Warriors

Mattie is a very tired boy; Friday was TFG nite at the Captains game, and after that, I came home and could not sleep and decided to watch the Tribe game, which was cool, because they won, off of Addison Reed, to boot.  Last nite was my godson Niko's first bday party, which was a raucous time, but also a late nite (and a busy one).  And now we are home, trying to rest.  I also bought the toilet valve I need to replace (I hope) and sooner or later I may actually get around to replacing it.  I guess I have just a wee bit of trepidation about the task, even though everyone tells me it is a simple -- or not that hard -- of a job, just make sure the water is off, the towels are laid, and the excess water in the system is bled out.  I hope.

The Tribe is playing well -- and with the schedule, they should be -- and Detroit is not, so there is some optimism...I see the Tribe has another pitcher on the roster, which is nice, I guess, but with the double-headers and the shelled pitchers...well, I guess they need them, but I do question the need to yank Bauer so quickly...knowing you have another 18 innings of baseball.  One hopes they can get at least 6, or 7, from the starters the next couple of days just to get some rest for the back end of the pen.

I read Yurrick's The Warriors this weekend; it is quite a decent read, though very different from the film (obviously).  I have always loved the film, but never read the book, and so when he passed, I added it to the list, and considering that my lists are never-ending... well, at least when these things arrive, they do get read.

A Little Less Sixteen Candles...

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/23/welfare-state-doesnt-adequately-describe-how-much-americas-poor-control-your-wallet/

 

And, as we say in the Social Justice community, the money is so well spent...

Anyways, sitting here listening to the Fall Out Boy maraton on BW college radio; as with most bands, you just listen and then you hear one you haven't in a while and you think, "Gee, that's a good one."  And so on. 

I was a little surprised the Tribe didn't get Perez in a game today, especially one where they lost by 4, as it would have been a fine opportunity to get him some low-leverage work.  I know he is the closer, and they could win tomorrow, and can't have him pitch two days in a row, but...I guess one likes to take the car for a test drive before signing the loan papers, for instance.  Lonnie Chisenhall had three hits, including a HR, which is good, because he needs to play to develop, he needs to hit to play, and I suspect more of Lonnie means less of Reynolds, which is a good thing.

I am beginning to get a kick out of the Hernandez saga, not for any real reason, just because one loves a train wreck, and the reports that he is now implicated in other murders...well, what the hell were the cops doing in the first place?  At work I noted the guy was an Urban Meyer recruit at UF, so soon, very soon, we will be seeing such high-quality people in Columbus...of course, if they win two titles, no one will give a shit here, either.

 

Thoughts

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/150-years-of-misunderstanding-the-civil-war/277022/

My friend Chris posted this on my fb page, so I figured I would comment, being a Civil War nerd...

First, I don't buy the idea that we didn't need a war to destroy slavery.  For one thing, the Supreme Court said slavery was perfectly legal and acceptable, so...the normal legislature measures were dead.  (Thankfully, this doesn't happen now.  :P)  Two, as the article notes, slavery was profitable and was hemmed in only by geography and -- shamefully -- white supremacy, which kept ALL blacks out of most of the US.  Three, slavery was -- as noted by Lincoln and others -- intertwined with the nation; people relied on it to define blacks, labor policy, tariff and agricultural questions, etc...  It could NOT be separated.  Finally...I think a comparison with WWI and WWII is in order.  If we remember, one impetus of German rearmament/Hitler was the notion that Germany didn't lost WWI in that it was beaten, but that its people -- the Jews, for instance -- stabbed them in the back.  No one wanted WWIII, so hence the decision was made to thoroughly and totally defeat Nazi Germany.  I think only by defeating the South in battle -- a long and painful process -- could the nation fully cleanse itself of slavery.

The notion that we "lost" the war afterwards is correct, but...that was a failure of will by all people; if you will, it was Democratic intransigence that wore them down and led to the creation of two separate but unequal Americas.  If anything, the assassination of Lincoln -- and the elevation of white supremacist Johnson -- doomed civil rights.  While progress was made under Grant, the fact of the matter was too much time was lost in the interim and such groups as the KKK formed.  Had the Federal Goverment acted forcefully from the beginning...well, things would have been different.  I guess I lean on the side that Lincoln had, during the war, learned to deal (or handle) the Radicals, and while things would not have been smooth, it would have been far smoother than the conflict with Johnson.  During the war, of course, such men as Stevens had the same aims, even if their motivations were different, but they carried the water for Lincoln, politically, during the conflict.
I've also been a little skeptical of the notion that a Northern loss at Gettysburg would have ended the war.  For one thing, even if the Army of the Potomac breaks on July 2, I think the worst would have been a Chickamauga scenario; half of the army would have fell on DC, while the rest would have hung on until nightfall on the strong position on the right.  The VI Corps -- ably led -- would have been hurried up, as would have been the Cavalry Corps.  Some Union troops broke on the right, but it was the shaken XI corps; the XII corps, the I corps remnants, and the II troops there held.  I suspect 50,000 rifles would have been available to Meade/whoever by July 4.  The army would have reformed in DC and sent back out to fight.  Reinforcements -- mainly militia, but also some of the 20K two-year men -- would have been summoned.  Other troops could have been called from other departments -- the forces at Norfolk, Burnside's command, etc.

Plus, Lee's army would have been in bad shape.  It suffered heavily, and would have gad 50,000 rifles as well.  In enemy territory.  No supply lines; still in danger of being cut off.  Yes, the army could have moved around and caused damage in central PA, but I find it HARD to believe a deeper penetration would have occurred; if anything, Lee would have moved on DC -- per his intention -- to deliver a peace proposal to Lincoln.

Which would have been rejected.  Let's face it; the South was in bad shape in 1863.  Vicksburg was surrendering, giving the North command of the river and rending the Confederacy in two...including access to the crucial foodstuffs of the Trans-Mississippi.  One suspects that the generous surrender terms offered by Grant would NOT have been allowed had the North been defeated at Gettysburg...  Also, if one looks at the efforts of the War Department to keep Grant's army at full strength during the siege -- stripping other departments of men to build up the army to encircle the city and beat off Johnson -- do you really think that they could NOT have found the men to confront Lee again?    More ominously for the South, the Vicksburg campaign also saw the first serious uses of black troops, which it could be argued were underutilized during the war.  Considering a slave population of 4 million, only 186,000 black troops were raised, and less than half -- about 35% if I recall -- were used in combat; most were in garrison and labor outfits that freed up white troops to fight.  Does one not think that had they needed them, the Union could NOT have enlisted more ex-slaves?  Ditto for the North's awful conscription policy, which netted only a few men...the screws could have been tightened.  Think of it:  the population increased during the war, even with war deaths and the inexoranble drift of settlers westward...immigration played a role, which also offered sources of troops, had they been needed.

And, let's NOT discuss economics; the South maintained field armies for as long as it did by stripping the land of everything else -- literally and figuratively; the system was horribly strained in 1863, as the South had minimal trade (blockade running never could bring in enough of anything) and was falling apart in the interior...the South could never feed itself, not because of production, but because it could not transport food from spot A to spot B.  The railroads were coming apart, and could not be replaced; ditto for equipment, as all industrial production was put to weapons and ammo.  The South had to rely on horsepower, and as war went on, that dropped off as well...Much of the war was fought on its borders, and any rampaging Federal column (or Confederate impressment officers) caused significant dislocations.  Let's not forget the rampant inflation of the Confederacy...which happened in good times and bad, as the only policy the government had was to print money and hope for the best.  As those of us who are tards know, wages never keep up with inflation, which was even worse for a nation of small farmsteads (which was what the Confederacy was) where the main breadwinner was -- as often as not -- not around to help on the farm.  The North -- with a larger urban core -- had some relief for the female, in the form of factories and piecework, to say nothing of the farm itself, which often had modern, labor-saving equipment (which, thanx to its superior banking and credit system, could be purchased) that women could use.

I suspect most of this is simply a lefty notion that ALL war is bad, and thus this one -- despite its positives -- has to bad, too.  I think it is dumb, but...

Vacay

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2013/06/19/its-time-for-congress-to-privatize-the-welfare-state/

 

I have said it once, say it a 1,000 times...this would never work, as once the state stopped providing the welfare state, there would be no one to vote for it, and as Shaw said, those who rob Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.

 

So, I went to Columbus this weekend to see the Summerland tour -- Sponge, Filter, Live, and Everclear -- or as I said, bands that were cool a generation ago.  It was fun, but it did seem to have a vibe of people thrilled to have a sitter on a Friday nite, which is not quite my scene.  Live has a new lead singer, but you would NOT have known it...of course, it would have been to kill for to have seen them when I was 20; now, not so much. 

 

Going to Columbus has always had that Road to Perdition vibe for me; it's like you're leaving the cares and responsibilities of home...and I suspect some of it is the residual joy of my college days, and seeing the college crowd, and just hanging out and doing nothing.  The city has grown, especially the downtown; very different from when I knew it, but they still have the sea of one-way streets that make navigation difficult.  It was also PRIDE weekend, which was hilarious, except for getting downtown for lunch, which made it a painful chore, even moreso because the crowd drove like East Siders.

 

I would have liked to have stayed longer and seen more people, but it was off home to attend a surprise -- and it was -- fest for another 29+6 fest, which was lovely, aside from the fact that when I arrived home, after two days of festing and the heat and prolly crappy nutrition, I just died.  This was sort of good, but it wasn't like I felt refreshed when I awoke at 6:30 today.

The Load to the Face

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/06/16/the-magic-fairy-dust-naivete-that-is-progressive-economics/

I suspect one of the big reasons why the myth of Keynesian persists is that people believe that when something bad happens, of course, one must go and DO something...anything.  Such things are often ineffective or worse, but damn it, you feel so much better...and if you exponentially magnify this, you get government intervention in the economy...which causes worse dislocations the nxt time, which involves more doing and feeling and there you are.  If one took a look back at the depressions of the past, they generally didn't last long; they were deep and painful, of course, but once the unproductive elements of the economy were culled, what was left was able to grow and prosper.

Oddly enough, today's Netflix arrival was "The Iron Lady."  It was quite good...I didn't expect the unflattering look at dementia, but you really expect Hollywood to say anything nice about her?  And they did...if you were like me and could disconnect that, what was left was a ringing endorsement of her...her life, her actions, her politics, and what she stood for.  Towards, her speech about taxation -- why everyone has to pay at the same rate -- well, it was textbook. 

I've noticed water in the basement over the past couple of days; this AM there seemed to be a bit more than usual, and I divined that something was leaking upstairs.  Sure enough -- Lord knows how -- one of the toilet valves had been turned and water was seeping out.  Even though I was fully dressed for work, I got down on the floor -- all turned around -- and attempted to twist the value shut. Well, I guessed wrongly, and in full comedic fashion...I took a big, wet blast to my face...and another and another.  Eventually, I got the thing closed, and Chateau Mattie's lower level is much drier, but I could not help but chuckle all the way work.

Light in August

http://money.msn.com/now/blog--red-robin-ad-doesnt-go-down-well-with-vegetarians

I always get a kick out of stories like this; I mean, I can see how some people would be miffed, but, let's face it, part of being an adult is growing up and taking a joke.  One wonders why the people on the other side do not get upset and form protest groups, etc...prolly the same reason why the Tea Party took decades to manifest; most of the people on the other side have jobs, families, important activities, and lives, and thus do not have time -- or interest -- to confront the petty disparities of life.

I see Chisenhall is back...some nice ABs, no hits.  Alas.  Longwell was shipped out, not deservedly, but...at least the benchless bench is no more.  In the meantime, Vinnie Pestano serves as Exhibit A to those who think that closers are made, not born, as he struggled yet again in the ninth.  I really think that the whole thing is bs -- pitch when called upon -- but, for better or worse, there are plenty of guys who cannot do in the ninth what they can do in any other inning.  The Royals failed to get a bunt down, which will also send jitters down the sabremetrically inclined.

I am reading Faulkner's Light in August, the 54th best novel of the last century.  Actually, it's not bad; I think I expected something awful, like long paragraph/sentences and meanderings in which a basic story is purposefully entwined, and while there is some of that, it's also a fairly interesting tale.  It deals quite a bit with what I will call -- until fairly recently, I guess -- Southern themes, which makes it more interesting, sort of like how silent film is a picture of an era completely gone and totally lost to use, except for those choice bits that remain.  For the first time in several books, I am actually looking forward to reading the thing through.

The Burden of Defeat

I think you have to put tonite's loss squarely on the shoulders of Francona.  I wasn't a fan of pulling Carrasco; he had thrown very well, got ahead of hitters, and while he was "up" there in pitches, not that much (certainly not compared to Kluber yesterday) and it wasn't like he was laboring.  I think in that situation you HAVE to stick with your starter.  I didn't mind the move to Shaw; he has pitched well, and the Royal lefties do make Smith problematic.  Yes, it was a flare, but...

The ninth was even worse.  I don't know about you, but I suspect everyone AND their brother knew Lough was bunting.  In that case, let Shaw pitch to him.  Instead, you call for Hill...who isn't that good and can't really throw strikes.  Mind you, if you bring the lefty to face the lefty, you expect to neutralize the bunt...but Hill isn't that type of shutdown lefty, so....why?  He blows the bunt and the bases are juiced.  You bring in Albers, who actually pitches fairly well -- aided by a brain fart -- but the damage is done.

Johnny Mac led off the ninth...yes, the WORST hitter on the roster, by far, and he bats?  Jesus.  Of course, the Tribe has two guys on the bench -- Stubbs and Gomes -- but both are MUCH better hitters than Johnny Mac, who was playing third.  Why no one thought to PH Gomes here is beyond me; then you can move him to C, move Santana to 1B, and Reynolds to 3B.  Why the Tribe has two bench players is also dumb, in that Swisher is on the shelf for a while and the Indians are carrying 13 pitchers.  Yes, 13.  One of them is Langwell, who is the longman and thus could be at AAA, or around.  Two are lefties -- Hagadone and Hill -- who have pitched excerably and really shouldn't be around.  The remaining five -- Shaw, Albers, Pestano, Smith, Allen -- have all pitched pretty well, as has the rotation for a few games.  So why do we NEED 13 pitchers, especially when you really would only use six guys in the pen?  I looked at the 40 man; Diaz, Phelps, and Chisenhall are on it.  I realize Diaz is not ready to hit, and Phelps has a similar usefulness, but I suspect they both have more of a stick than a 38-year-old punching MINF.  And, lo and behold, Chisenhall is a 3B, and I think he is ready...at least to PH for Johnny Mac, if nothing else.

A teaching moment

Had to admit, I derived immense amusement from the Tribe game, watching Johnny Mac -- the new and improved utility infielded -- blowing a made-to-order DP ball...to his credit, Corey Kluber pitched one hell of an inning, using the fastball/cutter/slider combo most effectively.  Strasburg is Strasburg...I had thought about going to the game, but I figured with the weather and the rain and the return from the DL, he wouldn't pitch much.  Oops. I did see him before, and that was cool enough.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/06/ohio_teachers_graded_by_value-.html#comments

On the one hand, I get this; teaching is a highly subjective profession, as you put one person in charge of 25 children, all of varying intelligence, backgrounds, learning styles, etc...and you expect this one person to go and teach them equally well and ideally turn them into adults.  And of course, the state and testing and community pressure, which feeds into even MORE effort for excellence, which may or may not be matched by the students, their parents, etc....

On the other hand, this is also total bullshit.  We do this all time, taking a profession and subjecting it to rules and standards and goals.  Most people who have jobs are expected to do them in a certain way, demonstrating a certain competence, and with a string of goals (projects completed, stuff built, etc.,) to boot.  You're subject to regular reviews, and your salary is highly dependent on said reviews.  This is NOT to say that other factors aren't taken into consideration, but at the end of the day, you have to produce.

I always think of baseball; a generation ago, little if any attention was given to the statistics side of things; people came along and looked at certain things, but that was that.  Now -- call it the Bill James effect or Moneyball or whatever -- most teams, if not all, use statistics as a large part of identifying and quantifying talent.  You can adjust for platoon effects, ballpark effects, aging, defensive efficiency, the switch from a league or a division...anything.  I know there are some people who pine for the old days, but I would argue that a system that has worked to bring some level of parity -- in an era of big and little spending -- to the game is a good thing.

In other words, I suspect that this sort of approach could be used in education...and it should be, given the importance of the subkect and the fact that we spent shitloads of cash on schools and we really have no idea as to whether or not we're getting the maximum return on our investment.  To be sure, I can see how the the teachers (and their unions) would disapprove of this, and I suspect a LOT of parents would go apeshit -- imagine telling Mr. and Mrs. Johnny their son isn't college material -- but I really don't think society would be any worse if we took the same approach used in hundreds of other careers to education.

The Phoenix

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/state-dept-inspector-general-us-ambassador-belgium-solicited-prostitutes-including-minors_735057.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I must ask...what is it about the Obama Administration -- and any branch of the Kennedy clan -- that brings out whores, moral deviancy, and coverups?  Oh, that's right...the Obama Administration and the Kennedy clan.

Anyways, with myspace inaccessible to me, we are going back to the original...sort of like Mitch Daniels going back to his wife, I guess.  Anyways, here we are.

I watched "Traffic in Souls" today, the silent classic about the efforts to combat the white slave trade (which forced women into prostitution), insofar as it existed.  Being a silent film, it was possible to watch it with the online commentary, which mainly talked about the cultural influence of the film and the host of films it generated, because, shockingly, people flocked to the genre.  Ok, I am not really surprised, given that Hollywood wasn't any less dumb then; people want sex, and preferably tawdry types, and the infinitestimally theoretical horror of white slavery certainly put people in the seats.  Back to the commentary, I didn't find the usual drivel about race, class, gender, sexuality, and rural/urban divide to be too cloying, mainly because this was one of the times it fit.

I note that the Nationals have NOT announced a starter for Sunday...one sort of hopes it will be Strasburg, as it would be good to see him, if not so good for him to cut the Tribe into ribbons.