Mailer’s Masculinity

The always-marvelous Jane Galt just nails the problem with Norman Mailer’s claim that war with Iraq was all about the threatened masculinity of that vile and unpopular creature, the American white male:
This . . . is metaphor abused, used as if a metaphor could itself create a link between two things, rather than illuminating one that already exists in the phenomenal world. This is war described as if the most important thing about it were the description.
In other words, it’s idiotic. And it’s symptomatic. There is something about our literary culture that has caused its prominent members to believe that words are the same thing as facts, more important than the objects they describe. They seem to think that one can make up any theory, no matter how ridiculous, and unless it is dramatically falsifiable, it’s just as valid as a theory that starts with known facts and basic truisms about human behavior and builds from them. They think style is more important than substance.
And for some reason, they’re mad because the rest of us don’t take them seriously.

Outta Saudi

This report on the U.S. military withdrawal from Saudi Arabia seems to confirm precisely what the more ambitious conservative commentators have argued all along: that the U.S. presence in the country was having an impact on domestic Saudi politics, and a bad effect at that because the military presence supported inertia in favor of the status quo. In the end, better to leave the Saudis to stew in their own juices – it’s the only way the regime will gain enough sense of responsibility to start dealing with domestic conditions.

Are the Red Sox Quietly Good??

I’ve been noticing lately that the Red Sox are off to a good start. With last night’s win over the Royals, I figured it was time for a post. It sure doesn’t feel like they are playing all that well — the typical Boston fan over-hyping is lacking this year, maybe because the Yankees are off to a tremendous start. Nevertheless, consider this: their bullpen has blown three games flat-out. If they had won those games, the Sox would have the same record as the Yankees. Of course (a) they are playing a soft part of their schedule, (b) they got off to a great start last year and started fading in mid-June and (c) well, it is the Red Sox. So, let’s give credit where it is due, but I’m glad to see the fans aren’t yet harboring unrealistic expectations. Who knows, though, the Yankees can’t keep this pace up, can they??

Knight-Davis Fight

I was quite disappointed recently when ESPN’s Page 2 ran a list of baseball’s greatest fights and left off the Mets-Reds brawl of July 22, 1986.
The thing about that fight is, it was one of those games – typical for the Mets in those days – where nothing much happened until the ninth inning, other than Darryl Strawberry getting ejected for arguing balls and strikes. (Note: some of the play-by-play here is from Retrosheet, but sadly they seem to have changed the site layout so you can’t link to individual box scores).
UPDATE: Per Jason Steffens’ comments, here’s the direct link.

Continue reading Knight-Davis Fight

D’Angelo Jimenez

One of this season’s early surprises is former Yankee prospect D’Angelo Jimenez. At one time, if you recall, many analysts rated Jimenez higher than Alfonso Soriano, before the car wreck that left Jimenez with a broken neck. He’s been frustratingly inconsistent ever since, but this season, leading off for the White Sox (with whom he finished well last year) he’s off to his best start, thumping the ball with great authority, with 6 doubles, 4 triples and 3 homers adding up to a .549 slugging percentage. Combine that with good plate patience and you’ve got quite a player, especially if he can sustain his .297 batting average.

Robby

If you’re looking for a symbol of the Mets’ struggles, there’s no shortage of choices. One that’s been on my mind lately is Roberto Alomar‘s batting average. As Alomar heated up over the past few weeks, I kept telling myself that I wouldn’t get my hopes up for a return of the old Alomar until he got to .300 – a symbolic target, yes, but not so long ago, .300 in late April was no accomplishment for Alomar. His average went as high as .296 on April 24, but then the bottom dropped out: 0 for 13 in the 3-game set with Arizona. At the start of today’s action, he’s hitting .255.
I’m still waiting.

Tolerance

So much for the Democrats’ faith in the tolerance of their own primary voters:
A senior advisor to another campaign scoffs at the idea that Lieberman will appeal to the largely rural voters who go to the polls then: “Lieberman’s got endorsements in Oklahoma, but, when it comes to Oklahoma voters–.” There is a long pause. “Enough said.”
(From The New Republic; registration required).

And They Complain of Media Bias in Favor of the U.S.??!

I’ve read this article a few times now, and I’m still struggling with its implications. (1) Why isn’t this a much bigger story??; (2) Why does Howard Kurtz lamely limit his conclusion to “we in the media are brave”??; (3) If these reporters reported the truth (admittedly at great risk to themselves), would we have gone to war sooner and would the war effort have even more support (I can be optimistic, can’t I?)?; (4) What is the NYTimes’ obligations regarding an apology for past articles now that this has come to light?; and (5) Isn’t it time for Tim Robbins et. al to shut up now that we can point them towards actual, meaningful restrictions on free speech? An excerpt:
Burns says plenty of correspondents didn’t report everything they knew. In a lengthy Times piece eight days ago, he says many visiting journalists had “a tacit understanding . . . that there were aspects of Mr. Hussein’s Iraq that could be mentioned only obliquely.” These included the fact that Hussein “was widely despised and feared by Iraqis. . . . The terror that was the most pervasive aspect of society under Mr. Hussein was another topic that was largely taboo.”
And: “Some reporters bought expensive gifts for senior ministry officials” and “submitted copies of their stories to show they were friendly to Iraq.”

Its worth a full read. Kurtz’ column also interestingly points out that the recent Rick Santorum story was first broken by a reporter who happens to be the wife of Sen. John Kerry’s campaign manager.

Yankees’ Amazing Start

As a Mets’ fan, I reluctantly mention this article that points out some amazing stats of the Yankees’ recent tear. I take some comfort that its from a Boston paper; thus, Red Sox fans also have to share the pain. Some examples:
Entering play [Saturday], they’d hit more home runs (45) than the Tigers had scored runs (43). Their on-base percentage of .388 was 34 points better than the team with the second-best OBP, the Red Sox (.354). The starters’ ERA of 2.72 was nearly two full runs lower than that of the Sox starters (10-6, 4.62 ERA). The pitching staff had allowed a league-low seven home runs — while three teams, the Blue Jays, Devil Rays, and Angels, have allowed 30 or more. They’d walked a league-low 54 batters, 50 fewer than the league-worst Rangers (104). Their defense had allowed just one unearned run in 23 games.

Banfield’s Folly

The Ombudsgod has a report on a speech by NBC News correspondent Ashleigh Banfield, criticizing cable news war coverage:
“We didn’t see what happen when Marines fired M-16s,” Banfield said during a Landon lecture appearance today at Kansas State University. “We didn’t see what happened after mortars landed, only the puff of smoke. There were horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism? Or was this coverage?”
On the other hand, she said, many U.S. television viewers were treated to a non-stop flow of images presented by “cable news operators who wrap themselves in the American flag and go after a certain target demographic.”
“It was a grand and glorious picture that had a lot of people watching,” Banfield said, “and a lot of advertisers excited about cable TV news. But it wasn’t journalism, because I’m not sure Americans are hesitant to do this again — to fight another war, because it looked to them like a courageous and terrific endeavor.”

Um, doesn’t Banfield work for one of those cable networks? And didn’t the network’s point man for the coverage of Iraq from the front give his life to bring that coverage into America’s living rooms? I mean, leave aside the substance; this is just tacky, and doubly tacky coming from an MSNBC darling who got shoved aside as the war coverage heated up. Can you say, “sour grapes?”

Ugh

I spent a frustrating afternoon at Shea yesterday, watching the Mets make rookie Brandon Webb look like Greg Maddux in his first major league start (with two small children, we couldn’t stick around for the nightcap); they wound up with 8 errors and 27 strikeouts on the day. Mo Vaughn made a horrible error at first in the game we saw; it was hard to tell if the fans were yelling ‘Mo,’ ‘Boo,’ or ‘Moo.’ Roger Cedeno is now booed whenever he emerges from the dugout. The only highlight was when I turned to my son (age 5) to tell him to watch carefully when the count went 2-2 on Tony Clark, and sure enough he smacked a line drive home run to left center. This is a weak division, but the Mets sure don’t look like the team to take it.

Santorum and the Church

OK, one more post on Santorum to wrap up. To recap, there are three things that are controversial about the substance of Santorum’s remarks:
1. His legal argument that the Constitution does not provide a “right of privacy” that prevents the government from regulating sex between consenting adults in a private place.
2. His political argument that sodomy laws are good public policy.
3. His moral argument that homosexual acts are immoral.
There are two additional controversies about his remarks:
4. Questions about whether Santorum acted offensively even by raising the subject.
5. Questions about whether Santorum expressed his opinions in a way that was offensive.
I’ve covered a few of these already (I’m with Santorum on the legal argument but against him on the political argument); I’d like to focus mainly on the moral argument.

Continue reading Santorum and the Church

15,000

Back on March 4, I noted that (on the previous day, I believe) the site meter had passed 10,000 page views from August to March. This past Thursday, April 24, we cleared 15,000, meaning half as many visits in seven weeks as in the first 5 1/2 months. And the Hosting Matters stats say we’ve had just under 600 unique visitors in the last 13 days.

Benitez

One of the really frustrating things about Armando Benitez’ early struggles is that the Mets would be in first place now (in spite of all their other problems) if he’d converted those 4 save chances he’s blown. What’s harder to tell is what’s really wrong, and whether it’s more than just a bad run for a good pitcher. The main problems — control trouble, lack of durability beyond 1 inning, lack of movement on his fastball, the fact that he only has two pitches and he’s afraid to throw one (the splitter) on a 3-ball count, poor temperment — are things that have been true for years. The only suggestion I’ve heard that’s new is that he isn’t throwing inside enough.

Marshall on Santorum

I’m about ready to wrap up the Santorum issue shortly; one or two more posts to go. I was wondering when Josh Marshall would finally weigh in – seeing as he was the leader of the pack on the Lott fiasco — and here he is:
Now you have the President supporting Santorum and calling him an “inclusive man.” For the reasons Eleanor Clift sets forth here, I guess the president doesn’t feel it’s possible to criticize Santorum — which tells you a lot. But “inclusive”? I can think of a number of words he could have used. ‘Principled’? Maybe they’re bad principles, but he’s principled. ‘Deeply religious’? Okay. But ‘inclusive’?
One thing that hurts politicians more than anything is saying things that make them sound ridiculous. Calling Rick Santorum ‘inclusive’ makes the president sound ridiculous.

I have to agree. Bush had trouble avoiding being ridiculous during the 2000 primaries, but he’s been much improved since then. I think his response here was along the lines of when he said Putin had a good heart.

JON STEWART: Continuing on.

Read that Jon Stewart just signed a new contract with Comedy Central that will have him continuing to do his show through the 2004 election. Although not good news for George W., this is good news for those looking for nightly political humor. Although my politics are much more in line with Dennis Miller, I do enjoy watching Jon Stewart. Although liberal, he does try to play it fair, which results in him skewering both sides.

INTRODUCTION: KINER’S KORNER

I’d like to thank the Crank for the chance to add to this terrific blog. Hopefully, he’ll find my postings to be almost as entertaining and enjoyable as I find his.
First, the name: Mets fans will recognize it immediately. As to the rest of the readers, Kiner’s Korner was a post-Mets-game interview show hosted, at times with great difficulty, by Ralph Kiner in which he interviewed one of the stars of the day’s ballgame. Given that this was during the mid-to-late 1970s, a dark era for the franchise, it was frequently discouraging. I still remember John Stearns stating after an August ballgame that, “If each of us goes out there each game and gives it his all, we have a chance to play .500 baseball for the rest of the season.” As I said, those were dark days.
Second, I probably won’t add much diversification with my postings. I, too, am a Patriot League-educated, politically-conservative lawyer and Mets fan. I currently live in New England, however, so I might add an occasional bashing of the Boston Globe.

Goldberg and Santorum

I largely agree with Jonah Goldberg on the outcome on sodomy laws: they should be repealed, but they aren’t unconstitutional. One quibble; Goldberg says:
Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign -a leading gay rights organization, led a chorus of liberal critics saying in response: “When Trent Lott made similar comments, he lost his position as majority leader, and it is time for the Republican Party to consider similar steps with Senator Santorum.”
First, let’s cover a little history. The Civil War was America’s bloodiest conflict. It cost nearly 1,100,000 casualties, claimed 620,000 lives in perhaps more than 10,000 armed clashes. The war divided the nation for generations after it ended.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s didn’t claim nearly as many lives, but it, too, transformed American life, rearranging institutions, public and private, and rewriting the language of the nation. And, you know what? None of it had anything to do with gay people.
Brother didn’t fight brother over gay marriage or homosexuals in the military. Men didn’t brave police dogs and fire hoses to overturn sodomy laws and the National Guard was never called in to restore order after gays were allowed through the schoolhouse door. Gays weren’t kidnapped in Africa and brought to America against their will to toil in our fields.
It’s important to keep all this in mind as the chorus of comparisons between Santorum and Lott gets louder, demanding that Santorum step down from his leadership position as Lott was forced to do.
When Trent Lott defended Jim Crow, he was defending something that had been rejected by two generations of Americans. Countless elections, debates, movies, books, marches and court decisions stand as testimony to the fact that America is resolved to put Jim Crow behind us. Lott dug up a skeleton that everyone wanted to remain buried, and he was punished for it.
Santorum, meanwhile, was giving an opinion about an existing law that is currently being debated in the Supreme Court. In short, homosexuality and race are just different things. They describe different things. They have different roles in our history and culture.

I know what Goldberg’s driving at here, but the fact that Jim Crow is dead could just as easily cut the other way: because Santorum is advocating a position that still has support, if you find his views offensive or dangerous, then they are worse because they can still command respect.
More to follow.

Bush and Santorum

I’ll probably have a few more posts on the Rick Santorum controversy; I don’t relish the topic, but as with my coverage of the Trent Lott imbroglio in December, we conservative webloggers have an obligation to wrestle with the tough questions of what is, and isn’t, a reasonable application of conservative principles.
This is not the debate Bush wants to have right now, as we try to segue into domestic policy and ramp up the fight on judicial nominees. But it’s his own damn fault; he could’ve pardoned those guys in Texas either as Governor or President, on a “the government has more important things to do” platform, which would effectively have struck a death blow to sodomy laws without the need to offend religious conservatives by making a statement that would be read as saying “this is OK.”
Then again, the key primary for the Dems in 2004 is South Carolina, so other than Howard Dean, none of their presidential candidates is likely to relish a fight about sodomy just right now (especially since unlike Trent Lott, Santorum’s not going anywhere and may yet be Senate Majority Leader when Frist retires in 2006).

RELIGION: The Holy Father Gets His Backbone Back

Sadly, precious little good has come from the Vatican in the past 2-3 years or so; while Pope John Paul II has been admirably steadfast in some of his longstanding convictions, there’s been every sign in recent years — with the Vatican’s failure to meaningfully address the sex abuse scandals and its shameful failure to recognize the moral realities in Iraq and Palestine as prominent examples — that the Holy Father has lost the ability to absorb new information or take a fresh look at problems whose moral outlines have become starkly clearer in recent times. But this report carries a little of the Pope that many Catholics still know and love: a rebuke to Fidel Castro’s latest brutal crackdown. Here’s the letter in Spanish; I’ll post the English translation if I can find one.

BASEBALL/BASKETBALL: No Comparison

Was Yogi Berra the greatest player in baseball history?
The debate over the proper place of statistics in the analysis of baseball is one that rages on perenially, and probably always will. Sometimes the arguments against statistical analysis descend into self-parody – like when the MVP voters gave Andre Dawson the award in a year when his team finished last, based entirely on his 49 HR and 137 RBI, while refusing to look at the overall picture of Dawson’s poor on base percentage and dependence on Wrigley Field. Like when the writers stumped for Tony Perez for the Hall of Fame and simultaneously argued that (1) his career RBI total justified his enshrinement and (2) statistics don’t matter, so let’s not talk about any of the other numbers, and Perez capped it all off by ranting in his acceptance speech about how numbers don’t mean anything (personally, I can’t help but wonder every time Perez and Joe Morgan criticize statistics whether it’s just a veiled shot at stat-obsessed ex-teammate Pete Rose). Like when pro-Bud Selig sportswriters essentially insist that revenues and expenses are irrelevant to whether a business is making or losing money.
But I digress.

Continue reading BASEBALL/BASKETBALL: No Comparison

‘Confusing News With Wishful Thinking’

For those of us who supported the war against Iraq, there were four types of reasons for war – Tactical, Strategic, Humanitarian, and Legal.
The Tactical reasons were the most pressing: get weapons out of Saddam’s hands and prevent him from sharing them with terrorists. It has been somewhat surprising how long (and with how many false alarms) it has taken to gather evidence of those weapons and terrorist contacts; it is yet possible that Saddam actually did destroy them (yet oburately refused to share the evidence of that destruction with us), and there is also the worrisome possibility that he disposed of them. The capture of Farouk Hijzai, long identified as a critical link between Saddam’s regime and international terrorists, will hopefully provide useful information about all this.
The Humanitarian case has now been totally vindicated, although it was never, by itself, a sufficient case for war. The Legal case was in some ways tied in to the tactical case, although I still believe that we were justified in using force to remedy repeated violations of the terms on which we ended the last war.
But the Strategic case was always, to me, the most important: the need to put an end to ‘business as usual’ in the Middle East, with business including the acceptance of terrorism as a routine tool of foreign policy and the incitement of hatred against the U.S.
Steven Den Beste, one of the most eloquent proponents of the grand strategy, is declaring a partial victory. More evidence now comes from this April 26 editorial in the Saudi-based Arab News, long a bastion of anti-American and anti-Israel conventional wisdom in the region:

Continue reading ‘Confusing News With Wishful Thinking’

The Color Of The Sky In Ted Rall’s World

I’m almost afraid to make fun of this Ted Rall column – once you start, where do you stop? With the part where he weeps for the OPEC cartel, maybe? But I had to note this one: his assertion that the Bechtel Group must be up to no good because the company’s “Republican-oriented board includes such Reagan-era GOP luminaries as CIA director William Casey.”
If Bechtel’s board includes a guy who’s been dead for 15 years, the company has bigger problems.

Yankee Gloves

There’s something unusual going on with the Yankees that you may not have noticed, given that they are getting good pitching, crushing their opposition, and rolling to a record start even for the Yankees: the Yankee defense has been exceptionally ineffective.
Look at the pitching stats: the Yanks are now tied for the AL lead with a 3.01 ERA, but they are 6th in the AL in hits allowed despite a league-leading 156 K, just 50 walks (1 off the league lead), and a league-best 5 home runs allowed (less than half the nearest competitor).
Why? Simple. The Yanks are next to last in the league (above Texas) in turning balls in play into outs, 40 points below the league average (.6748 to .7126).
This has particularly affected the bullpen. Chris Hammond: 9 IP, 11 H, 0HR, 1 BB, 7 K. Antonio Osuna: 11.1 IP, 10 H, 0HR, 8 BB, 13 K. Juan Acevedo: 8 IP, 9 H, 1HR, 1 BB, 7 K. Jose Contreras: 5 IP, 11 H, 0HR, 6 BB, 7 K.
What else do these guys have in common? All new to the team. I’m not sure anyone has studied this, but I wonder if defenses are more effective when they’ve had time to adjust positioning behind a new pitcher . . .
Here’s the other thing: last year, the Yanks were just around the league average. What changed? Well, there’s Matsui, but the most obvious change is the loss of the everyday shorstop. Derek Jeter’s defensive numbers have never been good, but is it possible they actually miss him? Erick Almonte has a Range Factor of 4.17 and a Zone Rating of .667 this year, and he’s fielding an awful .929. Playing under basically the same conditions last season, Jeter’s numbers were 3.81, .803 and .977. In other words, Almonte’s taking more plays, but only because way more are his his way, and he’s making more errors.
Do they miss Jeter? From the numbers alone, I can’t say.

RELIGION: Santorum, Sodomy, and the (Back)Lash

WELL, there’s certainly been plenty of commentary on Rick Santorum’s controversial comments on the Texas sodomy case presently before the Supreme Court. Predictably, critics like the New York Times disapproved, without bothering to explain why Santorum was wrong. Let’s go through this in some detail.
What did he actually say?
The San Francisco Chronicle helpfully reprints the whole interview, and before you jump to criticize Santorum — or to defend him — I’d suggest you read it all.

Continue reading RELIGION: Santorum, Sodomy, and the (Back)Lash

Doctor My Eyes

I’m beginning to think that Roger Cedeno needs his eyes checked. He was never a true CF, but he wasn’t always this bad an outfielder. It’s fairly obvious that he just doesn’t see the ball coming until it’s too close to do anything about it.

Borowski

One of this season’s real surprises has been new Cubs closer Joe Borowski. I hadn’t paid him much attention last season, but Borowski pitched pretty well: 97 K and 29 BB in 95.2 IP, and a 2.73 ERA. He was vulnerable to the long ball, though (10 dingers). And he’s been lights-out so far in 2003: 3 saves in 3 tries, 10.2 IP, 3 hits (one a homer), no walks, 13 K, and an 0.84 ERA.
This could be an early test for Dusty Baker in Chicago: if Borowki keeps pitching anything like this, there’s just no reason why Six Fingers Alfonseca should ever get his job back.

Nigerian Elections

The recent elections in Nigeria, leading to a victory for incumbent president Olusegun Obasanjo, are being disputed by the opposition, although it’s not immediately clear how serious that is. Africapundit (permalinks broken) seems pretty pessimistic about the willingness of the international community to force Obasanjo to take some of the more significant complaints seriously. I’m sort of personally interested in this story, because the opposition vice presidential candidate, Chuba Okadigbo, is the father of one of my roommates from law school. Nigeria, of course, is an important country in many ways: Africa’s most populous nation, rich and growing richer in natural resources (especially oil), centrally located in West/Central Africa, and divided among booming Catholic and Muslim populations. I can only wish them well.

Musilix

Robert “Man Without Qualities” Musil has two interesting posts: first, he catches a typical example of Atrios quoting someone far, far out of context to make a point; then he notes that Bill Clinton seems to be serving the same role that Hillary did when Bill was the candidate: feeding red meat (or, in this case, beige tofu) to partisans on the Left, while letting his wife keep her distance from the more obviously irresponsible statements.

Kiss My

A revealing note on tonight’s Mets radio broadcast: Howie Rose and Ed Coleman were talking about how Art Howe had moved Roberto Alomar to the leadoff slot, and how important it was to Alomar that Howe personally asked Alomar to bat leadoff rather than writing his name in the lineup. It seems that a manager has to do a lot of stuff like this to get Alomar to play for him, and I suspect Bobby Valentine didn’t do that kind of stuff.

Daschle

Before you can have the courage of your convictions, you need the intellectual clarity to recognize them. I wasn’t initially too sure what I thought about Tom Daschle being warned by his local bishop not to keep identifying himself as a Catholic, but Jane Galt (who’s not even Catholic, but is instead from Manhattan) puts Catholics like me to shame with a stirring defense of the Church’s ability to do this.