins.
Yankees - Zack Greinke and/or Joakim Soria
Padres - made a secret deal with the devil
Dodgers/Rockies/Angels/Brewers/Marlins/Mets/Blue Jays/Cubs - thanks for playing, see you next year.

Two Teams, One Cup

Grab your vuvuzela and let's do this!

During the pre-game, former American star Alexi Lalas picked the Netherlands and the British sounding guy picked Spain. For the tie-breaker, apparently there's an octopus somewhere that also picked Spain. I'm willing to believe that an octopus knows at least as much about soccer as an American, so I have to believe Spain is the favorite. Of course, if I'm rooting for anyone, it's the Dutch. I've liked the Dutch team ever since I saw them in the '94 world cup and decided I liked their generous use of orange in the uniform area.

The ESPN guy called the world cup "the most massive shared human experience there is". I would have gone with breathing.

Something I've noticed throughout the world cup, the players come out onto the field holding the hand of a little kid. Who are these kids? Are they the players' kids? Are they just random South African kids? Did they win a contest? I need to know these things.

Thing to like about soccer #1: No stupid pop stars singing five minute versions of the national anthems. Just an instrumental version played through the stadium PA system.

Thing to like about soccer #2: Awesome Britishy commentary. Right off the bat we get "not quite total football from the Dutch, but it could be title football". Earlier in the tournament I heard one of the commentators refer to the French team as "instantly underwhelming". These guys make American sports announcers sound like juvenile delinquents.

5th minute: A free kick for Spain almost turns into a goal, nice save by the Dutch keeper. I can't decide if soccer goalie is a great job or an awful job. They spend most of the game just sort of standing around, but every five or ten minutes they have to make a diving save in front of a giant net.

8th minute: A Spanish turnover leads to a good chance for the Dutch, but they decided it was too early to score so they just kicked the ball right at the Spanish keeper. The Spanish team seems to be in charge early.

12th minute: Two good chances for the Spanish. First led to a corner, second hit the side of the goal. Somebody should tell the Dutch the game started.

Thing to like about soccer #3: No commercials. But how do soccer fans know what kind of beer they should drink, or what brand of boner pills is best for them?

Thing to like about soccer #4: Cards. For those who are unfamiliar, if you do something especially mean to an opponent in a soccer game, the referee runs up to you and waves a yellow card in your face. If you do something even meaner, like intentionally kick a guy in the face or something, the referee waves a red card in your face and you have to leave. There's really no area of life in which this system wouldn't be both effective and entertaining.

21st minute: More excellent commentary, describing one of the Dutch players as having "great speed, dribbling skills and optimism". It's nice to have a sport in which optimism is a legitimate advantage. The Dutch see the world cup as half-full.

I've decided America should hire only British people to teach English in elementary schools. I'm glad I don't have to watch soccer again until 2014 after this game, but I don't think I can go back to American announcers.

26th minute: A Spanish player executes the 10th blatant dive of the game and wins a free vuvuzela.

27th minute: "chances are whoever wins this game will leave the world cup ranked number one in the world". I should hope so.

29th minute: A Dutch player just delivered what one of the announcers described as "a kung fu kick to the chest". Couldn't have described it better myself. The announcers agree that should have been a red card. I disagree. That was the most exciting thing that happened in the first 30 minutes of this game, the Dutch player should get a prize.

34th minute: Something really strange just happened. The Dutch won a corner kick as a result of the Spanish keeper misplaying a strange bounce. Instead of trying to score, the Dutch just gave the ball back to the Spanish. According to the announcers, it was about sportsmanship. What? These guys need a Herm Edwards pep talk about playing to win the game.

37th minute: One of the Dutch players just whiffed on a pretty good scoring chance. I'm starting to wonder if the Dutch team is high.

42nd minute: One of the Spanish players has been "troubling" the Netherlands with his "positive attitude when he gets on the ball". I'd be more troubled by a negative attitude, that can be a sign of depression.

43rd minute: Dutch player Wesley Sneijder has a pretty heated argument with the referee about the superfluous J in his name.

46th-47th minutes: Nice rally for the Dutch before the half, nothing to show for it though. Off we go to halftime, tied at nil. At least scoreless hockey games usually involved some excellent goal tending. The British guy at halftime seems to agree with my assessment, adding "we haven't seen any real football yet."

Random halftime sidenote: I'm about three 90 degree days away from hatching an evil plan to destroy the sun. I could be a super villain, I just need a mask, a lair and like 50 billion dollars.

46th minute: The Dutch get what the British announcer described as "half a chance". I can't tell if he meant that as an insult or a compliment.

54th minute: I miss the NFL.

57th minute: What percentage of soccer practice time is spent on falling down and acting hurt? Has to be at least 20% right?

62nd minute: Ayan Robben just missed a great breakaway scoring opportunity for the Dutch. That was close. I have no idea if that's how you spell his first name. I'm renaming him Christopher Robben.

69th minute: Really good chance for the Spanish. Loose ball right in front of the goal, just got there a second late and had it deflected over the net.

75th minute: The Dutch are becoming increasingly unhappy with the officiating. Why can't any sport successfully find competent referees? It can't possibly be that difficult.

77th minute: Spain almost had it there, Sergio Ramos had a free shot with a header that went right over the bar. One of the announcers said he had no excuse. I don't know, that fact that he was trying to score a goal with his head seems like a decent excuse. That doesn't look easy.

83rd minute: Christopher Robben almost had another breakaway, two defenders and the Spanish keeper eventually stopped him. One of the announcers said he should have just fallen down and maybe he would have been given a penalty kick. Sigh.

89th minute: I'm not a big fan of soccer's offsides rule. It's like hockey, only instead of a line, they just can't go past the last defender until the ball is played. It creates this floating, slightly arbitrary offsides line. This, of course, leads to lots of controversy and arguing with officials.

End of 2nd half: Still 0-0, we're headed for extra time (that's European for overtime).

If they're still tied after 30 minutes of extra time, they decide the world cup with penalty kicks. I'm not a fan of this in theory, it's like deciding the NBA finals with a slam dunk contest. In practice, however, these two teams look like they could play for five days without scoring, so I guess you have to decide the game somehow. At that point, it's either penalty kicks or a war between the two countries.

95th minute: Great chance for the Spanish, nice play by the Dutch keeper. Decent counter-attack from the Dutch, ultimately didn't go anywhere. Both teams getting a little jumpy.

98th minute: "we're coming to the halfway point of the first half of extra time." Fractions are fun.

99th minute: Another missed opportunity for the Spanish. If this were a hockey game, we would have heard the crowd yelling "shooooooooot".

104th minute: The Spanish are officially knocking on the door at this point. In other news, both of these countries still have royal families. Europe is crazy.

108th minute: Apparently calling the Netherlands "Holland" is politcally incorrect. So, I learned something today.

109th minute: Uh oh. A red card for one of the Dutch players means they have to play the last ten minutes down a man. On top of that, the Spanish get a dangerous free kick from the foul. Unfortunately, they just kicked the ball over everything.

116th minute: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAL!!!!!!!! Iniesta. 1-0 Spain. Conquered by the Spanish, now the Dutch know how the Incas felt.

The Dutch didn't have much of a chance to make a comeback, being down a man and all. One or two long shots, nothing too serious. Congrats to Spain, tough break for the Dutch. Adios soccer, we'll see you in four years.

Winners And Losers

My Brain: "Hey, we haven't written anything in while and this Lebron thing seems pretty big. You feeling up to it?"
Me: "I don't know, can you think of a good angle to come at it from?"
My Brain: "Hmmm, how about some kind of winners and losers thing?"
Me: "I don't know, that sounds kind of dumb."
My Brain: "Well if you wanted better ideas, you should have drank less in college."
Me: "Fair enough."

Loser: Jim Grey (Gray? Grey? Whatever)
I counted 14 questions before he asked Lebron where he was actually going. Fourteen. FOURTEEN!!!! I know Jim probably didn't get to decide the questions or the order of the questions, but it was live TV. Just ask the man.

Winner: Dwyane Wade
No matter how many titles they win in Miami, he'll always have one more than Lebron, it'll always be his city and we'll always say Lebron never won a title without Wade. Plus, it won't take long for Miami fans to figure out that they still want Wade taking the big shot at the end of the game, because Lebron isn't a closer. Wade gets to play alongside the most talented player in the world and still be the leader of his team. Good stuff.

Loser: The Nets and The Clippers
If you were a crazy Russian billionaire, wouldn't it make more sense for you to pay the KGB to kill the owner of a successful NBA franchise, and then buy that franchise, then it would for you to buy the Nets. Travis Outlaw? Seriously? And the Clippers? They didn't even get a sniff of any of these guys. When ESPN did their little montage of fake pictures of Lebron in different jerseys, they didn't even include the Clippers. What a disaster.

This is one of the unintended consequences of a salary cap. Once a franchise becomes a complete joke, there's almost nothing you can do to fix it, because you can't just overpay for better players they way the Mets did with Pedro Martinez and Carlos Beltran.

Winner: Kobe Bryant
The 2010-2011 Heat are essentially shaping up to be two superstars, one all-star, maybe one mid-level exception type guy and eight minimum salary stiffs. When the Lakers dismantle them in the finals next June, all the Kobe haters will have to permanently sit down and shut up.

Loser: The Knicks
I know they got Amare Stoudamire, and I actually like him more than I like Chris Bosh. Having said that, the Knicks were the first team to start gutting their roster and clearing cap space for this summer. Everyone knew they were gunning for Lebron. You can't sell me on anything less being anything other than a disappointment. This would be like getting engaged and deciding to save sex for your wedding night. Then, when your wife takes her wedding dress off in the honeymoon sweet, you realize she's actually Amare Stoudamire. Bad times.

More importantly, you can't like this from a basketball standpoint if you're the Knicks. Mike D'Antoni plus younger Amar'e plus Steve Nash never even equaled a finals appearance. Now you're telling me Mike D'Antoni plus older Amar'e with a shaky knee and a bad eye minus Steve Nash is getting you a ring. A ring you'll have to win by going through a Miami team that now has 60% of the eastern conference all-star starting line-up. Good luck with that.

Undecided: Chris Bosh
I'm still on the fence about Bosh. On one hand, he gets to go along for the ride and probably win a couple of titles. On the other hand, he gets to spend his prime being the third best player on his team. I guess if I had to choose, Bosh is a winner, because it's not like he was going anywhere on his own. He needed help, and now he's got it.

Undecided #2: The Bulls
Carlos Boozer isn't exactly Lebron James or Dwyane Wade, but they've got a pretty good young team out there in Chicago. I think they can get to the conference finals against the SuperHeat. They'll be underdogs, but it wouldn't be a shock if they pulled the upset.

Biggest Loser: Cleveland
This one's obvious, but still. What a punch to the gut, and on national TV. The first time the Heat visit Cleveland, I'd like to see the whole home crowd spend the entire game standing with their backs to the court. I wouldn't be surprised if I woke up tomorrow to the news that Cleveland had been completely abandoned.

Biggest Winner: Steven A. Smith
This whole Lebron announcement thing had no suspense for me, you know why? Because sometime last week I heard Steven A. say Lebron, Wade and Bosh were going to Miami, and it was a done deal. When Steven A. talks about basketball, I listen. After he nailed this story, Steven A. could break the story that Shaq and Kobe were reuniting to play together in Norway and I'd believe it.

50,000 Airplanes

I couldn't be less impressed with the Presidential address I watched last night. It was a very informative speech if you happen to have just come out of a 57 day coma. Otherwise, it was ten minutes of whining about whose fault the BP oil spill is followed by a brief discussion of the road forward, which basically amounted to "we're going to be energy independent one day, although I have no earthly idea how".

I'm a fan of the President, I think I've been pretty clear about that. And, to be fair, maybe the President is, once again, being the grown-up in the room. Everyone wants him to do something, everyone wants some knee-jerk reaction. Maybe the subtext last night was something like "we can start arguing about the future of energy again once we get the damn leak stopped". If so, that's a fair point and maybe he's right.

Still, this felt like one of those leadership moments. A time when the President got a good pitch to hit and needed to knock it out of the park. Instead, he let it sail right on by. In his own address last night, the President referenced FDR's address to Congress on May 16, 1940. In the spring of 1940 the Nazis were just steamrolling Europe. Roosevelt knew we needed to get ready for war and set a goal for the production of 50,000 combat planes for the air force in the next year. In the same address, he referenced the current production capacity at the time, about 12,000. As the story goes, we didn't produce 50,000 airplanes, we produced 100,000 airplanes.

I'm the first one to say the President can't really do a whole lot about an oil spill. He's not Aquaman. But leadership on the path forward sort of falls under his job description, especially if he wants to be remembered as a great President, as all Presidents do. No leadership here though. The bold rhetoric of the Obama campaign has given way to timidly measured incrementalism. A logical, but often maddening pragmatism aimed at doing what is possible without alienating anyone. We accept that from a lot of politicians, but this President can do better.

Where's our bold energy goal for the next decade? 1 million solar collectors in the deserts of the southwest by 2020. Is that possible? I have no idea. Do you think FDR knew if 50,000 airplanes was really possible? Do you think Kennedy was sure we could really get to the moon? I think some people still believed the moon was made of cheese in 1960.

Don't like solar power? What about nuclear power? Safe, clean nuclear power would be a nice goal. Don't think nuclear power can ever really be totally safe and totally clean? OK, promise me a Dyson sphere by 2020. I don't care, just say something. We need a tangible energy goal, something for which the nation's best minds and most talented scientists and engineers can shoot.

The people who supported this President are waiting for him to do something real, something big that matches the promise of his campaign (and no, that half-assed health care bill doesn't count). The President spends all of his time trying not to bother the people who already don't like him and never will. Meanwhile, the rest of us wait.

There's another one of those election things coming up in 2012. I won't vote for Sarah Palin or Mitt Romnezxygr (sorry, I can't type Mitt's whole name without falling asleep). But if the Republicans nominate someone interesting, my vote's up for grabs. I'm tired of waiting.

One Night In Ohio

About 6 or 7 years ago, I took a road trip to Cincinnati in the middle of the summer to see a Reds game. I had wanted to take a road trip for a while, and I thought it would be fun to see a game in one of the new ballparks. I'll explain how I settled on Cincinnati in a minute. I made a 3 or 4 day vacation out of it. One day driving there, one or two days in Cincinnati and one more day driving back.

The ride there was interesting. If you've never done it, driving through Pennsylvania is a harrowing experience, it is impossibly long. I stopped just south of Pittsburgh to try a Primanti Bros. sandwich. I have to say, I was not impressed. Yes, the fries were right there on the sandwich. Unfortunately, the flavor was not right there on the sandwich. The flavor was, in fact, nowhere to be found. The highlight of my trip to Primanti Bros. was actually the Iron City Beer, which was a little bitter for my taste, but not half bad.

Growing up in New York, I really never understood what it was like in parts of the world where people don't live. The stretch of I-71 between Columbus and Cincinnati isn't completely deserted, but it's pretty damn close. I felt like I was driving through the science fiction movie right after the part when the aliens destroy everything.

Cincinnati itself is a perfectly nice little town. The people were super friendly in that chatty, mid-western sort of way that annoys New Yorkers like me. Also, did you know Cincinnati is the chili capital of the world? Me neither, if you had given me 50 guesses before I took this trip, I wouldn't have gotten it, but they swear they are. I actually drove just over the boarder to Kentucky and sampled a place called Skyline Chili. They'll put chili on anything. Hot dogs, potatoes, spaghetti, whatever you want. I think if I had pulled up to the drive thru with some of my own food, they would have been willing to dump some chili on it for a dollar.

The Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati is a really cool place to see a game. It isn't big and flashy like some of the other new stadiums, but it's perfect for the team and the city. Small, classy, understated. Not a bad seat in the house. I had a great seat about five rows back right behind the visiting dugout (by the way, Albert Pujols is huge in person, HUGE! I can't even come up with a funny comparison to do him justice. He is a gigantic man). You can walk the concourse from foul pole to foul pole and get a clear view of the game from any angle. Great food too. More chili, but also fantastic BBQ pork sandwiches. I may have had one or two, or four, or twenty, I can't remember. Positive experience all around.

OK, so why Cincinnati? Well, I knew I wanted to see a baseball game at one of the nice new ballparks, and I knew I wanted a decent drive, but no longer than one day. That narrowed it down a bit (Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore). Each option had pros and cons (for example, Detroit. Pros: the team has great history and I know they did a good job honoring it in the new ballpark. Cons: Detroit's chief export is sadness). Cincinnati had one thing that put it over the top, one person actually, Ken Griffey Jr. I figured Griffey would be retiring in the next year or two (whoops) and I wanted to see him play in person.

If life was fair, this would be where I would tell you how great it was to see Griffey play up close. How he hit a home run to break a tie in the bottom of the 8th and how you could feel the buzz in the stadium as he moved one homer closer to Hank Aaron's record. How he wasn't as fast as he used to be, but he still had those great instincts in centerfield. But life isn't fair, at least it wasn't for Griffey. Between the time I booked the trip and the time I got there, Griffey went down with yet another hamstring injury. He was on the DL when I got to Cincinnati. I wasn't disappointed, I knew the risk when I planned the trip.

That's my Ken Griffey Jr. story. Griffey is the Willie Mays of his generation, the Babe Ruth even. Older baseball fans all have their stories about the best players they saw and the great things they did on the field. I wonder how many people my age have a Griffey story that involves him being injured rather than doing something great. I hope it doesn't cheat him out of his rightful place in history.

What is his rightful place?
First, he was the best player of his generation. Only Barry Bonds comes close. Bonds was a great player before the steroids, but only the steroids made him better than Griffey. Griffey started his career with five straight seasons hitting over .300, two of them over .320. Between 1993 and 2000, he hit 40 home runs every year, except for 1995 when he got hurt. That includes the strike season in 1994 when he hit 40 home runs in just 493 at-bats. 13 all-star games, 10 straight gold gloves between 1990 and 1999, and 0 steroid accusations. None. If you forced me to bet everything I own on one power hitter from the steroids era being clean, I'd bet it on Griffey. He may be the only player left who would surprise me if he came out tomorrow and said he used steroids.

Second, He's somewhere between the fourth and sixth best centerfielder of all-time. Willie Mays, Ty Cobb and Mickey Mantle are the top three. The next three are Tris Speaker, Joe DiMaggio and Griffey (some people would even put DiMaggio ahead of Mantle, I call those people communists). Early reaction to Griffey's retirement seems to be putting him below DiMaggio and above Speaker. Let's look at some career numbers.

Ken Griffey Jr.: .284 avg, 630 HR, 1836 RBI, 184 SB, 2781 H, 9801 AB
Joe DiMaggio: .325 avg, 361 HR, 1537 RBI, 30 SB, 2214 H, 6821 AB
Tris Speaker: .345 avg, 117 HR, 1529 RBI, 436 SB, 3514 H, 10195 AB

A couple of things to keep in mind. First, Speaker played most of his career in the dead ball era. In 1912, he led the league in home runs with 10. Also, like Ted Williams, DiMaggio missed a huge chunk of his prime (three full seasons) to go fight in WW2 (stupid nazis, they ruin everything). And, since I mentioned Griffey's 10 gold gloves before (an award that hadn't yet been invented when Speaker or DiMaggio played), it's only fair to mention DiMaggio's impressive 3 MVP's compared to one each for Griffey and Speaker. DiMaggio, like Griffey, also had 13 all-star appearances and Speaker, well, he missed out on that too.

People will also tell you DiMaggio would have hit 500 or more home runs if he hadn't played at Yankee Stadium all those years. That's probably true, but I would have led the NBA in rebounding this year if I was 7 feet tall, but I'm not, so I didn't. Just like Griffey's injuries and Speaker's dead balls (HA!), you play where you play and you get what you get.

The point about Griffey isn't where exactly he fits with DiMaggio and Speaker. The point is that he does fit with them somewhere. He's a first ballot hall-of-famer, an all-time great and quite possibly the best all around player anyone under 40 who reads this will ever see. Injuries robbed him of the chance to be the greatest ever, and robbed people like me of a proper Ken Griffey Jr. story. But isn't the fact that he still had the career he did, even while basically never being healthy for the last 10 years of it, a testament to how great he really was? He's one of those rare "what if" guys who was still great, and even if I never got to see him in person, I can still sit back one day and tell young whipper snappers that I got to see him play at all, and that's good enough for me.