Alright, now that I've reeled you in with my incisive wit, and deep penetrating intellect; it's time to run the gauntlet ( sorry, couldn't resist ) and throw out some thick gooey darkness at the end of town.
Life is a great cosmic joke.
The fun, of course, is we play it on ourselves. We can, or some can; as I don't believe this view is universally held, blame this on God. It is, after all, his house of cards. That we're seated at the back of the room; I don't feel, should be held against him ( you may insert whatever relevant pronoun you feel is applicable if you don't care for " him " ). We set ourselves down this particular lane; admonitions to the contrary, and we're doomed to see it to the end. I doubt we, as a collective, will one day hearken to a blinding vision, turn on a dime, and change course. And why should we; we've convinced ourselves of our inestimable value to the universe, and to deny that now would be somewhat hypocritical. We are Humanity, dammit! We carry the favor of God's eye. Our many sacred texts bear this out. That we have a hubristic finger in all these pies apparently is beside the point. God is on our side and he wouldn't abandon us, or play a cruel joke on us either. Would he? If we are created in his image, and we have a sense of humor, the depth and quality of which is remarkable ( assuming you are not a person of ill humor ); the obvious conclusion is that God does as well. As such, his may be cosmologically transcendent!
In an intellectual exercise; such as this, let us break our argument into three components; the cosmological, the biological, and the psychological.
Cosmologically, we are dust in the wind. By simply noting the size and scale of the universe, and our small, and by that I mean our incredibly small, little part of it; we are nearly infinitesimal. In cosmological time, our lives are nanoseconds; as was once proverbially noted, a blink in the eyes of God. The immense scale of the universe works against our notions of being special; one offs, if you will. As the universe is governed by the same laws regardless of location, and is made up of the same elements; as well as the same dynamics, the idea that there aren't many more carbon based life forms out there is self serving. There are many more of us out there, brother. That we struggle to bridge the time and distance inherent in a universe of this magnitude, as well as our biological limitations; the great impediment to our Star Trek fantasies, does not diminish the existence of others. The lack of evidence or contact is not, in and of itself, proof that no other sentient beings are out there. The cosmology of the great joke is probably the least diabolical, if not the greatest to overcome. We are what we are, where we are, and are bound by the immutable forces that govern the universe. Try as we may, we can only hope to understand the consistency of the soup we're in.
The biological conundrum is that, for some of us, the accumulation of knowledge and experience is juxtaposed by the inevitable disintegration of the body; including the brain, which is part of the body. That seems to be forgotten from time to time. In a society that fawns and obsesses over the physical, rather than revering the wisdom that presumably comes with age, there is great comedy in watching people desperately trying to defy the ossification of their cherished vessels. Surgery, creams, potions, appliques; all designed to forestall decay for a nominal service charge. This is high comedy. Our advertisements are filled with the lithe, the fit, and the young hawking products for the old, sedentary, and fat promising them a way to eternal life, or at least some bargain basement approximation of it. A good diet, exercise, moderation, and restraint are too much work. And while they will have an effect on the quality of your life; they may not have as big a desired effect on the superficiality of our visual selves. At one point in the mists of time, it was a compliment to say someone has aged gracefully. Given the bloating of the American public in this age of plenty, you don't hear that much anymore. Add to the fact that no one wants to get old anymore, and it's probably just as well. Of course, in the long run no of this matters. We'll get to that later.
Last, but not least, is the psychological. The iron clad belief that this all means something; that we're no just here out of cosmological and biological forces that we can't control. We're here to do God's work in whatever catechism we happen to believe in. We're born into circumstances we can't control, which has a predominant say in how our life will mature. Our life is shaped further by the actions of individuals we both know and don't know; for better or worse. That we are masters of our domain is mostly ephemeral. None the less, we continue to pray at the alter of the exception; that for everyone who toils in anonymity, a few will rise up to take their place in our histories and lore. It's very seductive. It plays to our vanity and greed.
The joke, of course, is that, cosmically, it matters not. As was famously stated, we fret and strut upon the stage til our part is over, to be played no more. Whether remembered or not. And remembrance is illusory as well. Some events and characters retain their place, but only a few. There can be but one Alexander. We have our histories, but they are incomplete and by human nature biased. The greatness of individuals is harnessed within memory of their time, after which it is in the hands of people to whom they are nothing more than pictures, words, and someone else's memories. It takes quite a character to truly impact human history. All the rest? Dust in the wind. I can only see my own family's face back to my great grandmothers. Anyone further back and I have no physical connection. Only what is passed down by those who knew or heard of them. What of all the human beings that have populated the earth from the beginning? Come and gone. Consumed by their needs and the vagaries of the age. We all simply pass through. The day will come that the dying sun's expansion will make the earth uninhabitable; later it will consume the earth as it dies. All our history; all the artifacts we leave behind go with it. Maybe we'll shoot it all into space, assuming the atmosphere isn't too filled with debris. Maybe we'll build an ark to ferry humanity to another world full of bucolic splendor. Maybe we'll kill ourselves off never having reconciled our ability to create with our darker impulses of destruction. Maybe.
Next we have a conversation with God. What does he think?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tea anyone?
I don't know if I should celebrate our collective ignorance, or shrug, and accept that this is what we've become; for better or for worse. It's evident that a great many Americans do not know how their government works; do not have much of an understanding of economics ( and I don't profess to being Paul Krugman ), or how taxes are doled out. That's too bad, because there might be some real heat in these less than stellar times.
I live in Washington state; a great place to be rich. We have a regressive tax base, so everyone pays the same. Maybe that sounds fair, but with no state income tax, we rely on spending rather than income. For a state that considers itself progressive in most things, it's a real poke in the eye. The more money you have in this state the less you have to pay, as a percentage of your worth. Obviously you can spend more, but you don't have to. You can choose to pay what the poorest pay. The basics cost what they cost regardless of who's paying; food, housing, medical care; the things we need to survive. Sales taxes; property taxes; business taxes; that's our tax base, so no surprise when times get tough, when people lose their jobs, when the rest of us over-extend; the state's tax revenues drop like real estate valuations. One year we're in the black, the next we're down by billions; 9 over the next two years.
There goes money for education; there goes money for the less fortunate, for those in poor health. Even as more join their ranks; there's no money. History means nothing, even as it speaks to the direct benefit of education for the growth of business, the growth of innovation, the betterment of society as a whole. Yet the notion of more taxation equity is a non starter. The rich don't even need to lobby themselves; they have the Tea Party movement, such as it is, to lobby for them, Never mind that the great majority of these worked up folks aren't rich and would probably benefit from a more progressive tax base. It's already been pointed out that the country has been given a substantial tax break by the new administration, and that as a percentage of their income Americans are paying less than they have in decades.
It is, of course, the great American tradition to hate taxes and hew to our own individual wants. We inherently know what's best; when the chips are down we have confidence in ourselves. In and of themselves, those aren't bad things; in fact, it's what has made American great, and what has distinguished us from the rest of the world. But we seem resistent to the nature of the government we have today. It is not a small nimble organization. It's huge. We ask much more from it than we care to acknowledge. We expect it to be well organized and managed, yet we expect it to be there for us in time of need as well as want, even if those wants are counter-intuitive to our beliefs. Yet we allow it to be a pravaricator of small minded needs rather thanwhat best for the whole. If we believe in self reliance, then there's little need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; jobless benefits beyond what we put in to support them; which poses the question of whether there're needed or not if we are truly self reliant. No need for pensions and the like; we're smart enough to handle our own affairs far from the intrusion of big government.
That government fails us, or fails to live up to the perceptions that are our own, fall squarely on our own shoulders. We elect the people who represent us. It is their job to set the laws; derive the structure of the government, appoint those who will administer it, and judiciously tax to support its function. If government fails; it is our failure. You can't, one the one hand, claim self reliance and then expect the government to bail you out when you find yourself in the dumps; but we do. Or I should say some do. The sheer size of our economy, and it's inter-connectedness to our daily lives, as well as our government, is the reason behind our now massive indebtedness. If we were as self reliant as we'd like to believe, then we'd have let the chips fall where they may. The banking and lending industries would probably end up massively smaller. With job losses and consumer debt so high, spending would fall off the table, which in turn would create more business and job loss in those sectors that cater to our consumer lifestyle. Values plummet. The economy shrinks. A lot. Let me say that again; a Lot. That means a lot of people out of work with nothing to do. Historically that tends to be not so good for a stable society.
That's the problem. The lot. That the government has decided to spend far beyond it's means is nothing new. We as a society seem reluctant to pay for what we demand. We're attacked; we respond, yet when comes up to paying for it, we don't; we cut taxes instead. And for those who can most afford it. It makes no sense. It makes sense to pay for what you need. It makes sense to save for the inevitable crashes, in the good times, so the hard time are at least cushioned. Unfortunately good sense isn't politically expedient. There are any number of things that the government can do to cut the debt; restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reduce military spending to what we really need for 21st century security. Those are the big spenders; entitlements and the military. If you don't want to pay to cover those cost; you have to cut and restructure. Most of the bailout money will be repaid, and once the banks find their footing; the financial crisis will work itself out. The government will have to deal with it, as it has many times before. An ordered society isn't free, and doing your own thing has it's costs as well. Nothing is without cost. Bitching about it, while a temporary balm; solves nothing.
Either way; limited, overarching, or something in between; whatever government you want still has to be paid for.
I live in Washington state; a great place to be rich. We have a regressive tax base, so everyone pays the same. Maybe that sounds fair, but with no state income tax, we rely on spending rather than income. For a state that considers itself progressive in most things, it's a real poke in the eye. The more money you have in this state the less you have to pay, as a percentage of your worth. Obviously you can spend more, but you don't have to. You can choose to pay what the poorest pay. The basics cost what they cost regardless of who's paying; food, housing, medical care; the things we need to survive. Sales taxes; property taxes; business taxes; that's our tax base, so no surprise when times get tough, when people lose their jobs, when the rest of us over-extend; the state's tax revenues drop like real estate valuations. One year we're in the black, the next we're down by billions; 9 over the next two years.
There goes money for education; there goes money for the less fortunate, for those in poor health. Even as more join their ranks; there's no money. History means nothing, even as it speaks to the direct benefit of education for the growth of business, the growth of innovation, the betterment of society as a whole. Yet the notion of more taxation equity is a non starter. The rich don't even need to lobby themselves; they have the Tea Party movement, such as it is, to lobby for them, Never mind that the great majority of these worked up folks aren't rich and would probably benefit from a more progressive tax base. It's already been pointed out that the country has been given a substantial tax break by the new administration, and that as a percentage of their income Americans are paying less than they have in decades.
It is, of course, the great American tradition to hate taxes and hew to our own individual wants. We inherently know what's best; when the chips are down we have confidence in ourselves. In and of themselves, those aren't bad things; in fact, it's what has made American great, and what has distinguished us from the rest of the world. But we seem resistent to the nature of the government we have today. It is not a small nimble organization. It's huge. We ask much more from it than we care to acknowledge. We expect it to be well organized and managed, yet we expect it to be there for us in time of need as well as want, even if those wants are counter-intuitive to our beliefs. Yet we allow it to be a pravaricator of small minded needs rather thanwhat best for the whole. If we believe in self reliance, then there's little need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; jobless benefits beyond what we put in to support them; which poses the question of whether there're needed or not if we are truly self reliant. No need for pensions and the like; we're smart enough to handle our own affairs far from the intrusion of big government.
That government fails us, or fails to live up to the perceptions that are our own, fall squarely on our own shoulders. We elect the people who represent us. It is their job to set the laws; derive the structure of the government, appoint those who will administer it, and judiciously tax to support its function. If government fails; it is our failure. You can't, one the one hand, claim self reliance and then expect the government to bail you out when you find yourself in the dumps; but we do. Or I should say some do. The sheer size of our economy, and it's inter-connectedness to our daily lives, as well as our government, is the reason behind our now massive indebtedness. If we were as self reliant as we'd like to believe, then we'd have let the chips fall where they may. The banking and lending industries would probably end up massively smaller. With job losses and consumer debt so high, spending would fall off the table, which in turn would create more business and job loss in those sectors that cater to our consumer lifestyle. Values plummet. The economy shrinks. A lot. Let me say that again; a Lot. That means a lot of people out of work with nothing to do. Historically that tends to be not so good for a stable society.
That's the problem. The lot. That the government has decided to spend far beyond it's means is nothing new. We as a society seem reluctant to pay for what we demand. We're attacked; we respond, yet when comes up to paying for it, we don't; we cut taxes instead. And for those who can most afford it. It makes no sense. It makes sense to pay for what you need. It makes sense to save for the inevitable crashes, in the good times, so the hard time are at least cushioned. Unfortunately good sense isn't politically expedient. There are any number of things that the government can do to cut the debt; restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reduce military spending to what we really need for 21st century security. Those are the big spenders; entitlements and the military. If you don't want to pay to cover those cost; you have to cut and restructure. Most of the bailout money will be repaid, and once the banks find their footing; the financial crisis will work itself out. The government will have to deal with it, as it has many times before. An ordered society isn't free, and doing your own thing has it's costs as well. Nothing is without cost. Bitching about it, while a temporary balm; solves nothing.
Either way; limited, overarching, or something in between; whatever government you want still has to be paid for.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Please Sir, may I have another, pt.1
The following thoughts occurred to me over the last few day, of which I claim no exclusivity.
Guns. We need our guns, in all their infinite variety. Why? To protect our lives, properties, and, as it is continually threatened, our liberty. That they give voice to our odious violent tendencies is immaterial. Without them we are as vulnerable as the naked in the forest. If the Jews of pre-war Europe had had the access we do to AK-47s and the like, would there have been any holocaust? The Tutsi of Rwanda? The Muslims of Yugoslavia? I'm not trying to be glib, but small arms, in the hands of an untrained, marginally led ( if at all ) group, is no match against blunt military force.
It's why the idea of Obama taking away the guns of all good Americans is deeply flawed. It not worth trying to do, certainly not during this age. One, it would require an act of Congress; no president would dare act unilaterally on something like that, and the idea that Congress would ban all firearms is a pipe dream. There's no political will to ban or severely restrict gun ownership. Two, it would require the military to do it if force is required, rather than if required by law that had been approved by Congress with the support of a majority of the American public, then it would be up to law enforcement, and I doubt they'd be thrilled with the prospect. Again, no political will or enough public support. Third, if it came to violent confrontation, assuming that American military personnel would be willing to fire on their own people; it would be a bloodbath. I don't care how many assault rifles you have or how much ammo; you be taken out by any means necessary. That's the way it is. Our armed forces are too powerful for the " people " to defeat. You're as likely to defeat them as the Palestinians of Gaza are of defeating the Israeli army. No politician is going to endanger the American democratic system or guns. And yet, people are hoarding guns and ammo because they're certain the " gubmint " is coming for their guns.
Then there's the chimera of possessing a concealed weapons permit and carrying on your person a concealed weapon. The wisdom is that you have the means to protect yourself in the event that you need to protect yourself; someone tries to rob you, you see a crime in progress, although I don't believe law enforcement cares much for the citizenry utilizing deadly force in stopping crimes they come across in the course of their daily lives; the possible exception being armed intruders, and, as stated above, protecting your personal liberty from the clutches of a " socialist " president and his administration. As I noted in an earlier blog, the ability to make this work is contingent on your being ever vigilant; ever watchful, and being able to calmly execute ( lovely term ) all actions necessary, which to my mind requires a reasonable amount of practice. That's what our celluloid heroes do. Fortunately, for them, it's all smoke and mirrors; unfortunately for those of us in the real world, it is not. While bad guys may come at you in an orderly fashion in film; they don't in real life. Just ask Julius Caesar. They did not come at him one at a time. It only takes a few to concentrate your focus and that's time enough for a shiv to find your back. Nor are most rabble going to confront you in such a way as to give you time to assuage the situation and present your firearm to shock and awe. If the bad guy has a weapon and he thinks your up to something, he probably shoot you the minute you put your hand in your jacket or pocket or wherever you have your weapon. If he doesn't have a weapon and see you brandish one, he'll flee. The law, other than in Texas, generally doesn't abide shooting someone in the back; even while fleeing an attempted crime.
The other compelling nostrum is that it gives you a sense of control in a world in which there is only so much you can have any control over. The horrors brought to our attention on the nightly news, or Internet, magnify this lack of control. One day he's just another guy; and men perpetrate these crimes by a wide margin, the next he's wandering through WalMart killing everyone he sees. Maybe you'll have time to pull out your weapon and take charge, but it doesn't happen very often if at all. If we have so many people armed to the teeth, why aren't these massacres stopped sooner? Maybe it's because all they want to do, like everyone else, is get out and find a place of safety. Vigilance is exhausting if you have to be on alert all the time, if everyone you come across, assuming you trust friends and family, is a potential enemy. Soldiers exposed to this over long periods of time get PTSD, or battle fatigue, or shell shock. My fear is that leads to the kinds of mistakes you can never take back; killing an innocent bystander. No amount of rationalizing will heal the wounded or bring back the dead. It also hardens the police, who must assume we're all packing. If I start flashing a gun, even with the best of intentions, how are the police supposed to distinguish me from the others flashing weapons. It's worth noting that in the violence of the Depression that in a lot of cases law enforcement shot first and asked questions later. Bonnie and Clyde didn't get a "stop or we'll shoot " shout out before being gunned down.
We live in a violent society. We seem to accept the fact that many choose to resolve conflicts with violence. Guns won't stop a determined killer unless people are ready for it; and as we've seen, many are not. I don't believe we should be. I don't want to believe that everyone around me is a potential killer, even though that's possible. It sucks the life out of you. Other than my children, there's nothing I have that's so important, or so necessary, or irreplaceable that I'd need to kill someone because of it. Most victims of gun violence, or violence in general, know the perpetrator. Random act of senseless violence I can't control. If one day someone comes up behind me and shoots me, it's unlikely I'll know anything before it happens. I do what I can to minimize those possibilities, but I can only control what I do.
I can have an arsenal of weapons, but I'm not going to go around armed to the teeth; someone will just call the cops. Or some other person with a concealed weapons permit might shoot me; certain they're protecting themselves from sure destruction.
As I said; I don't know how they save me, other than by happenstance or luck.
Guns. We need our guns, in all their infinite variety. Why? To protect our lives, properties, and, as it is continually threatened, our liberty. That they give voice to our odious violent tendencies is immaterial. Without them we are as vulnerable as the naked in the forest. If the Jews of pre-war Europe had had the access we do to AK-47s and the like, would there have been any holocaust? The Tutsi of Rwanda? The Muslims of Yugoslavia? I'm not trying to be glib, but small arms, in the hands of an untrained, marginally led ( if at all ) group, is no match against blunt military force.
It's why the idea of Obama taking away the guns of all good Americans is deeply flawed. It not worth trying to do, certainly not during this age. One, it would require an act of Congress; no president would dare act unilaterally on something like that, and the idea that Congress would ban all firearms is a pipe dream. There's no political will to ban or severely restrict gun ownership. Two, it would require the military to do it if force is required, rather than if required by law that had been approved by Congress with the support of a majority of the American public, then it would be up to law enforcement, and I doubt they'd be thrilled with the prospect. Again, no political will or enough public support. Third, if it came to violent confrontation, assuming that American military personnel would be willing to fire on their own people; it would be a bloodbath. I don't care how many assault rifles you have or how much ammo; you be taken out by any means necessary. That's the way it is. Our armed forces are too powerful for the " people " to defeat. You're as likely to defeat them as the Palestinians of Gaza are of defeating the Israeli army. No politician is going to endanger the American democratic system or guns. And yet, people are hoarding guns and ammo because they're certain the " gubmint " is coming for their guns.
Then there's the chimera of possessing a concealed weapons permit and carrying on your person a concealed weapon. The wisdom is that you have the means to protect yourself in the event that you need to protect yourself; someone tries to rob you, you see a crime in progress, although I don't believe law enforcement cares much for the citizenry utilizing deadly force in stopping crimes they come across in the course of their daily lives; the possible exception being armed intruders, and, as stated above, protecting your personal liberty from the clutches of a " socialist " president and his administration. As I noted in an earlier blog, the ability to make this work is contingent on your being ever vigilant; ever watchful, and being able to calmly execute ( lovely term ) all actions necessary, which to my mind requires a reasonable amount of practice. That's what our celluloid heroes do. Fortunately, for them, it's all smoke and mirrors; unfortunately for those of us in the real world, it is not. While bad guys may come at you in an orderly fashion in film; they don't in real life. Just ask Julius Caesar. They did not come at him one at a time. It only takes a few to concentrate your focus and that's time enough for a shiv to find your back. Nor are most rabble going to confront you in such a way as to give you time to assuage the situation and present your firearm to shock and awe. If the bad guy has a weapon and he thinks your up to something, he probably shoot you the minute you put your hand in your jacket or pocket or wherever you have your weapon. If he doesn't have a weapon and see you brandish one, he'll flee. The law, other than in Texas, generally doesn't abide shooting someone in the back; even while fleeing an attempted crime.
The other compelling nostrum is that it gives you a sense of control in a world in which there is only so much you can have any control over. The horrors brought to our attention on the nightly news, or Internet, magnify this lack of control. One day he's just another guy; and men perpetrate these crimes by a wide margin, the next he's wandering through WalMart killing everyone he sees. Maybe you'll have time to pull out your weapon and take charge, but it doesn't happen very often if at all. If we have so many people armed to the teeth, why aren't these massacres stopped sooner? Maybe it's because all they want to do, like everyone else, is get out and find a place of safety. Vigilance is exhausting if you have to be on alert all the time, if everyone you come across, assuming you trust friends and family, is a potential enemy. Soldiers exposed to this over long periods of time get PTSD, or battle fatigue, or shell shock. My fear is that leads to the kinds of mistakes you can never take back; killing an innocent bystander. No amount of rationalizing will heal the wounded or bring back the dead. It also hardens the police, who must assume we're all packing. If I start flashing a gun, even with the best of intentions, how are the police supposed to distinguish me from the others flashing weapons. It's worth noting that in the violence of the Depression that in a lot of cases law enforcement shot first and asked questions later. Bonnie and Clyde didn't get a "stop or we'll shoot " shout out before being gunned down.
We live in a violent society. We seem to accept the fact that many choose to resolve conflicts with violence. Guns won't stop a determined killer unless people are ready for it; and as we've seen, many are not. I don't believe we should be. I don't want to believe that everyone around me is a potential killer, even though that's possible. It sucks the life out of you. Other than my children, there's nothing I have that's so important, or so necessary, or irreplaceable that I'd need to kill someone because of it. Most victims of gun violence, or violence in general, know the perpetrator. Random act of senseless violence I can't control. If one day someone comes up behind me and shoots me, it's unlikely I'll know anything before it happens. I do what I can to minimize those possibilities, but I can only control what I do.
I can have an arsenal of weapons, but I'm not going to go around armed to the teeth; someone will just call the cops. Or some other person with a concealed weapons permit might shoot me; certain they're protecting themselves from sure destruction.
As I said; I don't know how they save me, other than by happenstance or luck.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The American consumer in repose
It has been said; you are what you eat. It therefore may be said also, you are what you consume, and as such are defined by the advertisements that pull your little heartstrings of desire; the window into our very souls. That may be pure conjecture on my part; probably, but given the state of advertisements in this country, and the fact that we have evolved into a consumerist society, they; advertisements, indeed cater to our definitive selves. Or, more darkly, we define ourselves by the perceived qualities that those products that appeal to us, consciously or subconsciously; allow us to project, both outwardly and inwardly, who we want or wish to be. A bit of a mouthful to be sure. The other side of the coin is what these advertisements say about us as a society. I bring this up because I have deep concerns, alright maybe just facile concerns, about what commercials and ads say about the prototypical American here at the dawn of the Twenty-First Century.
The most prevalent common denominator, certainly as far as men are concerned, is that we are a nation of idiots; that we are immature, if you are a young adult; or racked with maladies if you are older. The only time you're on the ball is when you are a child; and, not surprisingly, you are also manipulative and devious. Plus, you're wise beyond your years.
Then you lose it!
Look at the characters in beer commercials. Coors Lite lauds itself as the coldest beer; note that quality of taste is not mentioned. Naturally if a beer is very cold the first thing you'll notice is not the taste, but that your tongue has gone numb. What does that say about someone who consumes this beer; I don't care about taste so long as it's really cold. Then there's the new Heineken commercial where the women are squealing over the big new walk in closet, while the men are squealing over a walk in fridge filled with beer. Doesn't exactly exuded confidence in the future of humankind. Now that Miller has thrown down the gauntlet on the " high life "; that it's for the common man in all his glory, so long as that doesn't include $10 burgers served in ritzy restaurants, sky boxes where no one knows the score, clueless barbecuers, and VIPs ensconced behind velvet ropes, I'm waiting for another beer company to declare itself the beer for the extra special man, or woman. Beer specifically brewed for when you're behind velvet ropes with other extra special people. One can dream.
Then there's the time worn idiocy that all a man needs to be a hit with the ladies; to " slay the babes ", is to use the right cologne, after shave, body spray, razor. Once a complete loser; now never at a loss for female companionship, and not just any female companionship, but hot, sexy babes just ready to give you anything you want. Who falls for this stuff? Never mind that the men in these commercials are good looking; imagine the outcry if fat, hairy, middle aged guys were used. No one would buy it because we know it's bull. It's like the beauty aids foisted onto women to keep them looking young and beautiful, and the models are at a age, early 20's, where they don't need the stuff and have very little body fat. Where are the middle aged women for whom the product is geared? Evidently, no one wants to see that either. More to the point, what does it say about the people who buy into this stuff? Is there anybody who actually believes any of this? Yet it's normal business practice to do customer surveys, etc, to gage the marketplace, one would think, before putting these products into stores. Someone confessed to believing they needed these. Cynically, I guess it's possible they lies for the money, but not everyone gets paid to do surveys.
Old guys, or mature men, if you prefer, seem to suffer from any number of life threatening maladies; grey hair in their beards ( never mind their balding heads; little or no hair seems to be the rage these days regardless of age ), weak urinary stream; there's nothing better than sitting through commercials of bromances ( surely the truest sign that the Apocalypse is upon us ) interrupted by multiple potty breaks, and, of course, erectile dysfunction or ED ( which I always thought stood for Emergency Department ). Despite the fact that most men who suffer from these problems are sedentary, overweight, diabetic, and have heart and or circulatory issues; or some combination thereof, the men in these ads are active, trim, and attractive. The only thing that surprises me is that they don't use young guys in their ads, as mentioned above for women's anti-aging cosmetics; maybe that's a little TOO cynical.
I did note a number of blogs ago that I'm certain we're sliding into our own Wall-E world, and the idea that people are deluding themselves into believing they will not only cure the ailment, but turn the user into a stud muffin or hot babe if they use the products, does little to dissuade of that notion. Unfortunately I don't think that'll include a spaceship to cater to our every need until the Earth is remade ( they didn't even get that in the film ).
It's been noted that the earlier you subject an individual to the idea that there is a perfect way to look or behave, the earlier they begin to obsess on their flaws and limitations, and the lower their opinion of themselves. We fear aging. We long for a kind of idealized image that's manufactured for us by entities that have ulterior motives.
Is this the point of our lives? Is this the extent of our existence? Solipsistic consumers chasing something just beyond our reach?
I need a beer. Only which one is me?
The most prevalent common denominator, certainly as far as men are concerned, is that we are a nation of idiots; that we are immature, if you are a young adult; or racked with maladies if you are older. The only time you're on the ball is when you are a child; and, not surprisingly, you are also manipulative and devious. Plus, you're wise beyond your years.
Then you lose it!
Look at the characters in beer commercials. Coors Lite lauds itself as the coldest beer; note that quality of taste is not mentioned. Naturally if a beer is very cold the first thing you'll notice is not the taste, but that your tongue has gone numb. What does that say about someone who consumes this beer; I don't care about taste so long as it's really cold. Then there's the new Heineken commercial where the women are squealing over the big new walk in closet, while the men are squealing over a walk in fridge filled with beer. Doesn't exactly exuded confidence in the future of humankind. Now that Miller has thrown down the gauntlet on the " high life "; that it's for the common man in all his glory, so long as that doesn't include $10 burgers served in ritzy restaurants, sky boxes where no one knows the score, clueless barbecuers, and VIPs ensconced behind velvet ropes, I'm waiting for another beer company to declare itself the beer for the extra special man, or woman. Beer specifically brewed for when you're behind velvet ropes with other extra special people. One can dream.
Then there's the time worn idiocy that all a man needs to be a hit with the ladies; to " slay the babes ", is to use the right cologne, after shave, body spray, razor. Once a complete loser; now never at a loss for female companionship, and not just any female companionship, but hot, sexy babes just ready to give you anything you want. Who falls for this stuff? Never mind that the men in these commercials are good looking; imagine the outcry if fat, hairy, middle aged guys were used. No one would buy it because we know it's bull. It's like the beauty aids foisted onto women to keep them looking young and beautiful, and the models are at a age, early 20's, where they don't need the stuff and have very little body fat. Where are the middle aged women for whom the product is geared? Evidently, no one wants to see that either. More to the point, what does it say about the people who buy into this stuff? Is there anybody who actually believes any of this? Yet it's normal business practice to do customer surveys, etc, to gage the marketplace, one would think, before putting these products into stores. Someone confessed to believing they needed these. Cynically, I guess it's possible they lies for the money, but not everyone gets paid to do surveys.
Old guys, or mature men, if you prefer, seem to suffer from any number of life threatening maladies; grey hair in their beards ( never mind their balding heads; little or no hair seems to be the rage these days regardless of age ), weak urinary stream; there's nothing better than sitting through commercials of bromances ( surely the truest sign that the Apocalypse is upon us ) interrupted by multiple potty breaks, and, of course, erectile dysfunction or ED ( which I always thought stood for Emergency Department ). Despite the fact that most men who suffer from these problems are sedentary, overweight, diabetic, and have heart and or circulatory issues; or some combination thereof, the men in these ads are active, trim, and attractive. The only thing that surprises me is that they don't use young guys in their ads, as mentioned above for women's anti-aging cosmetics; maybe that's a little TOO cynical.
I did note a number of blogs ago that I'm certain we're sliding into our own Wall-E world, and the idea that people are deluding themselves into believing they will not only cure the ailment, but turn the user into a stud muffin or hot babe if they use the products, does little to dissuade of that notion. Unfortunately I don't think that'll include a spaceship to cater to our every need until the Earth is remade ( they didn't even get that in the film ).
It's been noted that the earlier you subject an individual to the idea that there is a perfect way to look or behave, the earlier they begin to obsess on their flaws and limitations, and the lower their opinion of themselves. We fear aging. We long for a kind of idealized image that's manufactured for us by entities that have ulterior motives.
Is this the point of our lives? Is this the extent of our existence? Solipsistic consumers chasing something just beyond our reach?
I need a beer. Only which one is me?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Is this a pointless life?
I'm at an age where I question, a great deal, the world I find myself in, and the choices I've made because of it. I've heard that 50 is the new 40 is the new 30, etc, so evidently I still have plenty of time to work this over in my mind, distill it, ruminate, pontificate; bellow. At some point it'll all become clear.
I'm not buying it.
It's all the other stuff I've bought, and bought into that concerns me, and if I'm honest; has for some time.
Capitalism. Individualism. Consumerism. Rubric of our present existence. You make money doing what you want, without unwanted government or state interference, collecting a surfeit of goods that define your time on our blessed mortal coil. If you're lucky, fortunate, driven to succeed; in the right place at the right time, you may well become a captain of industry, leaving your mark on history, employing many, and advancing the quality of life for those who follow you. All well and good. For the rest of us, for whatever reason, who do not obtain that lofty status, we still benefit from the innovations, inventions, and advancements.
I've done my part. I'm reasonably educated, have a decent job, which pays well by most standards, and have done my share of consuming, be it homes, or cars; furniture, vacations, electronics, music, the arts, and all the other miscellaneous dross I might come across and covet. I've periodically culled the pile, donating the usable, and tossing the junk. Occasionally I've been roped into the Sturm und Drang of the proverbial yard sale. At times I marvel at all the stuff I've accumulated over the years and wonder at the idea of this multiplied by the millions. All the stuff we build, buy, replace, and throw away. That's our existence. A not so inconsequential byproduct of the fact that a good many of us in this country do not have to concern ourselves with basic subsistence, being surrounded by more than we could ever need or use ( this obviously is much less so by those caught in the maelstrom of our current economic woes or the truly sorry fact that there are still those in this country who want for enough to eat ). We are inundated with commercials and ads, sirens calling to our desires and greed; with products and services on which to spend our hard earned pay or readily available credit ( again mostly, depending on your all important credit rating, assuming you have any credit left at all).
So we devote our life to consuming, cradle to grave, with the endpoint being what? How much stuff we have? The quality or worth of it? So you have something to leave to those you leave behind, survive you, or those to whom you may bequeath? Do you consume for others? For those who need or want? Is it any better or worse than devoting yourself to others rather than yourself? To deny yourself the trappings of any particular lifestyle in the American tradition, be it rogue, salary man, suburbanite, artist, bum, politician, salt of the earth, farmer, cowboy, entrepreneur, feckless automaton, malcontent, laborer, or anger white guy ( there may some classifications I've missed ). Maybe I'm missing something.
I know, this is the world it which we live. In many other parts of the world, life is a struggle to survive. A struggle most of our ancestors spend their lives dealing with. I can love it or leave it. I can not worry about it; over think it. It is what it is. I guess if you're happy with what you do, and don't see the point in over analyzing the every detail of your existence, then go f**k yourself!
Sorry; cheap laugh.
None of this is to say that I wouldn't like the house of my dreams; well appointed to my tastes. A nice car, and the wherewithal to live whatever fantasy life I might dream up that day. I have no real desire to be an ascetic. Nor am I fool enough to think that times were better in yon days; maybe if you were wealthy, but disease still killed off plenty of them as well. Mostly it's the total bombardment of the consumer lifestyle; the inculcating blast furnace telling , cajoling, amusing, demanding, inferring, inciting us to buy, buy buy! And we did buy, buy, buy; whether we could afford it or not. People played to their avaricious, greediest impulses to squeeze every possible dollar out of us; legally, ethically, or otherwise.
Does it ever stop?
Makes you hope for reincarnation just so you can go back and buy what you didn't get to the last time.
I'm not buying it.
It's all the other stuff I've bought, and bought into that concerns me, and if I'm honest; has for some time.
Capitalism. Individualism. Consumerism. Rubric of our present existence. You make money doing what you want, without unwanted government or state interference, collecting a surfeit of goods that define your time on our blessed mortal coil. If you're lucky, fortunate, driven to succeed; in the right place at the right time, you may well become a captain of industry, leaving your mark on history, employing many, and advancing the quality of life for those who follow you. All well and good. For the rest of us, for whatever reason, who do not obtain that lofty status, we still benefit from the innovations, inventions, and advancements.
I've done my part. I'm reasonably educated, have a decent job, which pays well by most standards, and have done my share of consuming, be it homes, or cars; furniture, vacations, electronics, music, the arts, and all the other miscellaneous dross I might come across and covet. I've periodically culled the pile, donating the usable, and tossing the junk. Occasionally I've been roped into the Sturm und Drang of the proverbial yard sale. At times I marvel at all the stuff I've accumulated over the years and wonder at the idea of this multiplied by the millions. All the stuff we build, buy, replace, and throw away. That's our existence. A not so inconsequential byproduct of the fact that a good many of us in this country do not have to concern ourselves with basic subsistence, being surrounded by more than we could ever need or use ( this obviously is much less so by those caught in the maelstrom of our current economic woes or the truly sorry fact that there are still those in this country who want for enough to eat ). We are inundated with commercials and ads, sirens calling to our desires and greed; with products and services on which to spend our hard earned pay or readily available credit ( again mostly, depending on your all important credit rating, assuming you have any credit left at all).
So we devote our life to consuming, cradle to grave, with the endpoint being what? How much stuff we have? The quality or worth of it? So you have something to leave to those you leave behind, survive you, or those to whom you may bequeath? Do you consume for others? For those who need or want? Is it any better or worse than devoting yourself to others rather than yourself? To deny yourself the trappings of any particular lifestyle in the American tradition, be it rogue, salary man, suburbanite, artist, bum, politician, salt of the earth, farmer, cowboy, entrepreneur, feckless automaton, malcontent, laborer, or anger white guy ( there may some classifications I've missed ). Maybe I'm missing something.
I know, this is the world it which we live. In many other parts of the world, life is a struggle to survive. A struggle most of our ancestors spend their lives dealing with. I can love it or leave it. I can not worry about it; over think it. It is what it is. I guess if you're happy with what you do, and don't see the point in over analyzing the every detail of your existence, then go f**k yourself!
Sorry; cheap laugh.
None of this is to say that I wouldn't like the house of my dreams; well appointed to my tastes. A nice car, and the wherewithal to live whatever fantasy life I might dream up that day. I have no real desire to be an ascetic. Nor am I fool enough to think that times were better in yon days; maybe if you were wealthy, but disease still killed off plenty of them as well. Mostly it's the total bombardment of the consumer lifestyle; the inculcating blast furnace telling , cajoling, amusing, demanding, inferring, inciting us to buy, buy buy! And we did buy, buy, buy; whether we could afford it or not. People played to their avaricious, greediest impulses to squeeze every possible dollar out of us; legally, ethically, or otherwise.
Does it ever stop?
Makes you hope for reincarnation just so you can go back and buy what you didn't get to the last time.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
To arm or not to arm
As the last weeks have illustrated, the human penchant for destruction continues unabated. Whether due to economic or relational turmoil, many in this country have turned to their darker selves; murdering strangers and family alike. Anger unleashed in terrible orgies of violence. It seems at times almost incomprehensible. Nary a day goes by anymore without inexplicable violence being broadcast to the masses. While I don't expect to be gunned down by any immediate family members, or distant ones for that matter, the spate of individuals systematically killing people they don't know to vet their anger and despair is truly depressing. Should I worry that I, or those whom I care for or about, might soon be victims of this?
does this mean I need to arm myself. Just in case.
Emotionally maybe. Rationally I'm skeptical. Theologically? I think it's problematic.
Having heard the many reasons why I might need a gun; it's my constitutionally protected right, it allows me to protect myself from whatever miasma of uncertainty I might encounter, it's empowering; I think, I should rush out and obtain the necessary firepower to protect myself and the fruits of my good fortune. Should any whack job threaten me, I can blow his sorry ass to hell and beyond. Like the many heroes, and anti-heroes, roaming the big and not so big screens that capture my waking moments, I won't be a passive statistic, but rather a man in control.
Now it's not as if these images and beliefs haven't been beat into the ground time and time again, but rationally, or in the real world ( remember keeping it real? ), I have my concerns. Consider:
The utilization of any weapon in an effective manner is dependent upon the individual having the training, situational know how, and experience. Love that kind of talk; don't you? Anyway, plainly put, if you're blindly trying to find, load, aim, or discharge a firearm either half asleep or hopped up on adrenaline, you're more likely to kill yourself or a loved one or an innocent bystander than any intended intruder or bad guy. How many people possessing firearms drill themselves? Know which situations to anticipate possible trouble and the best course of action? I know many have had military training and one would think that would help, but it's not self defense training per Se; a means to protect house and home; it's meant to train individuals for the vicissitudes of combat and war. I'm not particularly enamored with the idea that we should all be packing heat to dissuade would be miscreants. Gunfights in our homes, which probably occur the most often, stores,and streets don't lend themselves to a safe and orderly society. Nor do they allow justice to prevail. At some point, hopefully, it's better for cooler heads to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Theologically, if you believe in an afterlife, and expect it to be much better than life on earth; then why would you be concerned with what may happen to you here? Granted, nobody wants to be a victim of violence, but we live in a world of violence, and sometimes violence finds you. Which do you ascribe to; turning the other cheek, or an eye for an eye? I don't see how it can be both. It's what bothers me about certain adherents to Christianity; they want salvation, but not the pacifism.
I don't carry a gun; nor own one, because I fear with it I'll do more harm than good. I don't want to live as if everyone I come across is a potential threat that I must be ready for. I have enough to think about as it is. I'm not necessarily advocating passivity, or doing nothing, but having been taught to use firearms; having used them, if only in preparation for possible violence, I know their ability to do great harm.
Still ( there's that word again ), there's a sense of impotence when someones anger compels them to do great evil and we're left to deal with the aftermath. There's no salve for lost lives, often no way to keep people, who before their terror, were like all the rest from acting out in the most obscene ways. Anger can be a terrible thing.
I just don't know that a gun can save me from that.
does this mean I need to arm myself. Just in case.
Emotionally maybe. Rationally I'm skeptical. Theologically? I think it's problematic.
Having heard the many reasons why I might need a gun; it's my constitutionally protected right, it allows me to protect myself from whatever miasma of uncertainty I might encounter, it's empowering; I think, I should rush out and obtain the necessary firepower to protect myself and the fruits of my good fortune. Should any whack job threaten me, I can blow his sorry ass to hell and beyond. Like the many heroes, and anti-heroes, roaming the big and not so big screens that capture my waking moments, I won't be a passive statistic, but rather a man in control.
Now it's not as if these images and beliefs haven't been beat into the ground time and time again, but rationally, or in the real world ( remember keeping it real? ), I have my concerns. Consider:
The utilization of any weapon in an effective manner is dependent upon the individual having the training, situational know how, and experience. Love that kind of talk; don't you? Anyway, plainly put, if you're blindly trying to find, load, aim, or discharge a firearm either half asleep or hopped up on adrenaline, you're more likely to kill yourself or a loved one or an innocent bystander than any intended intruder or bad guy. How many people possessing firearms drill themselves? Know which situations to anticipate possible trouble and the best course of action? I know many have had military training and one would think that would help, but it's not self defense training per Se; a means to protect house and home; it's meant to train individuals for the vicissitudes of combat and war. I'm not particularly enamored with the idea that we should all be packing heat to dissuade would be miscreants. Gunfights in our homes, which probably occur the most often, stores,and streets don't lend themselves to a safe and orderly society. Nor do they allow justice to prevail. At some point, hopefully, it's better for cooler heads to ascertain guilt or innocence.
Theologically, if you believe in an afterlife, and expect it to be much better than life on earth; then why would you be concerned with what may happen to you here? Granted, nobody wants to be a victim of violence, but we live in a world of violence, and sometimes violence finds you. Which do you ascribe to; turning the other cheek, or an eye for an eye? I don't see how it can be both. It's what bothers me about certain adherents to Christianity; they want salvation, but not the pacifism.
I don't carry a gun; nor own one, because I fear with it I'll do more harm than good. I don't want to live as if everyone I come across is a potential threat that I must be ready for. I have enough to think about as it is. I'm not necessarily advocating passivity, or doing nothing, but having been taught to use firearms; having used them, if only in preparation for possible violence, I know their ability to do great harm.
Still ( there's that word again ), there's a sense of impotence when someones anger compels them to do great evil and we're left to deal with the aftermath. There's no salve for lost lives, often no way to keep people, who before their terror, were like all the rest from acting out in the most obscene ways. Anger can be a terrible thing.
I just don't know that a gun can save me from that.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Fast ball in the side pocket
As the weather begins to turn towards Spring; here, anyway, in the great northwest, Spring likes to tease and flirt rather than show up with a smile and welcoming arms, those of us with a baseball Jones start to scratch that itch with an almost manic enthusiasm. And I'm not thinking so much about the professional boys as the rest of us, from the T-ballers to the geezers long dispossessed of any big league notions. We pay to play whether for ourselves or our kids, watch the weather like hawks; hoping it doesn't case too many disruptions or reschedules ( or drizzly games in low 40's temperatures ), and take pleasure in a simple yet demanding game.
I got back into baseball after getting my sons into it as little kids. Unlike the drop and leave parents content to know their kids are up to something supervised, though the quality of that supervision often merits debate, I tended to stay either to watch or help out, be it prepping the fields, umpiring, doing the score book, or helping to coach. Enjoyable as that was, it's not the same as being out there, and having discovered that there were adult leagues, I jumped right back in.
Jumping in allowed me to renew my love for the game. It also opened my eyes as to the difficulty of playing the game well. I have a very healthy respect for anyone who plays, or attempts to play, at the highest levels. That's not to say that the level of play in my league is a joke; it's not. We have amazing players in our league who are not just out of the MLB or the minor leagues, although we do have guys who did play minor league baseball, but at my age; late forties, there aren't too many would did. Don't kid yourself though; they still stand out. But, it's nowhere near the big league game.
Before this gets out of hand, the result of getting back into the game was to force me to focus more on the mechanics and nuances of the game; in order to be a better player myself, with the result that I came to realize just how hard it is to play well at the big league level, or for that matter, any level. I grew up at a time when there weren't the kinds of year round baseball programs that exist now; baseball was a spring/summer sport, and we played other games the rest of the year. And while there probably were places to truly learn the mechanics of the game, I didn't hear of or know of any. Consequently, my knowledge was rudimentary; the stuff that most people know from playing when they were young, and any gleaned from watching the game. Now, of course, there are a great many resources by which an individual can learn more about the mechanics of hitting, fielding, and pitching; as well as organizing practices and managing games. This has given me a deeper understanding of the game which I wished I had know earlier, both when I was younger and when my kids were younger.
Because of this recently acquired insight, I now appreciate more how hard it is to try to hit off a pitcher who throws hard with movement and control, as well as how hard it is to pitch a ball so that it moves, changes speed, and hit it's spots. It ain't easy. I know; I've been humbled enough. The beauty of this humiliation is that I'm much more understanding, and in many cases much more forgiving ( assuming that's the right word ) of those I watch play; and I'm an inveterate consumer of baseball. I watch my friends kids play in Little League, I go to the HS games, even though my kids weren't quite good enough to make the team, the local college teams, the teams in my adult league; if I pass a field and I've got nothing better to do, I've stop and watch. I've watched a lot of baseball and no doubt will until my dying day.
Here are a few observations:
A lot of people; fans, parents, and sadly, even coaches, don't know a whole lot about the game.
Perennial favorites;
throw strikes. Think about that for a minute; especially for kids. It presupposes that these kids are cognizant enough of their abilities that they can, on any given pitch, throw a strike, but choose not to for reasons unknown. The ones who can throw strikes do. The others are doing their damnedest to do so as well but lack the ability mainly because they don't know how and haven't been adequately taught the body mechanics necessary for the repeatability needed to consistently place a pitch in the strike zone. For better players, those in college, the minor leagues, up to the big leagues, just being able to put the ball over the plate isn't enough. It's why the prodigies we all watched as kids never make beyond a certain level. To pitch at a high level requires velocity, movement, and the ability to change speeds while utilizing the same arm speed and angle because that's what good hitters key on. Even if you throw 95 MPH ( and this is an old baseball saw ); if you put it over the heart of the plate without good movement; say a sinker, a good hitter is going to put it over the fence, and at that level, that's all you're going to face; very good hitters. Good, and great pitchers live on the corners. If they can't, they don't survive. It obviously irritates fans because you hear them all the time complaining when a pitcher walks guys, falls behind in the count ( and then has to groove one ), and gives up a lot more runs than they want or expect him to. If they were pitching to me, I have no doubt they throw it over the plate because they know that I'm not that much of a threat. But then, I'm not Josh Hamilton.
The other big one, for me, is: getting worked up over what a hitter will and won't swing at. There aren't many good instinctual hitters out there, and they're easy to spot early on. They have a natural swing, meaning they have good mechanics naturally, rather than being taught or corrected. They drive the ball. They're the hitters that draw the oh's and ah's; the players that people come to see. However, as with the stud HS pitchers, there are those HS hitters that don't make it because they can't adjust to big league breaking balls; curveballs, sliders, and off speed pitches; split fingers, changeups, etc. Lots of good hitters can drive a good fastball, but flounder against a good split or curveball. I've never heard a coach for younger kids ever talk about having a plan when the kids go up to bat; probably due to a lack of time in practice, or ignorance there of, but any good big leaguer has one because no hitter can hit every pitch well. That's the beauty of the big league game. Hitters looking for and getting the pitch they hit well, to pitchers putting hitters in counts that force them to deal with pitches they don't see or hit well. That's hard to do with kids who are just trying to hit the ball period. Parents throwing out pointless advise serve no perpose other than to teach their kids to tune them out out. Just let them play, or better yet, study the game and then teach them what to do. I don't think the average dad would do any better than his kid, and would probably do worse. And to the fans working themselves up over a player not swinging a pitch down the middle, or flailing at a slider down and away, you wouldn't do any better.
To me the beauty of the game is in the play. I don't have much of an interest anymore in stats. I'm not interested in trying to predict the out come of a particular player or team, or divine the future so I can win a fantasy league. I like to see how the players meet the challange of that game, and other than big leaguers, I'm not going to have any stats to rely on anyway, so it's all in that game at that time. The next game might be different. Some teams improve; some don't. Some players improve; some decline; some never change. That way it stays a game.
I got back into baseball after getting my sons into it as little kids. Unlike the drop and leave parents content to know their kids are up to something supervised, though the quality of that supervision often merits debate, I tended to stay either to watch or help out, be it prepping the fields, umpiring, doing the score book, or helping to coach. Enjoyable as that was, it's not the same as being out there, and having discovered that there were adult leagues, I jumped right back in.
Jumping in allowed me to renew my love for the game. It also opened my eyes as to the difficulty of playing the game well. I have a very healthy respect for anyone who plays, or attempts to play, at the highest levels. That's not to say that the level of play in my league is a joke; it's not. We have amazing players in our league who are not just out of the MLB or the minor leagues, although we do have guys who did play minor league baseball, but at my age; late forties, there aren't too many would did. Don't kid yourself though; they still stand out. But, it's nowhere near the big league game.
Before this gets out of hand, the result of getting back into the game was to force me to focus more on the mechanics and nuances of the game; in order to be a better player myself, with the result that I came to realize just how hard it is to play well at the big league level, or for that matter, any level. I grew up at a time when there weren't the kinds of year round baseball programs that exist now; baseball was a spring/summer sport, and we played other games the rest of the year. And while there probably were places to truly learn the mechanics of the game, I didn't hear of or know of any. Consequently, my knowledge was rudimentary; the stuff that most people know from playing when they were young, and any gleaned from watching the game. Now, of course, there are a great many resources by which an individual can learn more about the mechanics of hitting, fielding, and pitching; as well as organizing practices and managing games. This has given me a deeper understanding of the game which I wished I had know earlier, both when I was younger and when my kids were younger.
Because of this recently acquired insight, I now appreciate more how hard it is to try to hit off a pitcher who throws hard with movement and control, as well as how hard it is to pitch a ball so that it moves, changes speed, and hit it's spots. It ain't easy. I know; I've been humbled enough. The beauty of this humiliation is that I'm much more understanding, and in many cases much more forgiving ( assuming that's the right word ) of those I watch play; and I'm an inveterate consumer of baseball. I watch my friends kids play in Little League, I go to the HS games, even though my kids weren't quite good enough to make the team, the local college teams, the teams in my adult league; if I pass a field and I've got nothing better to do, I've stop and watch. I've watched a lot of baseball and no doubt will until my dying day.
Here are a few observations:
A lot of people; fans, parents, and sadly, even coaches, don't know a whole lot about the game.
Perennial favorites;
throw strikes. Think about that for a minute; especially for kids. It presupposes that these kids are cognizant enough of their abilities that they can, on any given pitch, throw a strike, but choose not to for reasons unknown. The ones who can throw strikes do. The others are doing their damnedest to do so as well but lack the ability mainly because they don't know how and haven't been adequately taught the body mechanics necessary for the repeatability needed to consistently place a pitch in the strike zone. For better players, those in college, the minor leagues, up to the big leagues, just being able to put the ball over the plate isn't enough. It's why the prodigies we all watched as kids never make beyond a certain level. To pitch at a high level requires velocity, movement, and the ability to change speeds while utilizing the same arm speed and angle because that's what good hitters key on. Even if you throw 95 MPH ( and this is an old baseball saw ); if you put it over the heart of the plate without good movement; say a sinker, a good hitter is going to put it over the fence, and at that level, that's all you're going to face; very good hitters. Good, and great pitchers live on the corners. If they can't, they don't survive. It obviously irritates fans because you hear them all the time complaining when a pitcher walks guys, falls behind in the count ( and then has to groove one ), and gives up a lot more runs than they want or expect him to. If they were pitching to me, I have no doubt they throw it over the plate because they know that I'm not that much of a threat. But then, I'm not Josh Hamilton.
The other big one, for me, is: getting worked up over what a hitter will and won't swing at. There aren't many good instinctual hitters out there, and they're easy to spot early on. They have a natural swing, meaning they have good mechanics naturally, rather than being taught or corrected. They drive the ball. They're the hitters that draw the oh's and ah's; the players that people come to see. However, as with the stud HS pitchers, there are those HS hitters that don't make it because they can't adjust to big league breaking balls; curveballs, sliders, and off speed pitches; split fingers, changeups, etc. Lots of good hitters can drive a good fastball, but flounder against a good split or curveball. I've never heard a coach for younger kids ever talk about having a plan when the kids go up to bat; probably due to a lack of time in practice, or ignorance there of, but any good big leaguer has one because no hitter can hit every pitch well. That's the beauty of the big league game. Hitters looking for and getting the pitch they hit well, to pitchers putting hitters in counts that force them to deal with pitches they don't see or hit well. That's hard to do with kids who are just trying to hit the ball period. Parents throwing out pointless advise serve no perpose other than to teach their kids to tune them out out. Just let them play, or better yet, study the game and then teach them what to do. I don't think the average dad would do any better than his kid, and would probably do worse. And to the fans working themselves up over a player not swinging a pitch down the middle, or flailing at a slider down and away, you wouldn't do any better.
To me the beauty of the game is in the play. I don't have much of an interest anymore in stats. I'm not interested in trying to predict the out come of a particular player or team, or divine the future so I can win a fantasy league. I like to see how the players meet the challange of that game, and other than big leaguers, I'm not going to have any stats to rely on anyway, so it's all in that game at that time. The next game might be different. Some teams improve; some don't. Some players improve; some decline; some never change. That way it stays a game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)