Last week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney showed himself to be both arrogant and clueless. After winning some of the Super Tuesday primaries, he practically ordered his two main opponents, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, to withdraw from the race on the grounds that they would not be able to win enough committed delegates to the Republican National Convention to gain the nomination. His public statement will probably have the opposite effect and only serve to strengthen their resolve.
Although privately they may come to the same conclusion as Romney, does Romney really think that they are going to admit to this publicly? Dream on, Mitt. That's not the way that politics works.
In my opinion, this is the way that Romney should have handled it:
Pick up the phone and call Newt Gingrich. The conversation might go something like this:
"Newt, I'm wondering if you and your team have had an opportunity to do the math when it comes to winning enough delegates to secure the presidental nomination at the convention? I've looked at the numbers and I don't see how you're going to be able to do it. If you and your advisors come to the same conclusion, then I'm suggesting that for the good of the party and the country, we stop wasting our time and resources attacking each other when we both know that our real goal is to defeat Obama in November.
"Let us say, hypothetically of course, that I win the nomination and the election. My first task would be to put together an administration. Would you see a role for yourself in that administration?...Newt, I like that idea and I would have to give it very serious consideration. You know that although we have strong differences on certain issues, I have great respect for the many years that you have given to public service in this country.
"All that I'm asking here is that you and your team take a hard look at the numbers and the way that our party assigns delegates and do the math. If you come to the same conclusion that my people and I have reached, then I hope that you will at least consider withdrawing from the race, releasing your delegates, and urging them to support my candidacy. Meanwhile, I appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedule to talk with me and hear me out. Whatever you decide, I wish you the best of luck."
There's a big difference between challenging an opponent publicly and speaking with them privately. Look at what this approach does:
1--If Newt Gingrich decides to withdraw from the race, it becomes his idea, not Romney's. This approach gives him the opportunity to save face.
2--Romney suggests that he might give Gingrich a role in a Romney administration without absolutely committing to one.
3--Romney asks Gingrich to withdraw from the primaries for the good of the Republican Party and the country, so that they can use their resources to defeat Obama in the general election. How can Gingrich be opposed to the good of the party and the country? (Romney used this argument in his public challenge as well, but I suspect that this message will have been lost in his attempt to back Gingrich and Santorum against the wall.)
4--If Gingrich releases his delegates to Romney, even someone as naive as Santorum would hopefully see the writing on the wall, realize that the situation was hopeless, and bow out of the race without needing any encouragement at all from Romney.
This isn't rocket science, folks. It's Politics 101. Didn't Mitt Romney learn anything from his father, George, who was an effective politician? Apparently not.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Mill & the Cross: A film for the ages
A film doesn't have to be old to be a classic. I define a classic film as one that has either stood the test of time or that can be expected to stand the test of time in the distant future. By this definition, a small number of the films being produced today are legitimate classics.
One such film is The Mill & the Cross, which I saw for the first time yesterday. It's been more than 24 hours and I still can't get this film out of my head. I even lost sleep over it last night. Quite simply, it is the finest example of pure film that I have seen in many years. I have to go back to the great silent film The Passion of Joan of Arc to find anything comparable. I first saw that film more than 50 years ago, and the image of the face of the great actress Falconetti, who played Joan, has been burned into my conscienceness ever since.
The Mill & the Cross is that same kind of film. It was released in 2010 but didn't make it to the United States until last year. This modern classic was produced and directed by the brilliant Polish filmmaker Lech Majewski, who also created some of the cinematography and music for the film. It was inspired by the painting "The Way to Calvary" by the great Flemish painter Peter Breugel the Elder. Breugel is played by Rutger Hauer; Michael York portrays his benefactor, a banker; and Charlotte Rampling plays Breugel's mother, who served as his model for the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Although there are hundreds of townspeople in the film, including many who will appear in the painting, these three actors have the only speaking roles.
The story line is basically a reenactment of the Crucifixion of Jesus as it might have occurred in Breugel's time. For example, instead of Roman soldiers subjugating the Jews, there are Spanish conquerors going around and killing infidels; in other words, just about anyone who is not Roman Catholic.
There is very little dialogue in the film, nor is it necessary. Most of it consists of Breugel showing the banker his sketches for the painting and calling his attention to some of his fine points. Much of the action takes place in an open field that is dominated in the back by a huge rock, at the top of which is a windmill that is used to power a very elaborate piece of machinery that produces grain. The machine itself is a marvel of mechanical engineering.
The first half of the film focuses on the daily lives of the townspeople, in particular the miller and his family, while the second half deals mostly with the reenactment of the Crucifixion. Some viewers may not be impressed by the film because the story line is sparse and, as noted, the dialogue is minimal. As a result, the sound track becomes twice as important as usual. The sound designers and engineers are more than up to the task, so that you begin to notice sounds, such as the songs of birds, that are normally in the background.
For me, the brilliance of Majewski and his film is in the way that he and his co-cinematographer have captured the look of Bruegel and the other great Dutch masters. The colors, lighting, and composition are so well done as to be unbelievable. If Breugel and the other Dutch masters were alive today and working in film rather than painting, this is how their films would look.
This is pure cinema at its best. Just about every camera shot is a stunning jaw-dropper. This is a film that grabs you with the opening scene and doesn't let go. To find anything comparable, I have to go back to the great silent films such as Battleship Potemkin and especially, as mentioned above, The Passion of Joan of Arc. One might also compare it to Charlie Chaplin's classics, City Lights and Modern Times, which were made after the introduction of sound and had sound tracks with sound effcts but no dialogue. The ability to "shoot silent" affords the director and the cinematographer a great deal of freedom and flexibility that they don't have when they have to record dialogue.
I have a feeling that I could come into this film at any point and find myself unable to switch away from it until the end. The only other film that has had that effect on me is The Passion of Joan of Arc, which is one of the two or three greatest films that I have ever seen. I have the Criterion Collection release of the restored version, and it is a gem. (Roger Ebert has called the Criterion Collection the Rolls-Royce of DVD film publishers, and I agree with Roger.) Therefore I can watch the film whenever I want.
One night a few years ago, I turned on the TV to watch something or other. The set-top box was tuned to Turner Classic Movies, which was showing the Passion. It was about 30 minutes into the film, and yet the Passion is so powerful and compelling that I could not turn away from it. The something or other that I had originally intended to watch had to wait until the end.
At the recent Academy Awards, there were many films that received more attention and awards than The Mill & the Cross. Not having seen many of these films, I must assume that they deserved their awards, and it would be unfair for me to comment on their quality. And yet, I have this feeling that 50 years from now, people who care about quality films will watch The Mill & the Cross many times more often than they will watch most of the other films that were released last year. This film is a classic for the ages.
One final note. The film has just shown up on Video on Demand, at least in my area. I recommend that you pay the rental fee and watch it now. I would expect that most of the other good films from 2011 that are showing up on Video on Demand will eventually be picked up by premium movie channels such as HBO, Showtime, and Starz. If you subscribe to these premium channels, you'll be able to watch them at that time at no additional cost. However, The Mill & the Cross is the type of art film that might not be picked up by the movie channels, so watch it now while you still can.
One such film is The Mill & the Cross, which I saw for the first time yesterday. It's been more than 24 hours and I still can't get this film out of my head. I even lost sleep over it last night. Quite simply, it is the finest example of pure film that I have seen in many years. I have to go back to the great silent film The Passion of Joan of Arc to find anything comparable. I first saw that film more than 50 years ago, and the image of the face of the great actress Falconetti, who played Joan, has been burned into my conscienceness ever since.
The Mill & the Cross is that same kind of film. It was released in 2010 but didn't make it to the United States until last year. This modern classic was produced and directed by the brilliant Polish filmmaker Lech Majewski, who also created some of the cinematography and music for the film. It was inspired by the painting "The Way to Calvary" by the great Flemish painter Peter Breugel the Elder. Breugel is played by Rutger Hauer; Michael York portrays his benefactor, a banker; and Charlotte Rampling plays Breugel's mother, who served as his model for the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Although there are hundreds of townspeople in the film, including many who will appear in the painting, these three actors have the only speaking roles.
The story line is basically a reenactment of the Crucifixion of Jesus as it might have occurred in Breugel's time. For example, instead of Roman soldiers subjugating the Jews, there are Spanish conquerors going around and killing infidels; in other words, just about anyone who is not Roman Catholic.
There is very little dialogue in the film, nor is it necessary. Most of it consists of Breugel showing the banker his sketches for the painting and calling his attention to some of his fine points. Much of the action takes place in an open field that is dominated in the back by a huge rock, at the top of which is a windmill that is used to power a very elaborate piece of machinery that produces grain. The machine itself is a marvel of mechanical engineering.
The first half of the film focuses on the daily lives of the townspeople, in particular the miller and his family, while the second half deals mostly with the reenactment of the Crucifixion. Some viewers may not be impressed by the film because the story line is sparse and, as noted, the dialogue is minimal. As a result, the sound track becomes twice as important as usual. The sound designers and engineers are more than up to the task, so that you begin to notice sounds, such as the songs of birds, that are normally in the background.
For me, the brilliance of Majewski and his film is in the way that he and his co-cinematographer have captured the look of Bruegel and the other great Dutch masters. The colors, lighting, and composition are so well done as to be unbelievable. If Breugel and the other Dutch masters were alive today and working in film rather than painting, this is how their films would look.
This is pure cinema at its best. Just about every camera shot is a stunning jaw-dropper. This is a film that grabs you with the opening scene and doesn't let go. To find anything comparable, I have to go back to the great silent films such as Battleship Potemkin and especially, as mentioned above, The Passion of Joan of Arc. One might also compare it to Charlie Chaplin's classics, City Lights and Modern Times, which were made after the introduction of sound and had sound tracks with sound effcts but no dialogue. The ability to "shoot silent" affords the director and the cinematographer a great deal of freedom and flexibility that they don't have when they have to record dialogue.
I have a feeling that I could come into this film at any point and find myself unable to switch away from it until the end. The only other film that has had that effect on me is The Passion of Joan of Arc, which is one of the two or three greatest films that I have ever seen. I have the Criterion Collection release of the restored version, and it is a gem. (Roger Ebert has called the Criterion Collection the Rolls-Royce of DVD film publishers, and I agree with Roger.) Therefore I can watch the film whenever I want.
One night a few years ago, I turned on the TV to watch something or other. The set-top box was tuned to Turner Classic Movies, which was showing the Passion. It was about 30 minutes into the film, and yet the Passion is so powerful and compelling that I could not turn away from it. The something or other that I had originally intended to watch had to wait until the end.
At the recent Academy Awards, there were many films that received more attention and awards than The Mill & the Cross. Not having seen many of these films, I must assume that they deserved their awards, and it would be unfair for me to comment on their quality. And yet, I have this feeling that 50 years from now, people who care about quality films will watch The Mill & the Cross many times more often than they will watch most of the other films that were released last year. This film is a classic for the ages.
One final note. The film has just shown up on Video on Demand, at least in my area. I recommend that you pay the rental fee and watch it now. I would expect that most of the other good films from 2011 that are showing up on Video on Demand will eventually be picked up by premium movie channels such as HBO, Showtime, and Starz. If you subscribe to these premium channels, you'll be able to watch them at that time at no additional cost. However, The Mill & the Cross is the type of art film that might not be picked up by the movie channels, so watch it now while you still can.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Black Friday Was Well-Named Indeed!
Black Friday was well-named, but not for the reasons usually given. This year in particular, it was a black mark on our society.
Thanksgiving should be a day when we spend time with our families and enjoy each other's company. There is something wrong with our society when we support retailers who open their stores at 9 or 10 PM on Thanksgiving evening. There is something wrong with our society when we start lining up outside these stores on Wednesday evening and spend Thanksgiving day camped out in a long line waiting for them to open, and when our Thanksgiving celebration consists of some relative bringing us our Thanksgiving turkey as we wait on line.
What's wrong when our society when a man collapses of a heart attack in the middle of the floor and people just walk over him? What has happened to our humanity and our sense of values? It's true that several nurses tried to save the man by administering CPR, but my point is that nobody should have stepped over the man. Even if we couldn't help him, didn't we know enough to stand back and give him some air?
I keep reading about how our dysfunctional government is catering to the upper one percent and sticking it to the rest of us. If this is what the rest of us have become, we deserve what we are getting.
And why are we waiting on line in the first place? Usually it's to save a few dollars buying a bottom-of-the-line product that's about to be discontinued and is being dumped on the market by the manufacturer.
Sure, the advertising flyers are filled with loss leaders at attractive prices--if you can get your hands on them before the store sells out the half-dozen that they have on hand. But have you noticed that the really good stuff never goes on sale, and sometimes the store has jacked up the prices of the good stuff--which is what they really want to sell you--over what they were a week ago?
Our local newspaper ran a photo of a young man who had been waiting on that long line grabbing a Samsung HDTV when he finally made it into the store. Based on my personal experience, I wouldn't wait on line five minutes for a Samsung product, although I'll concede that a certain highly-regarded, advertising-free consumer magazine has given good ratings to some of their smaller models. But did you notice that none of the really good brands in the larger sizes that people actually buy were on sale? Where were the Sonys, JVCs, Toshibas, and Panasonics?
I considered buying an Amazon Kindle. Some stores had the cheaper, black-and-white ones on sale, but not the new, highly-popular Amazon Kindle. You want it? You'll pay full price.
One more example: I was interested in the Canon EOS Rebel T3, a very good entry-level digital SLR that normally sells for about $550. Just about everybody had it on sale for $480. Why do you suppose it was priced so low? My guess is that it's being replaced by the "i" series (T1i, T2i, and T3i), which starts at $700.
But so what? The T3, at least, is a good product. I could have gotten on line for 24 hours or so and snapped it up for $480 at any one of a number of retail stores in my area. I could also have bought it online for the same price. In fact, I could have bought it online as late at 5 PM on Friday. Why weren't people snapping it up? Probably because they were buying the heavily-promoted junk. (Full disclosure: I didn't buy it because I have an older EOS Rebel and couldn't justify the upgrade, as hard as I tried.)
Retailers promote Black Friday heavily, and carry a small stock of loss leaders to get you in the door, because they know that once you're in the store, you're going to overspend on other products with healthy profit margins. Retailers have to make a fair profit, of course, but let's not be fooled into believing that they are giving anything away.
If you want to save money on Christmas gifts, either for yourself or your family, stock up on them all through the year when the items that you really want come up on sale. For example, I have two identical-twin granddaughters. We have an understanding in my family that I'm the book-giver. Daedalus Books, in Columbia, Maryland, is a clearinghouse for discontinued and overstock items, most of which are of very high quality and some of which are hard to find as well. Among other things, they have marvelous children's books. I stock up on children's books for the twins all through the year. Dover Publications is another source of great books at reasonable prices.
For consumer electronics items, you're in luck if your company has an employee discount program with tie-ins to good companies such as Sony, Dell, and Lenovo. I bought my Sony HDTV through such a program last year and saved a bundle. But here's the thing: I waited until the specific model that I wanted came up on sale, then I jumped on it.
When Black Friday comes around next year, let's use our heads and stop acting like lemmings.
Thanksgiving should be a day when we spend time with our families and enjoy each other's company. There is something wrong with our society when we support retailers who open their stores at 9 or 10 PM on Thanksgiving evening. There is something wrong with our society when we start lining up outside these stores on Wednesday evening and spend Thanksgiving day camped out in a long line waiting for them to open, and when our Thanksgiving celebration consists of some relative bringing us our Thanksgiving turkey as we wait on line.
What's wrong when our society when a man collapses of a heart attack in the middle of the floor and people just walk over him? What has happened to our humanity and our sense of values? It's true that several nurses tried to save the man by administering CPR, but my point is that nobody should have stepped over the man. Even if we couldn't help him, didn't we know enough to stand back and give him some air?
I keep reading about how our dysfunctional government is catering to the upper one percent and sticking it to the rest of us. If this is what the rest of us have become, we deserve what we are getting.
And why are we waiting on line in the first place? Usually it's to save a few dollars buying a bottom-of-the-line product that's about to be discontinued and is being dumped on the market by the manufacturer.
Sure, the advertising flyers are filled with loss leaders at attractive prices--if you can get your hands on them before the store sells out the half-dozen that they have on hand. But have you noticed that the really good stuff never goes on sale, and sometimes the store has jacked up the prices of the good stuff--which is what they really want to sell you--over what they were a week ago?
Our local newspaper ran a photo of a young man who had been waiting on that long line grabbing a Samsung HDTV when he finally made it into the store. Based on my personal experience, I wouldn't wait on line five minutes for a Samsung product, although I'll concede that a certain highly-regarded, advertising-free consumer magazine has given good ratings to some of their smaller models. But did you notice that none of the really good brands in the larger sizes that people actually buy were on sale? Where were the Sonys, JVCs, Toshibas, and Panasonics?
I considered buying an Amazon Kindle. Some stores had the cheaper, black-and-white ones on sale, but not the new, highly-popular Amazon Kindle. You want it? You'll pay full price.
One more example: I was interested in the Canon EOS Rebel T3, a very good entry-level digital SLR that normally sells for about $550. Just about everybody had it on sale for $480. Why do you suppose it was priced so low? My guess is that it's being replaced by the "i" series (T1i, T2i, and T3i), which starts at $700.
But so what? The T3, at least, is a good product. I could have gotten on line for 24 hours or so and snapped it up for $480 at any one of a number of retail stores in my area. I could also have bought it online for the same price. In fact, I could have bought it online as late at 5 PM on Friday. Why weren't people snapping it up? Probably because they were buying the heavily-promoted junk. (Full disclosure: I didn't buy it because I have an older EOS Rebel and couldn't justify the upgrade, as hard as I tried.)
Retailers promote Black Friday heavily, and carry a small stock of loss leaders to get you in the door, because they know that once you're in the store, you're going to overspend on other products with healthy profit margins. Retailers have to make a fair profit, of course, but let's not be fooled into believing that they are giving anything away.
If you want to save money on Christmas gifts, either for yourself or your family, stock up on them all through the year when the items that you really want come up on sale. For example, I have two identical-twin granddaughters. We have an understanding in my family that I'm the book-giver. Daedalus Books, in Columbia, Maryland, is a clearinghouse for discontinued and overstock items, most of which are of very high quality and some of which are hard to find as well. Among other things, they have marvelous children's books. I stock up on children's books for the twins all through the year. Dover Publications is another source of great books at reasonable prices.
For consumer electronics items, you're in luck if your company has an employee discount program with tie-ins to good companies such as Sony, Dell, and Lenovo. I bought my Sony HDTV through such a program last year and saved a bundle. But here's the thing: I waited until the specific model that I wanted came up on sale, then I jumped on it.
When Black Friday comes around next year, let's use our heads and stop acting like lemmings.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
This Year's Virginia Election Campaign: The Worst Ever
I am so glad that the election campaign in Virginia is over. Virginia has always been know for its ugly, negative election campaigns but this year's was the worst that I've seen since moving to the state in 1986.
When will Virginia politicians learn that what I want to know is what their goals are and how they propose to achieve them? I don't need to be reminded constantly that their opponent is a crook; I already know that. I got more benefit from a 10-minute conversation that I had with a candidate for the school board from my district than I did from all of the crap in my mailbox.
I got sick and tired of having my mailbox jammed with flyers that told me absolutely nothing about why I should vote for the candidate. They went right into the trash can. But at least the flyers put some money into the postal service's coffers.
What really touched my hot button was the incessant number of phone calls. The people who program these robocalls have figured out how to get around call blocking. To make matters even worse, they've figured out how to wait for my answering message to complete before delivering their unwanted messages to my voice mail, taking up storage capacity and wasting my time when I go to play them back.
We need a way to opt out of these phone calls just as we can opt out of marketing messages by registering for the Federal Trade Commission's Do Not Call list.
To add insult to injury, this year's crop of candidates was so weak that I didn't care who won. The only reason that I bothered to vote was this: Going back to the Revolutionary War, hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens have given their lives, and millions have been maimed for life, so that I can take half an hour and walk four blocks to my polling place in order to vote. I owe it to them to vote--no excuses.
When will Virginia politicians learn that what I want to know is what their goals are and how they propose to achieve them? I don't need to be reminded constantly that their opponent is a crook; I already know that. I got more benefit from a 10-minute conversation that I had with a candidate for the school board from my district than I did from all of the crap in my mailbox.
I got sick and tired of having my mailbox jammed with flyers that told me absolutely nothing about why I should vote for the candidate. They went right into the trash can. But at least the flyers put some money into the postal service's coffers.
What really touched my hot button was the incessant number of phone calls. The people who program these robocalls have figured out how to get around call blocking. To make matters even worse, they've figured out how to wait for my answering message to complete before delivering their unwanted messages to my voice mail, taking up storage capacity and wasting my time when I go to play them back.
We need a way to opt out of these phone calls just as we can opt out of marketing messages by registering for the Federal Trade Commission's Do Not Call list.
To add insult to injury, this year's crop of candidates was so weak that I didn't care who won. The only reason that I bothered to vote was this: Going back to the Revolutionary War, hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens have given their lives, and millions have been maimed for life, so that I can take half an hour and walk four blocks to my polling place in order to vote. I owe it to them to vote--no excuses.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The Best Show on TV: The Republican Presidential Campaigns
We all owe a vote of thanks to the Republican Party for saving us from the boredom of summer reruns on TV this year. They've actually been acting like Democrats!
Those of us of a certain age will remember when the Democratic presidential nominating process was actually fun to watch. Eight or nine candidates would throw their hat into the room. Two of them, at best, would have half a brain and might actually be qualified to be President. The others were usually good for comic relief.
The real fun would come when one or two of these comedians would go to the Democratic convention with enough committed delegates to throw a monkey wrench into the process. Then the power brokers would have to adjourn to their smoke-filled rooms to sort things out and come up with a candidate that had half a prayer of winning the election. The Republican nominating process. on the other hand, was usually more like a coronation, and boring as heck.
This year, however, the Republican Party has provided us with great entertainment as it goes about self-destructing on the tube every night. (Can I still call a television a tube?) The three sane Republicans who are still left practically got down on their hands and knees to beg Governor Christie of New Jersey to run because they couldn't stomach any of the candidates. Unfortunately, Governor Christie had the good sense to turn them down. Even Republicans aren't dumb enough to board the Titanic after it has struck the iceberg.
Meanwhile, the Democratic coronation moves on. What serious candidate is going to challenge Barack Obama? For that matter, what serious candidate would want to become President when the country is in the total mess that it's in right now?
I'd be doubling over in laughter if the whole thing wasn't so sad for the country. We need a functional government and a properly-functioning two-party system, one in which both parties work together for the good of the country. This is the way that things were in the 1960s and 1970s, when moderates controlled the Republican Party and we made great progress in civil rights, equal rights for women, and environmental and consumer protection--progress that today's Republican Party would like to reverse, with the Democratic Party too weak-willed to prevent this erosion. When one party either self-destructs or takes control of all three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial--the country suffers.
Those of us of a certain age will remember when the Democratic presidential nominating process was actually fun to watch. Eight or nine candidates would throw their hat into the room. Two of them, at best, would have half a brain and might actually be qualified to be President. The others were usually good for comic relief.
The real fun would come when one or two of these comedians would go to the Democratic convention with enough committed delegates to throw a monkey wrench into the process. Then the power brokers would have to adjourn to their smoke-filled rooms to sort things out and come up with a candidate that had half a prayer of winning the election. The Republican nominating process. on the other hand, was usually more like a coronation, and boring as heck.
This year, however, the Republican Party has provided us with great entertainment as it goes about self-destructing on the tube every night. (Can I still call a television a tube?) The three sane Republicans who are still left practically got down on their hands and knees to beg Governor Christie of New Jersey to run because they couldn't stomach any of the candidates. Unfortunately, Governor Christie had the good sense to turn them down. Even Republicans aren't dumb enough to board the Titanic after it has struck the iceberg.
Meanwhile, the Democratic coronation moves on. What serious candidate is going to challenge Barack Obama? For that matter, what serious candidate would want to become President when the country is in the total mess that it's in right now?
I'd be doubling over in laughter if the whole thing wasn't so sad for the country. We need a functional government and a properly-functioning two-party system, one in which both parties work together for the good of the country. This is the way that things were in the 1960s and 1970s, when moderates controlled the Republican Party and we made great progress in civil rights, equal rights for women, and environmental and consumer protection--progress that today's Republican Party would like to reverse, with the Democratic Party too weak-willed to prevent this erosion. When one party either self-destructs or takes control of all three branches of government--executive, legislative, and judicial--the country suffers.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Nats Fans Can "Wait 'Till Next Year!"
When I first became a baseball fan as a young boy in the New York area, my father and I were die-hard fans of the Brooklyn Dodgers. (Was there any other type of Dodgers fan in those days?)This was during the early 1950s, when the Bums fielded one of the greatest teams in the history of the game. There was no such thing as free agency then, so core teams were together for many years. From 1947 to 1956, the Dodgers dominated the National League, appearing in six World Series.
Unfortunately, while the Dodgers were a great team, the New York Yankees, who dominated the American League, were even better. During the same period of time, the hated Yankees appeared in eight World Series, winning seven of them, including a record five straight (1949 through 1953).
For the die-hard Dodgers fan, the rallying cry was always "Wait 'Till Next Year!" "Next Year" didn't arrive until 1955, when the team finally beat the Yankees in the World Series.
Today's Washington Nationals fans--and I am one of them--could very well take up that rallying cry, but for a very different reason. Since Davey Johnson took over as manager, the team has made dramatic improvements, and I'm confident that 2012 will be a turning point for the Nationals. I don't expect them to make the playoffs next year, but I fully expect them to finally have a winning season. I watched almost every game that they played in September, when Stephan Strasburg returned and the roster was expanded with the September call-ups, and I was very encouraged by what I saw.
During last year's off-season, General Manager Mike Rizzo was criticized for letting Adam Dunn get away. Dunn's power numbers were outstanding, but he was a definite liability defensively. His replacement, Adam LaRoche, was lost for almost the entire season and the jury is still out on the Jayson Werth signing.
Happily, it turned out that the power hitter and good first baseman that the Nats needed was already on the roster. Mike Morse had a breakout year with his bat and played an above-average first base until Chris Marrero took over the position in September and Morse was moved to the outfield. If LaRoche returns to form in the spring, the Nats will have three above-average defensive first basemen. If that happens, my recommendation would be to trade LaRoche, who will be a free agent at the end of the 2012 season. Chris Marrero has proved that he is a major-league first baseman, and he will be a starter for some big-league team next year. Hopefully it will be the Nats. Morse will learn to play left field as well as he played first base.
The infield already looks solid. The Fielding Bible has rated Ryan Zimmerman as the second-best third baseman in the majors, and even though he had an off year at the bat in 2011, he's still one of the most dangerous hitters around. Ian Desmond has cut down on the number of errors at shortstop and developed into a good leadoff hitter. Danny Espinosa looks like a future All-Star at second base, and with either Morse or Marrero at first base, the other three infielders will be able to take risks that they couldn't with Adam Dunn.
The outfield, with Morse in left, Rick Ankiel in center, and Werth in right, should be at least average defensively, and better than average where Ankiel is concerned. Behind the plate, Wilson Ramos may not be another Ivan Rodriguez, but he's great at blocking pitches in the dirt. The most important measure of a catcher's ability, of course, is how he handles pitchers, and the pitching in September was excellent.
That pitching is the main reason why I believe the Nats will have a breakout year in 2012. I have to credit pitching coach Steve McCatty because I saw consistent similar approaches from not only Strasburg but also September call-ups Brad Peacock and Tom Milone, as well as almost everyone in the bullpen. Obviously McCatty has convinced the pitching staff to buy into his approach. If Peacock and Milone continue to pitch well in 2012, after the league figures them out, the Nats should have a solid starting rotation.
Strasburg was a thrower in 2010 but came back as a pitcher in 2011. Peacock and Milone looked to be almost as good as Strasburg. This is what I saw consistently from these three young pitchers:
* They three first-pitch strikes, which Jim Palmer calls the best pitch in baseball. All three pitchers attacked the batters. I saw first-pitch strikes in about two out of every three at-bats.
* They mixed up their pitches and threw any pitch on any count.
* They mixed up their locations--up, down, outside, inside.
* They pitched to contact. There were many 11- and 12-pitch innings.
* They had excellent control and issued very few walks. At least 70 percent of Strasburg's pitches were strikes and both Peacock and Milone also had good control.
Jordan Zimmermann was also pitching well when management shut him down in September. John Lannan is a much better starting pitcher than his record shows. He got terrible run support.
If Peacock and Milone pan out, I can envision a strong starting rotation of Strasburg, Zimmermann, Lannan, Peacock, and Milone.
The Nats already have one of the best bullpens in the majors. Tom Gorzelanny has worked out well in the long-relief role, Todd Coffey has become the go-to stopper, Henry Rodriguez shuts down the opponent's offense in the seventh inning by consistently throwing 100+ mph fastballs, and as for setup man Tyler Clippard and closer Drew Storen, they were lights out all year. Get the ball to Rodriguez with a lead and you've now shortened your opponent's game to six innings.
The team's main weakness is in its offense. Davey Johnson's regular starting lineup has good clutch hitters right down to the eighth spot, but Zimmerman and Morse are the only real long-ball threats. The conventional wisdom is that the Nats need to sign a power hitter and a front-of-the-rotation starting pitcher during the off-season. It would be great if they could do this, but with the potential that the team already has, they may not need to.
Here are my recommendations for how the Nats should spend their money:
1--Give Ryan Zimmeran whatever it takes to keep him a National for the rest of his playing career. He's the face of the franchise. He means to the Nats what Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken meant to the Orioles, and he's a potential hall-of-famer as well.
2--Keep Davey Johnson as manager. He's a player's manager and has moved the team in the right direction.
3--Resign Rick Ankiel. He's one of best center fielders around.
4--Give Desmond, Espinosa, and Morse decent extensions to their contracts. They are the future of the Nats.
On the other hand, it's time to say a fond farewell to Livan Hernandez and Pudge Rodriguez. Pudge can still throw out runners but he's become a liability with his bat, and I'm not convinced that Livan has anything left in the tank.
I'm so encouraged that I can't "Wait "Till Next Year!"
Unfortunately, while the Dodgers were a great team, the New York Yankees, who dominated the American League, were even better. During the same period of time, the hated Yankees appeared in eight World Series, winning seven of them, including a record five straight (1949 through 1953).
For the die-hard Dodgers fan, the rallying cry was always "Wait 'Till Next Year!" "Next Year" didn't arrive until 1955, when the team finally beat the Yankees in the World Series.
Today's Washington Nationals fans--and I am one of them--could very well take up that rallying cry, but for a very different reason. Since Davey Johnson took over as manager, the team has made dramatic improvements, and I'm confident that 2012 will be a turning point for the Nationals. I don't expect them to make the playoffs next year, but I fully expect them to finally have a winning season. I watched almost every game that they played in September, when Stephan Strasburg returned and the roster was expanded with the September call-ups, and I was very encouraged by what I saw.
During last year's off-season, General Manager Mike Rizzo was criticized for letting Adam Dunn get away. Dunn's power numbers were outstanding, but he was a definite liability defensively. His replacement, Adam LaRoche, was lost for almost the entire season and the jury is still out on the Jayson Werth signing.
Happily, it turned out that the power hitter and good first baseman that the Nats needed was already on the roster. Mike Morse had a breakout year with his bat and played an above-average first base until Chris Marrero took over the position in September and Morse was moved to the outfield. If LaRoche returns to form in the spring, the Nats will have three above-average defensive first basemen. If that happens, my recommendation would be to trade LaRoche, who will be a free agent at the end of the 2012 season. Chris Marrero has proved that he is a major-league first baseman, and he will be a starter for some big-league team next year. Hopefully it will be the Nats. Morse will learn to play left field as well as he played first base.
The infield already looks solid. The Fielding Bible has rated Ryan Zimmerman as the second-best third baseman in the majors, and even though he had an off year at the bat in 2011, he's still one of the most dangerous hitters around. Ian Desmond has cut down on the number of errors at shortstop and developed into a good leadoff hitter. Danny Espinosa looks like a future All-Star at second base, and with either Morse or Marrero at first base, the other three infielders will be able to take risks that they couldn't with Adam Dunn.
The outfield, with Morse in left, Rick Ankiel in center, and Werth in right, should be at least average defensively, and better than average where Ankiel is concerned. Behind the plate, Wilson Ramos may not be another Ivan Rodriguez, but he's great at blocking pitches in the dirt. The most important measure of a catcher's ability, of course, is how he handles pitchers, and the pitching in September was excellent.
That pitching is the main reason why I believe the Nats will have a breakout year in 2012. I have to credit pitching coach Steve McCatty because I saw consistent similar approaches from not only Strasburg but also September call-ups Brad Peacock and Tom Milone, as well as almost everyone in the bullpen. Obviously McCatty has convinced the pitching staff to buy into his approach. If Peacock and Milone continue to pitch well in 2012, after the league figures them out, the Nats should have a solid starting rotation.
Strasburg was a thrower in 2010 but came back as a pitcher in 2011. Peacock and Milone looked to be almost as good as Strasburg. This is what I saw consistently from these three young pitchers:
* They three first-pitch strikes, which Jim Palmer calls the best pitch in baseball. All three pitchers attacked the batters. I saw first-pitch strikes in about two out of every three at-bats.
* They mixed up their pitches and threw any pitch on any count.
* They mixed up their locations--up, down, outside, inside.
* They pitched to contact. There were many 11- and 12-pitch innings.
* They had excellent control and issued very few walks. At least 70 percent of Strasburg's pitches were strikes and both Peacock and Milone also had good control.
Jordan Zimmermann was also pitching well when management shut him down in September. John Lannan is a much better starting pitcher than his record shows. He got terrible run support.
If Peacock and Milone pan out, I can envision a strong starting rotation of Strasburg, Zimmermann, Lannan, Peacock, and Milone.
The Nats already have one of the best bullpens in the majors. Tom Gorzelanny has worked out well in the long-relief role, Todd Coffey has become the go-to stopper, Henry Rodriguez shuts down the opponent's offense in the seventh inning by consistently throwing 100+ mph fastballs, and as for setup man Tyler Clippard and closer Drew Storen, they were lights out all year. Get the ball to Rodriguez with a lead and you've now shortened your opponent's game to six innings.
The team's main weakness is in its offense. Davey Johnson's regular starting lineup has good clutch hitters right down to the eighth spot, but Zimmerman and Morse are the only real long-ball threats. The conventional wisdom is that the Nats need to sign a power hitter and a front-of-the-rotation starting pitcher during the off-season. It would be great if they could do this, but with the potential that the team already has, they may not need to.
Here are my recommendations for how the Nats should spend their money:
1--Give Ryan Zimmeran whatever it takes to keep him a National for the rest of his playing career. He's the face of the franchise. He means to the Nats what Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken meant to the Orioles, and he's a potential hall-of-famer as well.
2--Keep Davey Johnson as manager. He's a player's manager and has moved the team in the right direction.
3--Resign Rick Ankiel. He's one of best center fielders around.
4--Give Desmond, Espinosa, and Morse decent extensions to their contracts. They are the future of the Nats.
On the other hand, it's time to say a fond farewell to Livan Hernandez and Pudge Rodriguez. Pudge can still throw out runners but he's become a liability with his bat, and I'm not convinced that Livan has anything left in the tank.
I'm so encouraged that I can't "Wait "Till Next Year!"
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Never Underestimate the Stupidity of the Average American
There was a time when I actually trusted the basic intelligence of the American people. Little by little, however, I find that trust eroding. The erosion started when we reelected George W. Bush and continued this past November, when the citizens of certain states elected several clearly-incompetent idiots to Congress. So it shouldn't surprise me when we, as a group, continue to make stupid decisions.
Nevertheless, I was bothered the other day when I picked up my newspaper and read what I would call a good news-bad news article. The good news is that auto sales are picking up. The bad news is that people are buying mid-sized SUVs instead of sensible smaller cars with good fuel efficiency.
I'll concede that some people may actually need a mid-sized SUV, such as families with children of a certain age. However, given the disproportionate number of SUVs on the road today, I think that it's safe to say that most SUV owners would be just as well off in a family-sized sedan such as a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord and possibly even a smaller car such as a Corolla or Civic. They would also save a lot of money in the process.
Wake up, people! Cars may have become more fuel-efficient over the years, but we have negated those improvements by buying larger vehicles. The average vehicle on the road today gets about 18 miles per gallon--the same as the average vehicle on the road in 1985. How are we ever going to reduce our dependency on oil if we aren't willing to use our heads and buy sensible, fuel-efficient cars? I have a 1992 Toyota Corolla. My next-door neighbor has a Honda Pilot, considered to be a mid-sized SUV. Take out the seats in the Pilot and I could park my Corolla inside of it.
Haven't we learned anything from recent history? Gasoline isn't always going to be as cheap as it is today--if you can call $3 a gallon cheap--or as plentiful. During the oil embargo of the 1970s, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) limited the production of gasoline to drive up prices, many gas stations were consistently out of gasoline. Word would go out that a certain gas station would be getting a delivery on a Friday night and dozens, if not hundreds, of cars would be lined up at the station early the next morning. Usually you were limited to eight gallons, and you hoped and prayed that the attendant walking around with that "Last Car" sign didn't put it on a car ahead of you.
We didn't have SUVs in the 1970s, but even after the oil embargo was lifted, the market for large, gas-guzzling cars plummeted and the dealers could hardly give them away. If gasoline ever gets back up to $4 a gallon, as it did a few years ago, you won't be able to give away SUVs.
Haven't we learned that we need to be saving money? A sensible car costs about $10,000 less than a typical mid-sized SUV. That $10,000 can go a long way if you lose your job.
Also, every 1 mpg improvement in gas mileage can save you $1,000 over 10 years. Put another way, by buying a sensible car that gets, let's say, 28 mpg instead of an SUV that gets 18 mpg, you'll save $10,000 over 10 years, or $1,000 a year. And that's just in gasoline, at today's prices. That sensible smaller car will also probably cost you less to maintain and keep in good repair.
Maybe you heard that some economists are cautiously saying that the economy may have turned the corner and is now on the upswing again. Take that with about a pound of salt, my friend. Unemployment is still at 9.8 percent. If we are lucky, maybe it will improve to about 9 percent by the end of 2011. Some improvement.
I hate to tell you this, but I believe that the economy still hasn't bottomed out yet. Every state in the country is in trouble financially, and because the states are in trouble, so are the counties and incorporated towns, because the money flowing to them from the states has been reduced. To compound the problem, the federal money flowing to the states is drying up, so things are only going to get worse at the state and county levels. What's going to happen when hundreds, if not thousands, of public employees at the county level lose their jobs--teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, librarians, and so forth?
Use your heads, folks! If you need a new vehicle, buy something that you'll be able to afford to run even in the worst of times. Leave the SUVs on the dealer's lot.
Nevertheless, I was bothered the other day when I picked up my newspaper and read what I would call a good news-bad news article. The good news is that auto sales are picking up. The bad news is that people are buying mid-sized SUVs instead of sensible smaller cars with good fuel efficiency.
I'll concede that some people may actually need a mid-sized SUV, such as families with children of a certain age. However, given the disproportionate number of SUVs on the road today, I think that it's safe to say that most SUV owners would be just as well off in a family-sized sedan such as a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord and possibly even a smaller car such as a Corolla or Civic. They would also save a lot of money in the process.
Wake up, people! Cars may have become more fuel-efficient over the years, but we have negated those improvements by buying larger vehicles. The average vehicle on the road today gets about 18 miles per gallon--the same as the average vehicle on the road in 1985. How are we ever going to reduce our dependency on oil if we aren't willing to use our heads and buy sensible, fuel-efficient cars? I have a 1992 Toyota Corolla. My next-door neighbor has a Honda Pilot, considered to be a mid-sized SUV. Take out the seats in the Pilot and I could park my Corolla inside of it.
Haven't we learned anything from recent history? Gasoline isn't always going to be as cheap as it is today--if you can call $3 a gallon cheap--or as plentiful. During the oil embargo of the 1970s, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) limited the production of gasoline to drive up prices, many gas stations were consistently out of gasoline. Word would go out that a certain gas station would be getting a delivery on a Friday night and dozens, if not hundreds, of cars would be lined up at the station early the next morning. Usually you were limited to eight gallons, and you hoped and prayed that the attendant walking around with that "Last Car" sign didn't put it on a car ahead of you.
We didn't have SUVs in the 1970s, but even after the oil embargo was lifted, the market for large, gas-guzzling cars plummeted and the dealers could hardly give them away. If gasoline ever gets back up to $4 a gallon, as it did a few years ago, you won't be able to give away SUVs.
Haven't we learned that we need to be saving money? A sensible car costs about $10,000 less than a typical mid-sized SUV. That $10,000 can go a long way if you lose your job.
Also, every 1 mpg improvement in gas mileage can save you $1,000 over 10 years. Put another way, by buying a sensible car that gets, let's say, 28 mpg instead of an SUV that gets 18 mpg, you'll save $10,000 over 10 years, or $1,000 a year. And that's just in gasoline, at today's prices. That sensible smaller car will also probably cost you less to maintain and keep in good repair.
Maybe you heard that some economists are cautiously saying that the economy may have turned the corner and is now on the upswing again. Take that with about a pound of salt, my friend. Unemployment is still at 9.8 percent. If we are lucky, maybe it will improve to about 9 percent by the end of 2011. Some improvement.
I hate to tell you this, but I believe that the economy still hasn't bottomed out yet. Every state in the country is in trouble financially, and because the states are in trouble, so are the counties and incorporated towns, because the money flowing to them from the states has been reduced. To compound the problem, the federal money flowing to the states is drying up, so things are only going to get worse at the state and county levels. What's going to happen when hundreds, if not thousands, of public employees at the county level lose their jobs--teachers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, librarians, and so forth?
Use your heads, folks! If you need a new vehicle, buy something that you'll be able to afford to run even in the worst of times. Leave the SUVs on the dealer's lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)