I turn on ESPN radio first thing in the morning, and they are talking about what's wrong with the Yankees. I turn on SportsCenter when I get home in the evening, and they are talking about what's wrong with the Yankees. I turn on Baseball Tonight to see the day's highlights, and they are talking about what's wrong with the Yankees.
For a network that proclaims itself the 'worldwide leader in sports,' ESPN sure is content to cram the same ol' thing down our throats day after day. Of course, in baseball season, that same ol' thing is the Yankees.
Well, they have taken it a step further. Starting on July 9, ESPN will begin an eight-week mini-series that commemorates the 1977 New York Yankees' season in which they won the World Series. I guess if the current Yankees can't win, ESPN figures they will glorify them in another way.
I've warbled about ESPN's Yankees fixation before (see May 17 entry), and I'm sure I will again. With this mini-series, it re-affirms their determination to cram the Yankees down our throats in every conceivable way.
What will be next? The programming possibilities are endless: Breakfast with Joe Torre? Fly fishing with Mariano Rivera? How to serve up the perfect home run pitch with Kyle Farnsworth?
All I know is some day soon I expect to come home, turn on ESPN and see Linda Cohn making out with shortstop Derek Jeter.
And it won't surprise me a bit.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Monday, July 2, 2007
It's a June mini-swoon for the Braves, but our heads are still above water
June wasn't the kindest month for the Braves, but it wasn't that bad either. Atlanta limped home with a 13-15 record for the month and was the walking definition of an inconsistent team. However, we showed signs of turning it around late in the month by winning our last five games.
There were a lot of challenges in June. Chipper Jones missed time on two separate occasions because of injuries, and his absence has left a big hole in the offense. Andruw Jones' funk got worse as his batting average slid below .200 at one point. Plus, the back half of the starting rotation continues to sputter.
Still, things could be a lot worse. Right now, we are only four games out of first place (as of this writing), which is pretty remarkable considering how poorly we have played. Fortunately, the first place Amazin' Mets also bumbled through the month. We began the month four and a half games out of first, so despite our problems we actually were able to break even.
However, we can't bank on the Mets playing like Little Leaguers for much longer. Andruw has to de-stinkify himself, and Chipper has to stay healthy. Plus, Chuck James and Kyle Davies have to grow up and pitch some consistent innings.
The big question is whether any of these things will happen. Has Andruw been totally shattered by his slump to the point that he cannot get it together? Is Chipper too old and brittle to be counted on consistently? Is it time to trade for some starting pitching?
I don't know. I really don't know.
There were a lot of challenges in June. Chipper Jones missed time on two separate occasions because of injuries, and his absence has left a big hole in the offense. Andruw Jones' funk got worse as his batting average slid below .200 at one point. Plus, the back half of the starting rotation continues to sputter.
Still, things could be a lot worse. Right now, we are only four games out of first place (as of this writing), which is pretty remarkable considering how poorly we have played. Fortunately, the first place Amazin' Mets also bumbled through the month. We began the month four and a half games out of first, so despite our problems we actually were able to break even.
However, we can't bank on the Mets playing like Little Leaguers for much longer. Andruw has to de-stinkify himself, and Chipper has to stay healthy. Plus, Chuck James and Kyle Davies have to grow up and pitch some consistent innings.
The big question is whether any of these things will happen. Has Andruw been totally shattered by his slump to the point that he cannot get it together? Is Chipper too old and brittle to be counted on consistently? Is it time to trade for some starting pitching?
I don't know. I really don't know.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Third party madness? Get ready for 2008 free-for-all
It isn't easy being a politician on the national level these days. Nobody thinks they are doing a good job.
The numbers vary depending on the poll, but the approval ratings of the president and those serving in Congress are hovering around 25 percent.
Given how low the ratings are, 'hovering' may not be the best choice of verbs because these folks are barely keeping the government off the ground in most people's eyes these days.
Simply put, people do not like the direction our elected officials are taking us.
These numbers are especially important because the presidential race of 2008 is under way. There is no clear cut favorite in either the Democratic or Republican parties, and if these poll numbers are to be believed, candidates who serve in Washington have some big black marks against them.
After all, if approval ratings are this low, how are any presidential candidates serving there going to run on their records with any pride?
Of course, not all candidates are serving in Washington right now, but the frustration being felt by most voters is being directed toward just about everybody who is trying to win their vote.
Most people do not have confidence in either the Democrats or Republicans right now.
So, with a national election just around the corner, where do voters turn?
Next year's election may be the first time in a while where a third party candidate can make an impact.
A third party candidate really has not had a major impact since Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election. Though he did not win any electoral votes, he definitely gave voters an outlet who did not want to vote for either the first President Bush or Bill Clinton.
Since then, there have been other third party candidates who have had smaller impacts. Perot ran again in 1996 and got nine percent of the vote. Also, Ralph Nader got 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000.
To this day, some Democrats fume at Nader because they feel he took votes away from Al Gore in the most controversial presidential election in our history.
Those criticisms still make me laugh. Why do Democrats automatically assume those voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been available?
If those voters felt the Democratic Party was the best choice, wouldn't they have ignored Nader? It is obvious those voters thought Nader was the best choice, and there is no guarantee they would have even voted if he was not on the ballot.
It is almost as if the Democrats feel like they were entitled to those votes.
Of course, the door swings both ways on this issue. Back in '92, some Republicans echoed many of the same complaints when they believed Perot took votes away from President Bush, which paved the way for President Clinton’s win.
This sense of entitlement borders on arrogance that infuriates most voters.
For these reasons, the stage is set for a significant third party candidate next year.
Who could it be?
Lately, most of the speculation has centered on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. At this point, Bloomberg appears to be a classic political opportunist.
He was a Democrat before his 2001 mayoral run and at that point switched to the GOP. Then, a few weeks ago, he dumped the Republicans with many speculating that he will run for president as an independent. Given how negatively folks are viewing the two major parties, his defection appears to be a savvy move.
Since he is a billionaire, he will have the deep pockets necessary to fight the Democrats and Republicans.
Also, Nader has been making noises that make him sound like he is preparing to run again. He recently made the political talk show rounds in which he ripped Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to shreds.
Regardless of who it is, look for that candidate to make his move early next year. Because the Democrats and Republicans have both streamlined the primary process to the point that it is almost irrelevant now, both parties should have decided their nominees by next February.
At that point, other candidates could emerge from everywhere.
And then the race will really begin.
The numbers vary depending on the poll, but the approval ratings of the president and those serving in Congress are hovering around 25 percent.
Given how low the ratings are, 'hovering' may not be the best choice of verbs because these folks are barely keeping the government off the ground in most people's eyes these days.
Simply put, people do not like the direction our elected officials are taking us.
These numbers are especially important because the presidential race of 2008 is under way. There is no clear cut favorite in either the Democratic or Republican parties, and if these poll numbers are to be believed, candidates who serve in Washington have some big black marks against them.
After all, if approval ratings are this low, how are any presidential candidates serving there going to run on their records with any pride?
Of course, not all candidates are serving in Washington right now, but the frustration being felt by most voters is being directed toward just about everybody who is trying to win their vote.
Most people do not have confidence in either the Democrats or Republicans right now.
So, with a national election just around the corner, where do voters turn?
Next year's election may be the first time in a while where a third party candidate can make an impact.
A third party candidate really has not had a major impact since Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 election. Though he did not win any electoral votes, he definitely gave voters an outlet who did not want to vote for either the first President Bush or Bill Clinton.
Since then, there have been other third party candidates who have had smaller impacts. Perot ran again in 1996 and got nine percent of the vote. Also, Ralph Nader got 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000.
To this day, some Democrats fume at Nader because they feel he took votes away from Al Gore in the most controversial presidential election in our history.
Those criticisms still make me laugh. Why do Democrats automatically assume those voters would have voted for Gore if Nader had not been available?
If those voters felt the Democratic Party was the best choice, wouldn't they have ignored Nader? It is obvious those voters thought Nader was the best choice, and there is no guarantee they would have even voted if he was not on the ballot.
It is almost as if the Democrats feel like they were entitled to those votes.
Of course, the door swings both ways on this issue. Back in '92, some Republicans echoed many of the same complaints when they believed Perot took votes away from President Bush, which paved the way for President Clinton’s win.
This sense of entitlement borders on arrogance that infuriates most voters.
For these reasons, the stage is set for a significant third party candidate next year.
Who could it be?
Lately, most of the speculation has centered on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. At this point, Bloomberg appears to be a classic political opportunist.
He was a Democrat before his 2001 mayoral run and at that point switched to the GOP. Then, a few weeks ago, he dumped the Republicans with many speculating that he will run for president as an independent. Given how negatively folks are viewing the two major parties, his defection appears to be a savvy move.
Since he is a billionaire, he will have the deep pockets necessary to fight the Democrats and Republicans.
Also, Nader has been making noises that make him sound like he is preparing to run again. He recently made the political talk show rounds in which he ripped Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to shreds.
Regardless of who it is, look for that candidate to make his move early next year. Because the Democrats and Republicans have both streamlined the primary process to the point that it is almost irrelevant now, both parties should have decided their nominees by next February.
At that point, other candidates could emerge from everywhere.
And then the race will really begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
