With the recent attacks on soldiers in the UK and France, combined with the Boston bombings, it's clear that, contrary to the administration's contentions, Al Qaeda is not on the run or decimated. Al Qaeda is crowing about the attacks, declaring that they force the West to always be looking over its collective shoulder for the next attack.
Is it wrong, then, to look askance at Arabs who may pose a threat to us? Is profiling a social evil that is necessary albeit illegal? Is it fair to look not only at Arabs but anyone professing to be a Muslim? News today came that a woman from Michigan died in Syria fighting the Assad regime. Is it not possible that a native-born American radicalized by Islamic fundamentalists would try to infiltrate our communities and attack to spread terror in the name of jihad? Would profiling such a person be allowable or per se illegal?
As an attorney, I know the answer. But as an American citizen, I also have an opinion. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for the authorities to look at suspicious individuals based on their race or their professed religious beliefs if their actions give sufficient reason to believe they pose a threat to us. It's one thing to pull an Arab out of a line simply because he's Arab. It's quite another to pull him out of line because he's looking around and carrying a backpack.
Moderate Muslims need to do a better job of policing themselves. They need to cooperate with authorities and stop aiding and abetting the Islamofascists with their silence and active support. Otherwise, they have no reason to gripe when they're unfairly profiled. It's an unfortunate consequence, but in this country at least, I believe they have a civic duty to help protect the country that has given them the freedoms and opportunities it has.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, May 31, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Failed experiment of the designated hitter
(Warning: This blogpost contains massive amounts of Sports Crappola)
Recently I read another article arguing that the designated hitter should be applied to all teams in Major League Baseball. The arguments were all the same: The need for uniformity, the horror of seeing pitchers hit, wanting to see more offense, blah, blah, blah. In fact, the time to end the designated hitter has come.
The designated hitter was supposed to be an experiment. Like tolls on Illinois highways, the designated hitter rule has overstayed its welcome. Somewhere, Ron Blomberg and Edgar Martínez are smiling, because one was able to extend his career and the other was able to have one because of this rule -- and a mighty fine, albeit incomplete, career it was.
The basic premise is that pitchers can't hit. Tell that to Carlos Zambrano, Jason Marquis, John Smoltz and a few other pitchers who revel in the underestimation. Sure, most pitchers hit below the Mendoza Line, but when one of them unexpectedly gets a key hit, it adds excitement to the game.
Another argument is that by eliminating hitting duties, it keeps pitchers fresher. I'm not about to cull through records to prove or disprove this. But an argument can be made that by having pitchers face nine and not eight major league hitters, it wears them down more than the occasional trip to the plate. What's more, given the emphasis on pitch counts and the fact that bullpens these days are well-stocked, the number of complete games continues to dwindle.
Of the ninety-two no-hitters thrown in the era of the designated hitter, forty-nine of them happened in the American League. What happened to more offense? The argument will be made, of course, that by not having the pitchers hit, they were fresher and therefore more capable of throwing a no-no. Well, if pitchers are so horrible in the batter's box, how much effort does it take to watch three pitches down the middle or swing a bat three times and walk back to the dugout? The argument cuts both ways.
Supporters of the rule scoff at the argument that by not having the pitcher hit, it takes the double switch and therefore strategy off the table. Well, frankly, it does. And what's more, teams can't always sit around waiting for the longball. They need to play small ball once in awhile, and even pitchers can do that at the plate, notably with sacrifices.
There's also the practical part of keeping pitchers at the plate. Without their turns hitting, pitchers can throw with impunity at the other team confident in the knowledge that they won't face retribution when their turn comes around. Having the pitcher hit may make a pitcher think twice about aiming a heater at an opponent's head.
The final point I'll make is that baseball was invented with the idea that the nine in the field all take their turns at the plate. This isn't like basketball, which introduced the three point line and the twenty-four second clock. The changes baseball's made in that vein were reducing artificial turf and domed stadiums, which necessarily affected the play on the field. But the basic integrity of the sport has been affected by the DH, and it needs to go.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Recently I read another article arguing that the designated hitter should be applied to all teams in Major League Baseball. The arguments were all the same: The need for uniformity, the horror of seeing pitchers hit, wanting to see more offense, blah, blah, blah. In fact, the time to end the designated hitter has come.
The designated hitter was supposed to be an experiment. Like tolls on Illinois highways, the designated hitter rule has overstayed its welcome. Somewhere, Ron Blomberg and Edgar Martínez are smiling, because one was able to extend his career and the other was able to have one because of this rule -- and a mighty fine, albeit incomplete, career it was.
The basic premise is that pitchers can't hit. Tell that to Carlos Zambrano, Jason Marquis, John Smoltz and a few other pitchers who revel in the underestimation. Sure, most pitchers hit below the Mendoza Line, but when one of them unexpectedly gets a key hit, it adds excitement to the game.
Another argument is that by eliminating hitting duties, it keeps pitchers fresher. I'm not about to cull through records to prove or disprove this. But an argument can be made that by having pitchers face nine and not eight major league hitters, it wears them down more than the occasional trip to the plate. What's more, given the emphasis on pitch counts and the fact that bullpens these days are well-stocked, the number of complete games continues to dwindle.
Of the ninety-two no-hitters thrown in the era of the designated hitter, forty-nine of them happened in the American League. What happened to more offense? The argument will be made, of course, that by not having the pitchers hit, they were fresher and therefore more capable of throwing a no-no. Well, if pitchers are so horrible in the batter's box, how much effort does it take to watch three pitches down the middle or swing a bat three times and walk back to the dugout? The argument cuts both ways.
Supporters of the rule scoff at the argument that by not having the pitcher hit, it takes the double switch and therefore strategy off the table. Well, frankly, it does. And what's more, teams can't always sit around waiting for the longball. They need to play small ball once in awhile, and even pitchers can do that at the plate, notably with sacrifices.
There's also the practical part of keeping pitchers at the plate. Without their turns hitting, pitchers can throw with impunity at the other team confident in the knowledge that they won't face retribution when their turn comes around. Having the pitcher hit may make a pitcher think twice about aiming a heater at an opponent's head.
The final point I'll make is that baseball was invented with the idea that the nine in the field all take their turns at the plate. This isn't like basketball, which introduced the three point line and the twenty-four second clock. The changes baseball's made in that vein were reducing artificial turf and domed stadiums, which necessarily affected the play on the field. But the basic integrity of the sport has been affected by the DH, and it needs to go.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Online opinionating
Opinions, in the words of the estimable Charles Barkley, are like #$%holes -- everyone's got one. I've known this for some time, and I try to respect what others say, no matter how crazy or ludicrous the opinion. Perhaps it's my training, but rather than resort to ad hominem or ad baculum assaults, I try to defeat the other opinion through reasoning or facts.
Sometimes, however, opinions take on a provocative, almost belligerent, tone. Take, for example, the following that was posted on Amazon for one of my reviews by the legendary Martin P. Bradley:
Read this over and see if it makes sense:
"It really is what the title implies: an examination of War and Politics."
Er...when you go food shopping do you buy a box of Cheerios expecting to find Tootsie Rolls inside?
What a worthless review!
Of course, to paraphrase what Barkley said, he has his own opinion as I have mine, and he's entitled to it. Nevermind that my review of the book simply said that the title of the book was dead on and that I expected more about the actual war and less about the politics of the situation, and I didn't even flame the book. I gave it a middling rating and left it at that.
Not to be outdone by himself, Mr. Bradley has apparently turned into my harshest critic, because he found another of my reviews that irked him even further:
Read this over and tell me this reviewer doesn't sound like a fool:
"I think Hemingway has the fame he does because of his life and not his works..admittedly, I haven't read all of them."
Ironically, I gave the book I reviewed, Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, four stars out of five. The entirety of my review is this:
I think Hemingway has the fame he does because of his life and not his works. This is my favorite Hemingway novel (admittedly, I haven't read all of them) and I give it four stars because it deals with Spain and I like the plot. Even so, Hemingway thought he spoke Spanish, which he decidedly did not. Early in the novel, while discussing the procurement of horses, someone says something to which another character says "Less bad." I don't know if that's Hemingway, a translator taking this from a Spanish edition or what, but "menos mal" does not translate to "less bad." It's "all right," "better yet," or whatever phrase makes sense. "Less bad" is just wrong.
I agree with those who question Hemingway's putative brilliance. I think his life is far more interesting than any of his works that I've read. Still, I enjoyed the plot of this novel.
Now, I never held myself out as a Hemingway scholar, and I qualified my review by saying that I had not read all of Hemingway's works. I actually admire and enjoy Isabel Allende's works but I haven't read all of them. Does that make me unqualified to comment on one of the ones I have read? Furthermore, there's nothing foolish about what I wrote. One can disagree with it, but to launch into a personal attack for my remarks is, in and of itself, foolish.
Mr. Bradley has taken it upon himself to be my personal critic. He uses the anonymity that the internet provides to assail me and belittle my reviews. As I wrote back to him, he obviously has an axe to grind and too much time on his hands. At no time did I attack anything he wrote, directly or indirectly, so why he should feel so emotional about my reviews mystifies me. I don't hold myself out as either a professional reviewer or a literature scholar. I gave two opinions that he found disagreeable. So be it. I write those to give people interested in the items another opinion from which, together with other opinions, they can decide whether to watch the movie or read the book. That Mr. Bradley disagrees with me is of no consequence. That he does so like a cowardly bully is telling.
Mr. Barkley was right about opinions. What he failed to say is that sometimes the opinion and the person giving the opinion can be described using the same word.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Sometimes, however, opinions take on a provocative, almost belligerent, tone. Take, for example, the following that was posted on Amazon for one of my reviews by the legendary Martin P. Bradley:
Read this over and see if it makes sense:
"It really is what the title implies: an examination of War and Politics."
Er...when you go food shopping do you buy a box of Cheerios expecting to find Tootsie Rolls inside?
What a worthless review!
Of course, to paraphrase what Barkley said, he has his own opinion as I have mine, and he's entitled to it. Nevermind that my review of the book simply said that the title of the book was dead on and that I expected more about the actual war and less about the politics of the situation, and I didn't even flame the book. I gave it a middling rating and left it at that.
Not to be outdone by himself, Mr. Bradley has apparently turned into my harshest critic, because he found another of my reviews that irked him even further:
Read this over and tell me this reviewer doesn't sound like a fool:
"I think Hemingway has the fame he does because of his life and not his works..admittedly, I haven't read all of them."
Ironically, I gave the book I reviewed, Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls, four stars out of five. The entirety of my review is this:
I think Hemingway has the fame he does because of his life and not his works. This is my favorite Hemingway novel (admittedly, I haven't read all of them) and I give it four stars because it deals with Spain and I like the plot. Even so, Hemingway thought he spoke Spanish, which he decidedly did not. Early in the novel, while discussing the procurement of horses, someone says something to which another character says "Less bad." I don't know if that's Hemingway, a translator taking this from a Spanish edition or what, but "menos mal" does not translate to "less bad." It's "all right," "better yet," or whatever phrase makes sense. "Less bad" is just wrong.
I agree with those who question Hemingway's putative brilliance. I think his life is far more interesting than any of his works that I've read. Still, I enjoyed the plot of this novel.
Now, I never held myself out as a Hemingway scholar, and I qualified my review by saying that I had not read all of Hemingway's works. I actually admire and enjoy Isabel Allende's works but I haven't read all of them. Does that make me unqualified to comment on one of the ones I have read? Furthermore, there's nothing foolish about what I wrote. One can disagree with it, but to launch into a personal attack for my remarks is, in and of itself, foolish.
Mr. Bradley has taken it upon himself to be my personal critic. He uses the anonymity that the internet provides to assail me and belittle my reviews. As I wrote back to him, he obviously has an axe to grind and too much time on his hands. At no time did I attack anything he wrote, directly or indirectly, so why he should feel so emotional about my reviews mystifies me. I don't hold myself out as either a professional reviewer or a literature scholar. I gave two opinions that he found disagreeable. So be it. I write those to give people interested in the items another opinion from which, together with other opinions, they can decide whether to watch the movie or read the book. That Mr. Bradley disagrees with me is of no consequence. That he does so like a cowardly bully is telling.
Mr. Barkley was right about opinions. What he failed to say is that sometimes the opinion and the person giving the opinion can be described using the same word.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Fox News
As anyone who's read this blog can probably tell, I bend a little more toward the conservative than the liberal side of the fence. Perhaps it's my age, and I can't tell you whether I've evolved politically since I cast my first vote back in the 1980 Presidential election. To quote Popeye, I yam what I yam.
That's not to say that I kneel at the altar of conservatism. I am not an unabashed apologist for all things conservative. For one, I am not a Republican. In fact, I'm a Marxist: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member. Think Groucho, not Karl.
Second, there are some conservative mouthpieces from whom I shy away. I'm not a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh, for example. Our Mother seemed to think she was on a first name basis with him, since whenever she'd refer to something she heard him say, she'd preface it by saying, Well, as Rush said.... I've never listened to more than a snippet of what he had to say. Likewise, I've never listened to Glenn Beck. I have nothing against them personally, I just don't like their delivery systems. I'm sure there are others out there whom I would likewise find disagreeable, but I can't say I know of them.
It wasn't until I had some free time on my hands that I started watching Fox News last fall. Truly, I'd never paid any attention to the station. But when the whole Benghazi thing started, I was fascinated and appalled at the same time that only one station was giving the issue continual coverage, as if it didn't matter to anyone else that four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, that they worked for the American government and no one in the government seemed much to care.
So I started watching and immediately began noticing some things. First, and most evidently, Fox likes pretty women, and usually pretty blonde women. From morning until night, about the only time a brunette makes an appearance is either as a guest or a substitute, with one notably unfortunate exception. Unfortunately, despite some of them having some very decent credentials, they do little to dispel the myth of the dumb blonde. I'm sure that all of them are educated, but the way their bosses either encourage them to talk or how the ratings compel them to talk, they have this maudlin, unctuous tone when they try to seem sympathetic, and when they're in disagreement with something, they try to maintain a DAR demeanor while showing their outrage. I have little doubt as to the sincerity of their feelings on either level, but how they show them is a little disingenuous.
Megyn Kelly anchors the midday show. She's quite appealing to the eye, but the minute she opens her mouth the illusion's over. She almost sounds like a truck driver. I know she used to be an attorney, but for someone with that background, one would think she could think better on her feet. Oftentimes, she appears tongue-tied when forced to speak extemporaneously. She tries to sound authoritative about things, but she comes off as foolish most often. It's often best to watch her segments with the sound off.
One of my favorite shows is The Five. Five commentators -- four conservative, one liberal -- talk about current events. The blonde, Dana Perino, is a former spokesperson for George W. Bush. Almost counterintuitively, she's the best female at Fox News of those who appear during the day. The only flaw I can find with her is that she's married to a Brit. There are those who like Greta Van Sustern, but she's a little too dry for my tastes.
Kimberly Guilfoyle is beautiful in an almost exotic way. But it's hard to believe she was a prosecuting attorney at one point in her career. She's almost like a sorority sister who's got the leading GPA in her house which is only a middling average compared to the rest of the campus. She likes to play the coquette too much for my tastes, something none of the other women on Fox does.
Eric Bolling is quality. I appreciate his demeanor on the show and how he mixes it up with the resident liberal, Bob Beckel. For all his liberal leanings, I actually appreciate Bob Beckel, although sometimes he strains credulity to support the Left. The troublesome one is Greg Gutfeld. For as much as I agree with him, I hate his enfant terrible act. I'm sure there are some inside jokes between him, Perino and Guilfoyle, but he's almost like the younger brother who's hell-bent on annoying his older sisters. His monologues are tiresome exercises of conceit. All right already: We get that you have a nicely developed vocabulary.
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are quality people, but O'Reilly has a little too much showman in him for my tastes. Truth be told, I don't really watch Hannity that much, so I can't comment on him. O'Reilly I watch only when there's a spill-over from the hour before him or if there's a particularly juicy topic he's addressing. He is fearless; I'll give him that.
I think it's Limbaugh whose legion of followers is called the Dittoheads. But just as I chastise the liberals for adhering to what the likes of Madonna, Alec Baldwin and Bill Maher tell them to believe, I too can think for myself. Fox serves one purpose and one purpose only: It's a counterweight to the rest of the MSM and brings me news I'm almost guaranteed not to hear anywhere else.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
That's not to say that I kneel at the altar of conservatism. I am not an unabashed apologist for all things conservative. For one, I am not a Republican. In fact, I'm a Marxist: I'd never join a club that would have me as a member. Think Groucho, not Karl.
Second, there are some conservative mouthpieces from whom I shy away. I'm not a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh, for example. Our Mother seemed to think she was on a first name basis with him, since whenever she'd refer to something she heard him say, she'd preface it by saying, Well, as Rush said.... I've never listened to more than a snippet of what he had to say. Likewise, I've never listened to Glenn Beck. I have nothing against them personally, I just don't like their delivery systems. I'm sure there are others out there whom I would likewise find disagreeable, but I can't say I know of them.
It wasn't until I had some free time on my hands that I started watching Fox News last fall. Truly, I'd never paid any attention to the station. But when the whole Benghazi thing started, I was fascinated and appalled at the same time that only one station was giving the issue continual coverage, as if it didn't matter to anyone else that four Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, that they worked for the American government and no one in the government seemed much to care.
So I started watching and immediately began noticing some things. First, and most evidently, Fox likes pretty women, and usually pretty blonde women. From morning until night, about the only time a brunette makes an appearance is either as a guest or a substitute, with one notably unfortunate exception. Unfortunately, despite some of them having some very decent credentials, they do little to dispel the myth of the dumb blonde. I'm sure that all of them are educated, but the way their bosses either encourage them to talk or how the ratings compel them to talk, they have this maudlin, unctuous tone when they try to seem sympathetic, and when they're in disagreement with something, they try to maintain a DAR demeanor while showing their outrage. I have little doubt as to the sincerity of their feelings on either level, but how they show them is a little disingenuous.
Megyn Kelly anchors the midday show. She's quite appealing to the eye, but the minute she opens her mouth the illusion's over. She almost sounds like a truck driver. I know she used to be an attorney, but for someone with that background, one would think she could think better on her feet. Oftentimes, she appears tongue-tied when forced to speak extemporaneously. She tries to sound authoritative about things, but she comes off as foolish most often. It's often best to watch her segments with the sound off.
One of my favorite shows is The Five. Five commentators -- four conservative, one liberal -- talk about current events. The blonde, Dana Perino, is a former spokesperson for George W. Bush. Almost counterintuitively, she's the best female at Fox News of those who appear during the day. The only flaw I can find with her is that she's married to a Brit. There are those who like Greta Van Sustern, but she's a little too dry for my tastes.
Kimberly Guilfoyle is beautiful in an almost exotic way. But it's hard to believe she was a prosecuting attorney at one point in her career. She's almost like a sorority sister who's got the leading GPA in her house which is only a middling average compared to the rest of the campus. She likes to play the coquette too much for my tastes, something none of the other women on Fox does.
Eric Bolling is quality. I appreciate his demeanor on the show and how he mixes it up with the resident liberal, Bob Beckel. For all his liberal leanings, I actually appreciate Bob Beckel, although sometimes he strains credulity to support the Left. The troublesome one is Greg Gutfeld. For as much as I agree with him, I hate his enfant terrible act. I'm sure there are some inside jokes between him, Perino and Guilfoyle, but he's almost like the younger brother who's hell-bent on annoying his older sisters. His monologues are tiresome exercises of conceit. All right already: We get that you have a nicely developed vocabulary.
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are quality people, but O'Reilly has a little too much showman in him for my tastes. Truth be told, I don't really watch Hannity that much, so I can't comment on him. O'Reilly I watch only when there's a spill-over from the hour before him or if there's a particularly juicy topic he's addressing. He is fearless; I'll give him that.
I think it's Limbaugh whose legion of followers is called the Dittoheads. But just as I chastise the liberals for adhering to what the likes of Madonna, Alec Baldwin and Bill Maher tell them to believe, I too can think for myself. Fox serves one purpose and one purpose only: It's a counterweight to the rest of the MSM and brings me news I'm almost guaranteed not to hear anywhere else.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Sealing a driveway
So I came home to take care of my girl. She had a cancer treatment on Friday to which I drove her. Then when we got home, I fixed the mower and took care of the front lawn after I grocery shopped. Yesterday, I took care of the back lawn and did some other honey-do's before we settled down for the Blackhawks-Red Wings tilt. Today, however, was a date of infamy.
I knew it was coming. I couldn't avoid it. Today was the day I had to seal the driveway. Yesterday, part of my honey-do's included sweeping out and then filling the cracks in the driveway. It was tedious, no more. This was a veritable pain in the backside.
It's easy, I read. No sweat, said another. I wasn't lulled into a false sense of security. I remember that two-hour toilet installation that took me four days instead. Nothing having to do with handyman's jobs is ever as easy for me.
Therefore, I present my Do's and Don'ts for sealing a driveway:
Don't buy a house with a driveway with a contour that more resembles a putting green at Augusta National.
Do buy a house with a nice, level driveway.
Don't buy your equipment and supplies at Menard's.
Do your first driveway seal with someone who's done one before.
Don't listen to the guy on Youtube who says it's easy.
Do have a cold beer or two waiting for you for afterwards.
Don't buy a squeegee that's the size of a rake for a bonsai tree.
Do measure your driveway ahead of time.
Don't trust the guy at Menard's when you give him your measurements.
Don't fret about the forecast.
Do go to the holler for the family reunion instead.
Don't buy anything less than a six foot squeegee; you'll thank me later.
Do get Goo-Gone or Murphy's Oil Soap; you're going to need it.
Don't close off all your access to the garage.
Do use a scrub brush with plastic bristles.
Don't buy your supplies and equipment at Menard's. (Did I say that already?)
Do be prepared to clean the sidewalks and the front of the garage.
Don't plan on doing anything else for the rest of the day if you follow the Don'ts.
Do buy the next house with a gravel driveway.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I knew it was coming. I couldn't avoid it. Today was the day I had to seal the driveway. Yesterday, part of my honey-do's included sweeping out and then filling the cracks in the driveway. It was tedious, no more. This was a veritable pain in the backside.
It's easy, I read. No sweat, said another. I wasn't lulled into a false sense of security. I remember that two-hour toilet installation that took me four days instead. Nothing having to do with handyman's jobs is ever as easy for me.
Therefore, I present my Do's and Don'ts for sealing a driveway:
Don't buy a house with a driveway with a contour that more resembles a putting green at Augusta National.
Do buy a house with a nice, level driveway.
Don't buy your equipment and supplies at Menard's.
Do your first driveway seal with someone who's done one before.
Don't listen to the guy on Youtube who says it's easy.
Do have a cold beer or two waiting for you for afterwards.
Don't buy a squeegee that's the size of a rake for a bonsai tree.
Do measure your driveway ahead of time.
Don't trust the guy at Menard's when you give him your measurements.
Don't fret about the forecast.
Do go to the holler for the family reunion instead.
Don't buy anything less than a six foot squeegee; you'll thank me later.
Do get Goo-Gone or Murphy's Oil Soap; you're going to need it.
Don't close off all your access to the garage.
Do use a scrub brush with plastic bristles.
Don't buy your supplies and equipment at Menard's. (Did I say that already?)
Do be prepared to clean the sidewalks and the front of the garage.
Don't plan on doing anything else for the rest of the day if you follow the Don'ts.
Do buy the next house with a gravel driveway.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, May 24, 2013
Sports nostalgia
My playing days are well past me now. I've written about them in a short story and a book, neither of which will see the light of day. They help me remember things so that when I'm enfeebled, I'll at least have a record to which I can refer.
I miss sports. I loved competing. I loved trying to do my best and enjoyed it when I accomplished something. I was never about myself; I couldn't have played anything but a team sport. Seeking personal achievements never occurred to me.
But what I miss most about playing baseball and basketball are the sensations. For someone who's never played either of these sports, this will sound weird. Here, though, are the things I miss:
The feel of a new baseball that I'm about to pitch.
The tightening of my stomach as we get ready for the center jump to start the game.
The feel of my cleats as I scraped the ground in front of the rubber, beside first base or in the batter's box.
The feel of wood in my hands in any weather: It's coldness in early Spring games, it's slipperiness in humid weather games and the sting it gave me in those colder games.
How my wrist felt when I knew I'd stroked a good shot.
The weight of an opponent's body as he banged into me contesting a rebound.
The hardness of home plate as I crossed it with a run.
The odd mix of hardness and softness of first, second or third base.
The smell of the freshly mown infield grass.
The unforgiving varnished court that gave me floor burns as I dove for a loose ball.
The oddity of the tartan surface that was a hard rubber.
The scratchiness of the old woolen uniforms we played T-ball in.
The almost unique sleeved jerseys our grade school team in which our team played basketball.
The sound of cheerleaders being a din in the background of a game.
The spontaneous cheers of the crowd reacting to a play.
The chatter of the opponents when I was up to bat.
The majestic sound of ash meeting ball.
The thud of the ball landing in horsehide.
The smell of a freshly oiled mitt.
The perfection of the raised surface of a new basketball.
The difference in sounds of a ball hitting a backboard.
The cacophony in the gym during the final moments of a hotly contested game.
The sting moments after being hit by a pitch.
The refreshing taste of very cold water during hot summer games.
The glare of the lights playing night games.
The haze in which the ball disappeared in the lights during night games.
My breathing as I ran to my position to cut off the outfielder's throw to the plate.
The slight tick of the ball barely grazing my mitt as I let it go through to the catcher to decoy the runner rounding first.
The union of ball in mitt and mitt hitting runner diving back to first after the pitcher threw to first.
The ping of an aluminum bat hitting a baseball.
The muffled sounds of the coach shifting fielders from the bench.
The subtle directions from our basketball coach adjusting our defense.
The stern instructions in the huddle for our next in-bounding play.
The groan of an opponent when our aggressiveness went up a few notches.
And finally, the elation of being drenched in the showers in full uniform after winning the championship.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I miss sports. I loved competing. I loved trying to do my best and enjoyed it when I accomplished something. I was never about myself; I couldn't have played anything but a team sport. Seeking personal achievements never occurred to me.
But what I miss most about playing baseball and basketball are the sensations. For someone who's never played either of these sports, this will sound weird. Here, though, are the things I miss:
The feel of a new baseball that I'm about to pitch.
The tightening of my stomach as we get ready for the center jump to start the game.
The feel of my cleats as I scraped the ground in front of the rubber, beside first base or in the batter's box.
The feel of wood in my hands in any weather: It's coldness in early Spring games, it's slipperiness in humid weather games and the sting it gave me in those colder games.
How my wrist felt when I knew I'd stroked a good shot.
The weight of an opponent's body as he banged into me contesting a rebound.
The hardness of home plate as I crossed it with a run.
The odd mix of hardness and softness of first, second or third base.
The smell of the freshly mown infield grass.
The unforgiving varnished court that gave me floor burns as I dove for a loose ball.
The oddity of the tartan surface that was a hard rubber.
The scratchiness of the old woolen uniforms we played T-ball in.
The almost unique sleeved jerseys our grade school team in which our team played basketball.
The sound of cheerleaders being a din in the background of a game.
The spontaneous cheers of the crowd reacting to a play.
The chatter of the opponents when I was up to bat.
The majestic sound of ash meeting ball.
The thud of the ball landing in horsehide.
The smell of a freshly oiled mitt.
The perfection of the raised surface of a new basketball.
The difference in sounds of a ball hitting a backboard.
The cacophony in the gym during the final moments of a hotly contested game.
The sting moments after being hit by a pitch.
The refreshing taste of very cold water during hot summer games.
The glare of the lights playing night games.
The haze in which the ball disappeared in the lights during night games.
My breathing as I ran to my position to cut off the outfielder's throw to the plate.
The slight tick of the ball barely grazing my mitt as I let it go through to the catcher to decoy the runner rounding first.
The union of ball in mitt and mitt hitting runner diving back to first after the pitcher threw to first.
The ping of an aluminum bat hitting a baseball.
The muffled sounds of the coach shifting fielders from the bench.
The subtle directions from our basketball coach adjusting our defense.
The stern instructions in the huddle for our next in-bounding play.
The groan of an opponent when our aggressiveness went up a few notches.
And finally, the elation of being drenched in the showers in full uniform after winning the championship.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Political double standards
Lost in the ongoing controversies the Obama administration is confronting is the role the MSM has played and continues to play in these farces. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I'm highly critical of the partisan way in which the MSM chooses to cover the POTUS and his cronies. The spate of troubles he and his band of merry men have encountered lately puts the MSM in a bit of a pickle.
Having swooned at President Obama for nearly five years (his four year first term and the campaign year that preceeded it), the MSM has been less than objective in its reporting. It has chosen not to report negative news about the Democrats and the President or downplayed things its done. One small example, which really isn't that big of a deal, is when President Obama gave a press conference wherein he admitted he didn't know a term in Austrian:
It was an unfortunate slip of the tongue, probably made after a long day when the President was tired. Here's another one:
Again, it's a meaningless, simple gaffe, probably made at the end of a tiring day. It was mentioned briefly, if at all, with an avuncular chuckle by the press. Had this been former President Bush, we'd still be talking about it today. But the MSM cleans up this President's messes, big and small, and these incidents, meaningless when taken in isolation, portended bigger things if only we'd known it.
Now we have the Grand Slam of scandals: Benghazi, the IRS, the AP and the Secret Service. The MSM is just addressing three -- more on that anon -- and not even talking about the Secret Service one, wherein six agents who engaged prostitutes on their detail in Cartagena, Colombia, were put on indefinite, administrative leave without pay. A report was written by someone with unimpeachable credentials that included mention of two higher-ups at Secret Service who not only also patronized prostitutes at the same time (it's legal in Colombia, apparently), but did so in the same hotel in which the President was staying. The investigator mentioned it in his report but was told to redact it. When he wouldn't, he too was put on administrative leave.
This is the kind of thing we expect from the British. Back in the '80s, with the Troubles continuing to fester, Maggie Thatcher sent John Stalker, the former Deputy Chief Constable of the Manchester Police, to investigage claims that the authorities in Northern Ireland were cooperating with Protestant groups against the minority Catholic groups. Stalker's report, commissioned by the British government itself, found among other things that in fact Northern Irish and British authorities were providing information to Protestant para-military groups on the whereabouts of Catholic paramilitary personnel and then turning their backs while the Protestant groups went out and murdered the Catholics. It also discovered the infamous Shoot-to-kill policy. When Stalker presented his report, it was suppressed under the Official Secrets Act. The British government even tried to try Stalker, but an independent court ruled in Stalker's favor.
Here, we have no Official Secrets Act that, at first blush, should be considered a good thing. Transparency is necessary for a free and informed public. As Justice Brandeis once said before he ascended to the Supreme Court, sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. Yet the MSM continues to maintain a film over the things to be examined by either not reporting them, reporting them and then discrediting them or editorializing. The other night, Scott Pelley contorted himself to say that there was no evidence there was any political motivation for the IRS scandal. Think about it for a minute: Were a conservative in the White House and liberal groups had been the targets, would the MSM have been arguing that there was no political motivation? What's more, why is the MSM even addressing this without all the facts being in evidence? When did the MSM's job expand from mere reporting to advocacy and cheerleading?
This puts the MSM in a bind. It now has to divorce itself from its self-appointed role as cheerleader-in-chief and promoter of the President's agenda and begin to report objectively on scandals that may or may not have an impact on the government of this country. It's struggling to do so and, by and large, failing.
I go back once again to what my learned liberal friend Bill said about this: The MSM is letting the country down. I have uttered the hyperbole that this verges into Goebbles and Riefenstahl territory, but I'm not entirely wrong. The news organs that exist in this country -- the MSM and Hollywood, the majority of which stand side-by-side with the liberal elite -- are putting out a skewed and therefore almost one-sided perspective of the goings-on in this country. What's more, when a conservative member of the media points out things that don't conform to the administration's -- and by extensions the MSM's -- version, the liberal establishment discredits the conservative news organ as being politically motivated. It's a substratum of ad hominem and ad baculum argument styles.
None of these incidents, by themselves or even collectively, will bring down the Republic. They will, however, continue to erode the people's confidence in government, widen the divide between groups and begin preparing the stage for the ultimate breakdown of the best experiment in human history, thereby proving Plato correct.
And ironically, it may very well set the stage for a conservative backlash that could be more strident than what even the liberals fear now.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Having swooned at President Obama for nearly five years (his four year first term and the campaign year that preceeded it), the MSM has been less than objective in its reporting. It has chosen not to report negative news about the Democrats and the President or downplayed things its done. One small example, which really isn't that big of a deal, is when President Obama gave a press conference wherein he admitted he didn't know a term in Austrian:
It was an unfortunate slip of the tongue, probably made after a long day when the President was tired. Here's another one:
Again, it's a meaningless, simple gaffe, probably made at the end of a tiring day. It was mentioned briefly, if at all, with an avuncular chuckle by the press. Had this been former President Bush, we'd still be talking about it today. But the MSM cleans up this President's messes, big and small, and these incidents, meaningless when taken in isolation, portended bigger things if only we'd known it.
Now we have the Grand Slam of scandals: Benghazi, the IRS, the AP and the Secret Service. The MSM is just addressing three -- more on that anon -- and not even talking about the Secret Service one, wherein six agents who engaged prostitutes on their detail in Cartagena, Colombia, were put on indefinite, administrative leave without pay. A report was written by someone with unimpeachable credentials that included mention of two higher-ups at Secret Service who not only also patronized prostitutes at the same time (it's legal in Colombia, apparently), but did so in the same hotel in which the President was staying. The investigator mentioned it in his report but was told to redact it. When he wouldn't, he too was put on administrative leave.
This is the kind of thing we expect from the British. Back in the '80s, with the Troubles continuing to fester, Maggie Thatcher sent John Stalker, the former Deputy Chief Constable of the Manchester Police, to investigage claims that the authorities in Northern Ireland were cooperating with Protestant groups against the minority Catholic groups. Stalker's report, commissioned by the British government itself, found among other things that in fact Northern Irish and British authorities were providing information to Protestant para-military groups on the whereabouts of Catholic paramilitary personnel and then turning their backs while the Protestant groups went out and murdered the Catholics. It also discovered the infamous Shoot-to-kill policy. When Stalker presented his report, it was suppressed under the Official Secrets Act. The British government even tried to try Stalker, but an independent court ruled in Stalker's favor.
Here, we have no Official Secrets Act that, at first blush, should be considered a good thing. Transparency is necessary for a free and informed public. As Justice Brandeis once said before he ascended to the Supreme Court, sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants. Yet the MSM continues to maintain a film over the things to be examined by either not reporting them, reporting them and then discrediting them or editorializing. The other night, Scott Pelley contorted himself to say that there was no evidence there was any political motivation for the IRS scandal. Think about it for a minute: Were a conservative in the White House and liberal groups had been the targets, would the MSM have been arguing that there was no political motivation? What's more, why is the MSM even addressing this without all the facts being in evidence? When did the MSM's job expand from mere reporting to advocacy and cheerleading?
This puts the MSM in a bind. It now has to divorce itself from its self-appointed role as cheerleader-in-chief and promoter of the President's agenda and begin to report objectively on scandals that may or may not have an impact on the government of this country. It's struggling to do so and, by and large, failing.
I go back once again to what my learned liberal friend Bill said about this: The MSM is letting the country down. I have uttered the hyperbole that this verges into Goebbles and Riefenstahl territory, but I'm not entirely wrong. The news organs that exist in this country -- the MSM and Hollywood, the majority of which stand side-by-side with the liberal elite -- are putting out a skewed and therefore almost one-sided perspective of the goings-on in this country. What's more, when a conservative member of the media points out things that don't conform to the administration's -- and by extensions the MSM's -- version, the liberal establishment discredits the conservative news organ as being politically motivated. It's a substratum of ad hominem and ad baculum argument styles.
None of these incidents, by themselves or even collectively, will bring down the Republic. They will, however, continue to erode the people's confidence in government, widen the divide between groups and begin preparing the stage for the ultimate breakdown of the best experiment in human history, thereby proving Plato correct.
And ironically, it may very well set the stage for a conservative backlash that could be more strident than what even the liberals fear now.
(c) 2013 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)