Tuesday, July 15, 2003

This Time It Sucks A Mid-Summer Night's Apathy Perhaps you remember last year's All-Star game, one of the greatest examples of karmic retribution I can recall.  Bud Selig saw his sport's showcase, in his home city, in his new park, become a mockery of a tie.  The reason was that the teams ran out of players, because the managers (as was the custom) tried to get everybody in the game. Baseball's solution?  Make the game actually count for something: The winning league gets homefield advantage in the World Series. This is really, really stupid.  I won't belabor that point, other than to say that having a bunch of players in an exhibition play for the benefit of one of 15 teams in a league is stupid.  The best solution would be just to have the team in the World Series with the best record have home field-except that would happen too late to accomodate TV network scheduling.  No, we couldn't do that, could we. Worst of all is FOX's hype-slogan on the TV ads.  You have to say it in that really deep sneering voice: "This time, it counts!". Well, sort of.  It counts to a couple of the players on each side.  And it's not like the home-field advantage is exactly iron-clad in baseball's postseason-other than at the gate, of course. What really galls me is the notion that the past All-Star games were meaningless, that they didn't count for anything at all.  Maybe they didn't count in the standings, but they sure counted in my memory.  You're telling me that Fred Lynn crushing a Grand Slam off of Atlee Hammaker in '83 at Comiskey to help break a 19 year AL losing streak didn't count?  You're telling me that Bo Jackson's bomb off of Rick Reuschel to lead off the game in Anaheim didn't count?  Or remembering Dick Howser as the triumphant AL manager in '86, winning on the strength of a Frank White homerun in the Astrodome, knowing now that Howser would very soon be diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor?  That didn't count? What "counts"?  Do you have any idea how many meaningless baseball games are played every season in Major League Baseball, games where both teams are playing out the string, knowing they have no postseason to look forward to?  Games where guys are more worried about getting the game over in a hurry so they can hit the strip clubs or the golf course?  Hundreds.  Literally, hundreds.  They "count" in the standings, though only for the historical record.  And there are some truly memorable things that happen in those games.  But by and large, so much of any sport's schedule is made up of filler, of empty moments that will fade from memory faster than the alcohol in the fans' bladders. What counts is what we remember, what we care about.  Seeing George Brett explode out of the dugout after being called out for having too much pine tar on his bat.  Seeing All-Stars mob Ted Williams on the infield in Boston with little boy grins on their faces, heroes worshipping their own hero.  Watching an emory board fall out of Joe Niekro's pocket while being inspected for "tampering".  Watching Nolan Ryan kick Robin Vintura's ass. And you know what?  None of that stuff is going to show up in a box score.  It all "counts".  What will FOX say when they discontinue this exercise in hubris: "This time, it doesn't mean shit!"   Well, crap.  Now I've started to write about baseball.  I'll just end with this one little thing: The Minnesota Twins are 6-21 in their last 27 games.  Folks, that's bad.  Real bad.  And as you might imagine, when a team that's expected to do well and wasn't perceived as having a lot of competition suddenly finds themselves 7 games back of a mediocre Kansas City Royals team, there are plenty of people to blame.  Bad pitching, bad hitting, bad fielding.  And lately, lots and lots of bad karma coming from the dugout.  Players and coaches are all turning on each other.  It started in subtle ways, but the carping is growing louder with each loss. There is a theory I hear expressed (and I have expressed it at times) that this team really is good, and can come back from 7 out with 69 games to go.  "Well", you might ask, "if this team is so good and talented, why are they now 5 games under for the season?" And one answer that you will sometimes hear around here (again, an answer I have offered at times) is that the team is "pressing".  The manager, Ron Gardenhire, is fond of this, saying that the team is "trying too hard". Yes, yes.  It's really quite common for a very good and talented team to play .222 ball for a month.  In fact, the more talented the team, the worse they tend to be.  The 2003 Detroit Tigers are actually a supremely talented bunch, as were the 1962 Mets.  But the 1998 Yankees?  Awful.  They were so awful, they didn't try hard enough, and they won over 100 games.  Same with the '86 Mets, who were so bad and untalented that they won 108 games. Sure.  At what point do you just have to sit back and wonder if your team just isn't that good?  I'll tell you when: after the All-Star break, the Twins have an 8 game homestand.  If they still find themselves 7 out after the break, it will mean they have only 61 games in which to make up that deficit.  Doable?  On paper, yes.  But you don't know what it was like watching this team the last month.  You knew beforehand they would get swept by a bad Texas team and Anaheim.  You knew it.  This is not a team that is engendering confidence in fans, or in itself. So I think this homestand will tell us all we need to know about the 2003 Twins.  And if it goes bad?  Instead of being buyers, this team might be a trading deadline seller.     3:22:01 PM    Say what?[]

Forget Osama, Forget Saddam: Here's Your Boogeyman Is The Real Price Of Iraq...North Korea? There is a troubling interview in today's Washington Post with former Defense Secretary William Perry, wherein he says he is very troubled by our lack of a North Korea policy, and believes we are on the fast track to a war on the Peninsula. Of course, we've heard these claims before.  But Perry is highly-respected by senior military people, and is considered to be an expert on Korean affairs, which gives today's revelations a bit more credence. As for the Administration strategy, it currently consists of a loose kind of embargo, in an attempt to continue to isolate North Korea.  Perry says that will provoke North Korea, while also not solving the problem.  Makes sense to me.  I mean, North Korea has been pretty damn isolated for a few years now, right?  And it was in that isolation that they came under the rule of a pompadoured madman and began (supposedly) putting weapons together, right?  So what is further isolation going to do to them?  Perry goes on to say that he thinks this is a problem uniquely generated by Bush himself, and his refusal to negotiate with Kim Jong Il.  Indeed, Bush may think that his insistence on no Il Communication is productive, but Perry sees no evidence of that. Perry also believes this is a direct result of the Administration's single-minded focus on Iraq.  Pipeline says: This isn't like the economy, which waxes and wanes regardless of many attempts to control it, or Uranium in Africa, where a possible abuse of power may have existed.  Those are things that all have real implications for the world, but more than anything I think they become variables in the next election.  They become fun to speculate on if you are of a mind to see this Administration hit the road. But North Korea?  The people who run that country are fucking nuts.  Megalomaniacal nuts.  And it sure seems like they are making some loud claims about having The Bomb.  And we have no policy other than to poke them with a sharp stick and then ignore them?  Forget the election, man.  This is some scary shit.  Hard to root for North Korea to go bad so Bush can lose.  Too much at stake.  This Administration better get it's shit together, and they better be damned right that the isolation approach is going to work. Because right now, it seems that's all they have going on. 1:57:28 PM    Say what?[]

Dirty David There is a controversey brewing over how to clean Michealangelo's David-or whether to clean it at all.  In one corner, you have Agnese Parronchi, a reknowned restorer of classic works, who was originally hired to clean David with a "dry" technique, using only brushes, swabs and erasers.  Basically, she would dust him.  This would be the "traditional" method, and such methods carry much weight in the cradle of the Renaissance. Naturally, science has an opinion and alternative.  The official Italian state restoration body has undertaken studies which show that gypsum is the primary danger to David these days, and that a cleaning is really not to make him look better, but rather to preserve him.  Their "wet" method involves chemicals and compresses.  More or less, it would be like a sponge bath. The arguments of each side are like ships passing in the night.  The science people say gypsum is the threat, and the dry method only moves the gypsum around without removing it.  The traditional people say that the wet method will make the marble appear uniform and will not get the dirt out of the cracks and crevices of David. And there is a third group that says David shouldn't be cleaned at all. Hell if I know.  I've never seen David, and I wouldn't know a clean David from a dirty David.  What I do know is that David has an amazing history.  The 18 foot piece of marble he was cut from sat in the storeroom of a church for 40 years before Michaelangelo even touched it.  Once unveiled in 1504, David was pelted with rocks by an unruly Florentine mob.  In 1527, his arm was broken when a bench was thrown at him (it is since attached).  In the 17th Century, David was forced to wear a loincloth, as distant descendants of John Ashcroft decided they just couldn't handle looking at David's massive genitalia any longer.In 1810 he was covered in wax in a cleaning attempt; in 1843, it was hydrochloric acid, removing the wax and the original patina.  David finally moved inside for good in 1873, but it didn't protect him from all the elements.  Like, the Crazy Element: In 1991, a jealous Italian artist broke off one of David's toes with a hammer.  Jealous of David?  Yeah, I know how it goes.  I once took a few potshots at this Barry Flannigan piece: Clearly, the David we see today is not the same David people saw in 1800, or 1700, or 1600.  But we do still see David today, and it is an inspiring and important work.  Monumental, in fact.  The art historian crowd is agitating against the wet method, but the advocates of the wet method are quick to point out that none of those people have ever done a restoration.  Is it really so important that David look a certain way?  If it is determined that David's existence is threatened by gypsum deposits, it seems to me our duty should be to ensure not that David fits our notions of what he should appear like, but that people 500 years from now will be able to look at David in all his glory.  That should be the goal, shouldn't it? 10:55:25 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2003 Doug Hennessee. Last update: 8/1/2003; 1:13:19 PM.