Hank from Tampa & Pacman

I’ve been fortunate, lately, in the teams I root against.

Rooting against a team delivers the same thrills and agonies as rooting for a team, in slightly muted form. As a Mets and Giants fan, I have the particular honor of rooting against the most hated/loved franchises in professional American sports: the Yankees and the Cowboys.

Some people argue that it is silly for Mets fans to root against the Yankees, since they do not compete with the Mets for divisional crowns or league championships. These people are morons.

Rooting for or against a team is never rational; it is driven by sheer emotion. The emotion that drives Mets fan to hate the Yankees was best articulated by the great Roger Angell, who described the peculiar fate of Mets fans, forced to live in a city surrounded by the smug exuberant hordes of Yankee fans.

Further, the Mets don’t have natural rivals. The only team that has shared a division with the Mets since 1962 are the Phillies, and until recently the Phils and Mets haven’t been good at the same time. The Mets rivals of the 80’s – the Cubs, Cardinals, and Pirates – are all in the NL Central now. The Mets chief rival in the Wild Card era, the Braves, spent the 70’s and 80’s in the NL West.

But the Yankees…they are always with us…

Hank from Tampa

And I’ve really been enjoying the Yankees lately. It’s not because they are in 4th place, behind the Tampa Rays. It’s not because A-Rod has joined Posada on the DL. It’s not because their young starters, Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes, are 0-6 with a combined ERA higher than the guy selling incense sticks at a Dead concert.

Don’t get me wrong – these are all wonderful things. (Well, maybe not Kennedy’s ERA, since he’s on my fantasy team…). But they are short-lived things. True Yankee-haters believe, even more than dedicated Yankee fans, the Yankees will always turn it around. Last year the Yankees had a much worse start, and still made the playoffs.

(Incidentally, it is the success of teams like the Yanks and the Boys [and Duke and Notre Dame, and recently, the Patriots] that makes it so fun to root against them. Rooting against the Clippers or the Arizona Cardinals has no thrill, since there’s no exquisite pain to put the joy in sharp relief.)

No, what is making the Yankees such an enjoyable spectacle is the wit and wisdom of Henry “Hank” Steinbrenner.

The Sports Guy has nicknamed him Tommy Boy, but that’s not quite right. Tommy Boy is too fun-loving, too gregarious. He’s also been called Mr. Hankee, Little Boss, and Yammerin’ Hank.

But I call him Hank from Tampa. It’s not very catchy, but I think that Hank Steinbrenner is the first professional sports franchise owner that has the same blustery, ill-informed, sometimes-accidentally-on-the-money opinions of a sports radio caller.

Mad Dog: Hank from Tampa, you’re on the FAN.

HfT: Hey Mad Dog. This guy who buried the Red Sox jersey in Yankee Stadium? I hope his co-workers kick the sh*t out of him.

The Yankees have been harder to hate lately. The team’s biggest jerks are gone (Randy Johnson, Gary Sheffield, Kevin Brown, Roger Clemens). The October humiliations have lasted through the entire Bush Administration. The original Boss has become almost lovable with age. And the Yankee fans’ continued lack of appreciation for A-Rod almost makes you root for their best player.

But with Hank from Tampa, the magic is back.

Pacman to the Cowboys

As for the Cowgirls…it seems to me that Jerry Jones, who has always resembled the Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, had a meeting a couple years ago. It went something like this:

JJ: Here’s the plan. We need to assemble a roster of players that is most guaranteed to piss off this blogger, Keatang, who writes this thing called FreeTime.

Sycophant #1: Yes sir.

JJ: First, we need a pretty-boy quarterback with a name that sounds like he’s in a boy band.

S # 2: Right.

JJ: Then, after he wins a few games, we need to make sure the media goes overboard praising him, starts calling him a legend before he’s won a playoff game.

S #1: I’m on it.

JJ: Then, we need this pretty-boy to start serial-dating air-headed celebrities. And if we can get American Idol contestants involved somehow, that would be perfect.

S #2: Great idea, boss.

JJ: Also, we need to sign a selfish, loud-mouth, wide receiver. Chad Johnson or Randy Moss, maybe. Actually, no, make it Terrell Owens. We must have T.O. Keatang hates T.O.

S #1: You’re a genius.

JJ: Yes, I am. What else…oh, then we need to find a bona fide criminal. You know, someone with a long rap sheet, preferably involving strip clubs and guns. And he has to be really stupid. Ideally, it is someone whose best game ever came against the Giants.

S #2: It’s an honor to work for you sir.

JJ: Yes, well. This should all make us good enough to make the playoffs, where hopefully, horrible things won’t happen to us…really horrible things...

Dad vs. Robin

All week long I have felt like a Sitcom Dad:

“This week on Dad’s House, Dad uses increasingly wacky techniques to battle a pesky bird.”

You see, a Robin has been pestering me all week. At least I think it’s a Robin. My ornithological knowledge mostly comes from baseball hats. I can recognize Cardinals and Blue Jays from the St. Louis and Toronto sub-species, whose natural habitats are, respectively, the National and American Leagues.

The guy on my deck looks nothing like this guy. But still, I’m pretty sure it’s a Robin. In fact, according to Wikipedia it is Turdus Migratorius, the American Robin. I didn’t make that up; Turdus comes from the Latin word for Thrush. I’ve nicknamed him Dick.

Anyway, Dick has been flying into our sliding doors and kitchen windows all week. Thump! Thump! Thump! It's mating season and Dick, whose Mensa application has not been answered, believes that his mirrored image in our windows is a rival. So each day he comes to do battle in order to win the affections of the local lasses.

I got used to the thumping after a while. What I couldn’t get used to was the, um, what’s the right word? Well, let’s just say that I think I know why the word Turdus evolved from Thrush into an English slang word for other stuff. Because Dick is dropping tons of Turdus on our deck…

Avian Countermeasures

So I began to fight back. First, I sicced my dog on him. Unfortunately, my dog is a toy poodle. He looks like a fuzzy slipper. As Dave Barry once wrote about a sand shark, he is no threat to anyone unless he can somehow get hold of, and learn how to use, a gun.

Then I left 4 whiffle balls by the sliding door. The plan was to wait for Dick’s arrival, whip open the sliding door, and fling whiffle balls at him. Dick would be so intimidated by the fusillade of plastic spheres that he’d surrender, believing the rival in the window had developed some sort of super power. Alas, Whiffle-Hurling Dads are nothing against the power of flight, and he easily evaded my attacks.

It was time for a new stratagy. My attempts to convince Dick he’d lost had failed, so I decided to convince him he’d won. First, I hung a huge canvas tarp over the length of kitchen windows, securing it to the overhanging gutter with velcro. Then I stacked chairs, boxes, ladders and other bric-a-brac in front of the sliding doors. When Dick returned there would be no reflection. He’d be convinced the rival had fled, and fly off in victory.

Bumbling Sitcom Dads

If you have watched any sitcoms in the last 25 years, you have a premonition of disaster. You see, in the early days of television Dads were wise, benevolent, slightly detached patriarchs. Think Mike Brady or Father Knows Best.

But now? From Homer Simpson to Ray Romano, Tim Taylor to Jim Belushi, television Dads are clueless wonders, whose only domestic accomplishment was persuading a wise, benevolent (and sometimes, implausibly hot) woman to marry him.

When I finished construction of the Anti-Reflection Shield, my wife came down and eyed it warily. Her arched eyebrow would have been a signal to the live television audience that catastrophe loomed. Perhaps the wind would catch the canvas, ripping my gutter off the house. Maybe Dick would return with some sort of Robin Army, and launch assaults on the house. Or maybe the episode would end with Dad reclined on his leather chair with a newspaper and a satisfied grin…only to hear Thump! Thump! Thump! on the window by his chair.

But you know what? I think it worked. Dick, flush with victory, is probably off at the Robin Singles Club right now, regaling the chicks with stories of his bravery, how he defeated the Plastic-Launching-Robin-in-the-Window. He’s a hero.

I wish him luck.

A Soldier's Reading List

In her review of William Styron's memoir Havanas in Camelot, the New York Times' Michiko Kakutani slipped in the following parenthetical aside:

"How many Marines today, one wonders, turn to Keats,
Housman and Emily Dickinson in stressful moments?"

Kakutani's question was rhetorical, and the implication was that today's jarheads are immune to the wonders of literature.

As it happens, I'm involved with an organization called Operation Paperback, that collects "gently used books" and sends them to troops abroad. Most soldiers involved in the program ask for certain genres of books, like history, technology, and crime fiction. But some ask for very specific titles. This morning I received an email from the the good folks at Operation Paperback with some specific requests, including this one from a soldier I'll call Jim Domenico (I've changed his name to protect his privacy):

"Outer Dark", by Cormac McCarthy
"Hero with a Thousand Faces", by Joseph Campbell
"Catch-22", by Joseph Heller
"The Cement Garden", by Ian McEwen
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", by Robert Pirsig

McCarthy and McEwen are two of the finest writers in the English language today. Interestingly, both of Domenico's choices are of earlier, more obscure works. "Catch-22" is arguably the best novel of the Second World War. "Hero with a Thousand Faces" is a classic book about the psychological roots of mythology. (I don't know much about "Zen...", except that it is a cult classic.)

Domenico's choices aren't common, but not unique either. I've had requests for Shakespeare, Russian literature and philosophy, along with more popular works. It seems to me that the reading choices aren't widely different from the rest of us.

Tom Wolfe has long argued that the American novel has suffered because too many writers lead cloistered, writerly lives. They graduate college, go off to some bucolic campus to get their M.F.A., then move to Brooklyn or Berkeley and spend their lives surrounded by other writers. Wolfe argues that they should, like Hemingway and Steinbeck, go live in the real world, where their fiction will be informed and strengthened by living a non-writerly existence.

So too for readers. I've read much of Ms. Kakutani's work, and she is intelligent, well-read, and able to appreciate literature in a way that most of us can't. But I suspect Mr. Domenico, who is stationed in Baghdad, has seen things that she hasn't, and will understand the sacred violence of Cormac McCarthy's fiction, the madness of war in "Catch-22", and the heroic journeys of Campebell's mythic figures in ways that Kakutani can only imagine.

Warriors & Civilians

I am a fan of the counterintuitive. I’m attracted to counterintuitive ideas and intrigued by counterintuitive events and trends.

This election season a fascinating counterintuitive trend will get another test. For four consecutive Presidential elections, the candidate with the superior military background has lost to the candidate with a questionable military background. In three of them, a decorated combat veteran lost to someone who clearly went out of his way to avoid combat.

A quick run-through:

1992
Bill Clinton: No military background; used a variety of methods of avoid being drafted, including reneging on ROTC commitment

DEFEATED

George Bush: Enlisted in the Navy on his 18th birthday; flew 58 combat missions in World War II; won Distinguished Flying Cross, among other decorations

1996
Bill Clinton: see above

DEFEATED

Bob Dole: Enlisted in Army in 1942; served as 2nd Lieutenant in 10th Mountain Division; severely wounded in April 1945; won 2 Purple Hearts and Bronze Star (with “V” for valor)

2000
George W. Bush: served in Texas Air National Guard; probably used connections to avoid being sent to Vietnam; shirked some of his duties with National Guard

DEFEATED

Al Gore: turned down National Guard position; enlisted in Army; served in Vietnam in non-combat role (was a journalist)

2004
George W. Bush: see above

DEFEATED

John Kerry: enlisted in Navy Reserve while at Yale; served as Lieutenant in Vietnam; won Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts

The 2008 election will pit John McCain (Silver Star, Bronze Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the most celebrated prisoner-of-war in U.S. history) against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama – neither of whom served, but neither of whom went out of their way to avoid military service.

History as a Guide?
A look at Presidential elections makes it difficult to draw solid conclusions. It is true that the most prominent General in many of America's wars made it to the White House: Washington (Revolution), Jackson (War of 1812), Taylor (Mexican War), Grant (Civil War), and Eisenhower (WWII). And in the years after the Civil War and World War II, many Presidents were veterans.

[Sidebar: Civil War histories occasionally have passages like this one, from Bruce Catton's account of the Battle of South Mountain in Mr. Lincoln's Army: "Then the 23rd Ohio came up to help, and the two regiments went storming up the hill, firing as they went. The lieutenant colonel of the 23rd, a promising chap named Rutherford B. Hayes, was shot down, wounded; William McKinley, sergeant in the same regiment, was unhurt."]

But very often, civilians have defeated former officers. John Quincy Adams beat Andrew Jackson in 1824; Martin Van Buren beat William Henry Harrison (whose nickname, Tippecanoe, came from his victory in a battle with Indians) in 1836; Lincoln defeated George McClellan in 1864; and so on.

The most interesting 19th century election is 1852 when Winfield Scott, America's greatest soldier between Yorktown and Fort Sumpter, was defeated by Franklin Pierce. Pierce served under Scott in the Mexico City campaign (Halls of Montezuma and all that), but was wounded when he fell off his horse. In the '52 election he was accused of cowardice in that war, but he still went on to defeat Scott.


What Does It Mean?
It's easy to read too much into this. One might think that after Vietnam, American voters had become so ambivalent about the military that we began choosing draft dodgers over war heroes. But if you look closely at the last four elections, you'll see that is an oversimplication

Bush 41 (certainly) and Bob Dole (probably) would have defeated Bill Clinton if not for the 3rd party candidacy of Ross Perot (US Naval Academy; used connections to renege on his commitment to the Navy).

As befits the agonizing closeness of the 2000 election, the military careers of Gore and Bush 43 probably didn’t seem that different to many voters. Gore was in Vietnam, but his fingers pressed typewriter keys rather than triggers, and Bush flew jets over Texas, which didn't seem so bad after Clinton. Both men were sons of prominent politicians and both wore uniforms, but neither saw combat.

John Kerry was forced to fight off the attacks of fellow Swift Boat veterans who questioned everything about Kerry’s military service. By 2004, Bush's National Guard story was old news, and attempts by 60 Minutes to resuscitate it backfired.

This election is much more of a straight-up race between a genuine war hero and someone who didn’t serve but has no military skeletons in their closet either.

Conclusion

There's no question that a succesful military background is helpful in one's political success. Being at the head of an army that won a war is a huge advantage and being a war hero certainly contributes to a story that resonates with voters. Indeed, the political careers of John McCain and John Kerry are almost unimaginable without it.

But ultimately, military service is just one factor among many when voters make their decisions.

If John McCain goes down in defeat this November, it will keep an interesting trend going. But it will have nothing to do with that trend.

The Losers Out Manifesto

In nearly all things, I am a moderate.

I have voted for Republicans and Democrats. I drink, but not to excess. I exercise but I’m not a fanatic about it. I go to Church, but not every Sunday.

In one thing only do I have a radical opinion – a position so outside the mainstream that I am looked upon with disdain. Strangers inch back in mute disgust and friends wonder if I harbor other immoral and dangerous beliefs. This disdain is accompanied by the fervent hope that I will not preach my heresies to convert them to my satanic ways.

You see, in pick-up basketball, I believe in Losers Out.

Street Sports: Mimicking the Real Game

In all pick-up sports, you modify the rules of the actual sport because you lack the necessary players, equipment, and/or playing surface to play by the official rules.

The most common baseball modification, used in Whiffle ball or stick ball, is automatic rules (ground ball past the pitcher is a single; line drive past the oak tree is a double; Eismann’s roof is a homer). You play automatic because you can’t put fielders on every base.

In football, it is common to replace line play with a Mississippi-count and to replace “10 yards for a first down” with “3 receptions for a first.”

And in basketball, the ingenious solution for a smaller group is the half-court game. Upon rebounding the opponent’s shot, a team must bring the ball “back”, generally to the free-throw line or beyond the arc, to re-set the court, as if you are now taking the ball the other way.

Winner’s Out?

But what if one team scores?

Here’s where pick-up ballers veer from the real rules. In real basketball, after a score the ball goes to the other team, who inbound and take it the other way. In other words, Loser’s Out. Every full-court basketball game in the world is played with “Loser’s Out” rules, from the NBA to CYO, from the Olympics to Intramurals, from Harlem to Hong Kong. Even pick-up full court is played Loser's Out.

But in half-court, for reasons nobody has ever been able to explain to me, we play Winner’s Out. After you score, you get the ball again.

This is an obvious perversion of the real rules and one that is easily avoidable.

I have asked many people why they believe in Winner’s Out. First, I get the same look I’d expect from the folks at Augusta National if I suggested they switch the Green Jacket to a Lavendar sweater-vest. Then, they sort of stammer out that it is the way it is done, the way it’s always been done, and begin to wonder how such a person as I had found his way to the courts.

When pressed for some practical reason to play Winner’s Out, for some explanation as to why the real rules are perverted, all they can come up with is, “When you score, you deserve a reward.”

This is not without precedence in sports. In football you are rewarded with more downs if you achieve some yardage. In baseball you get more at-bats if you keep getting hits.

But in basketball, Kobe has to run back on defense after hitting a shot. We should mimic that in street ball.

In addition to staying true to the rules of the game, there are practical benefits to Loser’s Out. Well, one anyway: it prevents blowouts. A 21-19 game is always more fun than a 21-6 win, even for the winners. But Winners Out naturally lends itself to blowouts

Progress

So I will continue my crusade for Loser’s Out, even if I’ve already failed in my own Sunday morning game. But I will do so with faith that progress is being made. For in my own research for this piece I learned that Hoop It Up, the largest half-court basketball organizer in the world, plays Loser’s Out.

They don’t call it that, though. This is from their Rules & Regulations:

No "Make It Take It":
The ball changes possession after each scored basket.

In addition, wise souls that they are, play "Everything Back". Don’t even get me started on that…


Editor's note: The eagle-eyed copy editors out there will notice I've switched back between Loser's Out, Losers Out, and Losers' Out. That's because they are all equally valid and I can't decide which one is correct. Hopefully William Safire will weigh in on this important question.

Defending the Piano Man

This July, Billy Joel will play the final concert at Shea Stadium – most famous (musically) for the Beatles’ 1965 concert.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those that think Billy Joel is a cheesy pop singer utterly lacking in street cred; and those that can’t imagine why Joel – who has sold 150 million records, was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame by the coolest musician of the 20th century, won 6 Grammys, sold out Madison Square Garden a record 12 consecutive nights and married Christie Brinkley - could possibly need defense.

Wait… there is a third kind…as personified by Slate music critic Jody Rosen, who grew up loving Billy Joel, but when she got to college was informed that Elvis Costello didn't like him and promptly threw out her collection.

Damnit - this whole “there are two kinds of people in this world” motif is not working at all. For I am a fourth kind. Like Ms. Rosen, I grew up on Long Island digging Billy Joel, and I too went to college where my musical horizon expanded and realized that Billy Joel was exactly the sort of person the Clash were pissed off about. But unlike Ms. Rosen, I did not slink off in shame. He still has an un-ironic place in my collection.

(Shoot. There’s a fifth kind too: people who don't give a crap.)

So I guess I’m not really here to defend Billy Joel – I’m here to defend liking him. I realize it’s a ridiculous exercise on some level – I should be trumpeting the virtues of great artists who never found a large audience, like Richard Thompson, rather than a man that ranks 6th on the all-time best-selling list. But hey – us Long Islanders gotta watch out for our own.

You see, part of my attraction to Joel is purely parochial. Every musician comes from someplace, but that doesn’t mean the music is from that place. Frank Sinatra may have been born and bred in Hoboken but you’d never know it from his catalogue. The Beatles’ Liverpudlian roots are barely visible in their music or lyrics.

But other musicians are definitively from a specific place. Bruce and Jersey, of course. The Beach Boys and Southern California. Paul Simon has been influenced by music all over the world, but he’s a Queens boy at heart and his music shows it.

Billy Joel, like me, is a Long Island boy, a Nassau County south shore boy to be precise, and he views the Island, the City, and the whole Metropolitan area through those roots. I understand that’s not the coolest place on earth, but it’s where I’m from.

(Lou Reed’s a South Shore boy too - he grew up in Freeport - but when he sings about New York, it’s not my New York. I’m sorry, but I didn’t hang out at CBGB’s in the 70’s with skinny boys in eyeliner.)

I lived in Billy Joel’s New York, and he nails the place and its people in so many of his songs. I hung out at the Village Green (my high school is up the block from Joel’s), knew girls like Virginia, and delivered the edition of the Daily News with the “FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD” headline that inspired my favorite Joel song, Miami 2017 (The Night the Lights Went Out on Broadway), in which he imagines what would happen if, indeed, New York dropped dead. Here’s a snippet:

Seen the lights go out on Broadway-

I watched the mighty skyline fall.

The boats were waiting at the Battery,

The union went on strike-

They never sailed at all.

They sent a carrier out from Norfolk-

And picked the Yankees up for free.

They said that Queens could stay,They blew the Bronx away-

And sank Manhattan out at sea....

You know those lights were bright on Broadway-

But that was so many years ago...

Before we all lived here in Florida-

Before the Mafia took over Mexico.

I am a card-carrying Yankee-hater, but even I have to admit no other New York team works in that line.

Four-Tool Player
I’m also a big fan of what I call 4-tool players in music – guys and gals who write the music, write the lyrics, sing the song, and play the instrument.

Mick Jagger is a special guy, but he’s only a 2-tool guy, and anyone who has endured one of Mick’s solo records understands that he’s the musical equivalent of a DH. It’s like watching David Ortiz flop around first base with a borrowed mitt. The rock and roll pantheon is filled with DHs – Elvis Presley, Bono, even talented musicians like Jimmy Page and Eddie Van Halen. The guy Joel is most compared to, Elton John, needed Bernie Taupin in the back room to “put down in words” the lyrics to his songs.

Joel plays a mean piano, of course, and even Ms. Rosen acknowledges he’s practically a savant when it comes to writing melody. He’s not a poet, but his lyrics can be touching and funny, and music fans will be singing along to Piano Man long after Elvis Costello has faded to an asterisk. His voice handles the slow numbers better than the fast ones, but it does the job.

In the age of American Idol, when all you all need is a good voice and a decent back-story to become a star, I like the 4-tool guys.

Baby Grand
Billy Joel could have been born at any time and been a successful musician. His real crime, from a critics’ perspective, is that he was born in a time when piano-playing rock stars were deeply out of fashion.

Piano got off to a great start in rock and roll. Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard were terrifying parents and inspiring air pianists long before the guitar secured its place as the ultimate rock instrument. By the 70’s, few major rock bands had a pianist in its core lineup, and those that did (Skynyrd, Petty, The Band) were still guitar-driven. The Big Four (Beatles, Stones, Zep, Who) all used hired help on the keyboards, as did the biggest bands of the 80’s and 90’s, U2 and REM. Elton John hardly helped the cause of rock star pianists with outfits like this.

One of the great albums of this period, Springsteen's Born to Run, is drenched in piano. But Bruce couldn't risk the lounge lizard associations of him and pianist Roy Bittan on the cover, so went instead with this much cooler - and now iconic - shot of Clarence and his sax.  

So along comes Joel, a pianist determined to play rock and roll. And indeed, his worst music (Movin’ Out, the entire Glass Houses album) are his attempts at pure rock and roll.

But his best music – the early stuff before The Stranger (especially as captured on Songs in the Attic), the underrated The Bridge, and his paean to the 50’s, An Innocent Man (which has grown on me over the years) – are timeless albums. They could have been released at almost any time in the 20th century.

Billy Joel, had he been born 50 years earlier, might have made even greater music. His gift for melody and his piano playing would have been just as strong – and he wouldn’t have had any temptation to add the sometimes lame rock effects we saw in songs like Sometimes a Fantasy.  Songs like She’s Got a Way, You’re My Home, and of course, Piano Man, could have been written in any decade of the 20th century. And for that reason, I suspect, he’ll hold up much longer than bands-of-their-time like the Clash.


Best of…

Like every fan of every artist, my favorite Billy Joel stuff is not the stuff you hear on the radio, but the stuff that never makes it there. So click here (iTunes required) for my own greatest-hits package for Billy Joel…

The Apocalypse Postponed

Last week Madonna and Mariah Carey both passed Elvis Presley on all-time singles lists. But this week I'm pleased to report that the great Van Morrison has, for the first time in his illustrious career, a Top 10 album.

Keep It Simple barely slipped in, charting at #10 in Billboard's Top 200.

Great Expectations

Last week I wrote that true conservatism or liberalism is driven by our view of human nature, and the type of government that is best suited to it. I linked to a piece by David Mamet in which he realizes that his view of human nature made him a natural conservative.

In the April 17th issue of Rolling Stone, the musician Dave Matthews gives an interview on Barack Obama in which he shows how many Obama supporters are true liberals, in the sense that they believe Barack Obama can inspire us to change the world. This is in line with the perfectionist view of human nature. Here’s Matthews:

“The most important qualification a candidate can possess is being able to inspire people to want to do things for the country. He makes me feel like it’s possible to change the world…it’s a rare jewel that can move us to be our very best.”

I realize Dave Matthews is not the spokesperson for Obama supporters, but I think his views are representative. Reading this – and many other things like it – makes me realize how high the bar will be for an Obama Presidency. McCain supporters have reasonable expectations for a McCain Presidency. They expect (or hope) that:

- The recession will end at some point (they usually do)
- Troops will stay in Iraq, but the situation will slowly improve
- Diplomacy with our allies will improve
- The Iranian threat will be contained through some combination of stick and carrot
- Dems and GOPers will work together in greater harmony
- US soil will remain immune from terrorist attacks, as it has since 9/11, without the use of torture

Obama supporters, on the other hand, have rather higher hopes:

- The recession will end at some point (they usually do)
- U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq will begin immediately and have no negative consequences
- America will earn back the world’s respect (Matthews: “Electing Obama will so radically change how the world views us, in a positive way.”)
- Dems and GOPers will work together in greater harmony
- The Iranian threat, if there is one, will be contained through diplomacy alone
- Many more Americans will have their healthcare paid for by the government through tax increases that only affect the super-rich
- The environmental threat will be beaten back without impacting the economy
- US soil will remain immune from terrorist attacks, as it has since 9/11, without torture, Gitmo, profiling, and some sections of the Patriot Act

The point here isn’t that McCain will be a better President. Rather, it’s that expectations for an Obama Presidency are going to be significantly higher. McCain (and Clinton) supporters are hoping for a good President; Obama supporters are expecting a great one.

Obama seems to be a smart politician, so I suspect that we will begin to see a change in his rhetoric – slowly at first, after he wins the nomination, and more aggressively if he wins in November - in order to begin tamping down those expectations.

In fact, if you dig deep into the issues section of his website, you will see that he has left himself wiggle room on most issues.

For example, he promises to have American troops out of Iraq within 16 months, but adds “if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.” Anyone who has followed things closely knows there is already an organization called Al Qaeda in Iraq. In addition, most of his environmental promises have outcomes that are planned for 2025 or 2050.

My hope? If he is elected, I hope his supporters are right. Greatness does, in fact, come along once in a while, and often from unexpected places.

Happy 47 Day

It's April 7, when worshippers of the number 47 celebrate this seemingly random number that is so important in so many of our lives.

The Prophet Jordan first told me of the power of this number, as we rode a train into the city for a Cards-Mets game in September, 1985. He said the number 47 appears in important and random times more than any other number. I dismissed him, of course.

But the Mets won that day with Jesse Orosoco (#47) getting the Win, and Joaquin Andujar (#47) taking the Loss. I was intrigued. After that, the number 47 began appearing everywhere I looked. About a year later the Mets won the World Series, with none other than Senor Orosco on the mound.

The Skeptic Windex told me I was crazy. "Choose any number", he said, "and watch how often that appears. Try 56." So I did - and the Gods punished me. A week later Lawrence Taylor, the ultimate 56, tested positive for cocaine.

I turned back to the 47 Gods and was rewarded...in January of 1991 Scott Norwood of the Buffalo Bills lined up a 47 yard field goal to defeat my New York Giants - and shanked the most famous field goal miss in NFL history.

I confess my faith was shaken in 2000 during the Subway Series. The official image of the series was the number 47 - created by the logos for the 4 train (which goes to Yankee Stadium) and the 7 train (which goes to Shea). The Yanks beat the Mets and I felt forsaken. But I remembered that the Goddess 47 (it's a nonbinary God) counts Yankee fans among her faithful too.

Sixteen years later, in another January football game, another Laurence (Tynes this time) lined up for another 47 yard field goal to put the Giants back into the Super Bowl. He kicked it through, and two weeks later the Patriots were 18-1.

Don't fight it. The power of 47 is undeniable. And Happy 47 Day.

(for more info, go here).

Leatherheads...

...opens Friday. Will George Clooney end his box office slump?

Heck, I don't know. On the one hand, it has a good cast, has been massively promoted (including a Super Bowl spot), and has that Titanic-like appeal to men (football!) and women (romance!). John Krasinski seems ideally suited to the task of succeeding Matt Damon (who succeeded Brad Pitt, who succeeded Noah Wyle) as George's I-kid-him-because-I-love-him-surrogate-younger-brother. I'm also a fan of two other people associated with the flick: Rick Reilly, who co-authored the script, and the great Randy Newman.

On the other hand, the public's fascination with George Clooney hasn't translated into ticket sales.

But there is a huge obstacle to this movie's success: what on earth convinced the powers that be that the ideal time to release a football movie was the opening week of baseball season?

As anyone who wastes their time at this site knows, I'm a bit of a football fan. Through December and January I wrote thousands of words on everything from the Brady-Manning rivalry* to coming up with a name for the David Tyree catch. I did a piece examining the experience of every single coach who ever won the Super Bowl. I wrote Peter King satires. I was ecstatic about the Giants winning the Super Bowl. I like football.

[*Isn't it still amazing that some of you, if even momentarily, thought I meant Eli?]

But, you know, it's April. Rogers Hornsby once said he spends the winter staring out the window waiting for Spring. Well, spring is here, baseball has started, and every team in the majors is within 3 games of first place. Is this the time to release a movie about the origins of the National Football League?

I confess to knowing next to nothing about release strategies for major motion pictures. But George's next movie, with the Coen Brothers, is due in September. Maybe that one has Oscar hopes, so it needed to come out during football season.

But I'm guessing Leatherheads will be (choose your own awful football metaphor):

• sacked on 3rd & long
• intercepted in the end zone
• miss the extra point
• called for holding
• flagged on the play
• fumbled at the goal line

I got it: upon further review, the call is reversed. They should've opened this movie in October.

There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit. ~Al Gallagher, 1971

Update (4/6/08): Leatherheads is being roughed up by critics. A.O. Scott of the Times, one of my favorite critics, closes his negative review with this paragraph:

"What is harder to comprehend is how [the director] Mr. Clooney turned out such a sloppy, haphazard and tonally incoherent piece of work. “Leatherheads” lurches hectically between Coen brothers-style pastiche and John Saylesian didacticism, while Mr. Clooney works his brow and his jaw and waits in vain for his charm to kick in and save the day. Unless he’s just vamping until the director shows up and gives him some clear instructions."

The box office disappointed as well. It's a bad weekend for the last movie star.

Elvis has Left the Building

This week, Mariah Carey passed Elvis Presley on the "Most #1 Singles" list with a song called Touch My Body. She has 18, and only trails The Beatles, who have 20.

This very same week, Madonna passed Elvis on the "Most Top Ten Hits" with something called Four Minutes.

Comment would be superfluous.

Happy Opening Day

At least I think it's Opening Day. The Red Sox and A's played a week ago on the other side of the planet, and the Nationals and Braves kicked things off last night, so things are a little sketchier than when I was a kid. The modern definition of Opening Day is the day your team plays its first game. I'm a Mets fan, ergo today is Opening Day. So allow me to share a few things with you...

• If you haven't already, go to Fire Joe Morgan. The guys at FJM don't necessarily want Joe Morgan fired. But they have declared war - well, not war exactly; something funnier than war - on the sportscasters and sportswriters who believe that winning baseball is all about chemistry and grit, as opposed to things like getting on base and not making out. Here they are mocking Rob Dibble:

"There's too much movement now," former Reds reliever Rob Dibble says. "Chemistry is a big deal. You need to come up with the same guys, stay with them, get to know their tendencies and their inside jokes. Otherwise, it doesn't work."

Exactly. How am I supposed to field a ground ball when f*cking Gomez over there doesn't laugh when I say "Do I make you horny, baby?" It's from Austin Powers. Jesus, Gomez. Santana understood me. Santana laughed every time.Oh shit, the ball got past me. F*ck. Well, it's my turn to bat. I'm so depressed I guess I'll hit into a triple play. I hate Gomez. He told me he never even saw Meet the Parents. How am I supposed to do my "I have nipples, could you milk me?" routine?I just struck out.

If you're the kind of person who wants to pull your hair out when Rick Sutcliffe goes on and on about David Eckstein means so much to his team because his uniform gets dirty, check out FJM.

• The Rock Star, who played some college ball, once had a great line about Eckstein: if I was pitching, I'd throw at that guy in the on-deck circle.

• Mets-Marlins are on as I type this, and as if on cue Keith Hernandez just had an FJM moment. The Mets have scored 3 runs in the bottom of the 4th, have men on first and third with one out and Luis Castillo up. 3-1 count. And Hernandez says "I'd love to see Luis swing here." Now look, Keith Hernandez knows more about baseball than I'll ever know, but isn't it F*#+ING OBVIOUS that Luis should do anything but swing? The pitcher is struggling, David Wright is on deck, and Luis isn't exactly an RBI machine. Thankfully, Luis takes ball 4 in the dirt to load the bases for David Wright, who hits a 3-run double into the gap.

• The thing about Keith is, he says stuff like this all the time. Gary Cohen, the Mets play-by-play guy, who has never played ball on any level, is always artfully correcting Keith on game strategy. The odd thing is that Keith, like Joe Morgan, was an incredibly intelligent on-field guy. It's a mystery...

• I just did a google image search on Gary Cohen, trying to find a picture of him that showed how obviously non-athletic he is, and instead found a blog called The Mets are Better Than Sex. It's worth a peek.

• The Mets' opening day left fielder is named Angel Pagan. The moral implications are staggering. And it got me thinking, Hispanic culture has more overtly religious first names than Anglo-American culture. I mean, you don't see a lot of guys Anglo-American guys named Jesus, as you do in Hispanic culture. What about other European cultures? Are there Dutch guys named Jesus? French?
  


• Maybe I'm a little OCD, but it drives me crazy that the AL West has 4 teams, the NL Central has 6, and the other four divisions have 5 teams. Isn't that unfair? Everything else being equal, an AL West team has a 25% chance of winning the division, whereas an NL Central team has a - um, hold on, let me get my calculator - shoot, I dunno, a 17% chance. Something like that. And it's not like this is a hard problem to fix. You simply take the Brewers, who used to be in the AL anyway, and move 'em to the AL West. Voila! Six teams with 5 divisions each! Why don't they do that? Oh wait, I remember...

• Had my Fantasy Draft last night. We've been doing the Madisox League since 1992, and of the 230 guys drafted last night, only 4 of them were drafted in the inaugural draft in '92, and all of them were pitchers. Mussina, Glavine, Smoltz, and Johnson. I won't be surprised if somebody picks up Maddux at some point.

• Also, we drafted 3 Ians last night (Kinsler, Kennedy, and Snell). Seems like a lot of Ians...
  

• Mets are up 6-2 but the Marlins are threatening. Gotta go. Happy Opening Day!

From Left to Right

Most people believe that to be “liberal” or “conservative” implies a certain set of policy positions. For example, if one favors abortion rights, believes the earth is warming at an untenable rate, and thinks that somebody who earns $106,000 should be taxed at 30% rather than 28%, he is a liberal. Someone who holds the opposing viewpoints is a conservative.

But that is not what makes one a liberal or a conservative. Take global warming. Our planetary home is either warming at a rate that will flood Manhattan in my dotage, or it isn’t. My political ideology should not affect whether or not I choose to believe that.*

True liberalism and true conservatism comes more from your view of human nature and what form of government is best suited for how humans act. One way to think this through is to look at the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Both of these revolutions occurred in the 19th century, the Age of Enlightenment, when the smartest minds on the then-cooler planet were consumed with human nature and political philosophy. (As opposed to today, when the smartest minds on the planet are consumed with human nature and its interactions with social networking sites, video games, MP3 players, mobile phones, etc.)

The American Revolution was essentially conservative in nature. The Founders took a dim view of human nature, in particular how humans handle power. Therefore, they designed a government with checks and balances, believing that people with power would try to take advantage of that power. The French Revolution (which gave us the terms right-wing and left-wing) was essentially liberal, believing if you gave the people (rather than a monarch) power, they would wield that power with wisdom and benevolence and the world would be a better place. I’m massively oversimplifying here, but what do you expect – it’s only a blog.

[If you'd like a less simplified explanation, read Edmund Burke.]

I bring all this up because David Mamet, the playwright and screenwriter (Glengarry Glen Ross, The Untouchables, American Buffalo and much more) wrote a fascinating essay in The Village Voice about how the writing of his latest play was the catalyst for a political conversion:

"The play, while being a laugh a minute, is, when it's at home, a disputation between reason and faith, or perhaps between the conservative (or tragic) view and the liberal (or perfectionist) view. The conservative president in the piece holds that people are each out to make a living, and the best way for government to facilitate that is to stay out of the way, as the inevitable abuses and failures of this system (free-market economics) are less than those of government intervention.

I took the liberal view for many decades, but I believe I have changed my mind."


Mamet's conversion isn't driven by Obama's healthcare plan, McCain's campaign-finance views, or whether or not Hillary dodged sniper fire in Bosnia. It's driven by the realization that his political ideology was out of kilter with his observations of human behavior.

The essay is smart, funny, honest, and (surprisingly for Mamet) drops very few F-bombs. I highly recommend clicking here and giving it a close read.


* That's not to say that our political ideology isn't revealed in our policy positions. One's opinion on Africa is an outstanding litmus test. Liberals, who have greater faith in human nature, tend to believe that Africa can be saved through the twin elixirs of foreign aid and debt forgiveness. Conservatives tend to believe if you keep giving African dictators money they will have no incentive to enact fundamental reform that will allow a free-market economy to take root. These are classic examples of political views that align perfectly with one's view of human nature.

July 1, 1776

If you could be witness to any historical event, what would it be? My choice is the Pennsylvania State House (later renamed Independence Hall), Philadelphia on July 1, 1776.

July 4, 1776 is the most famous date in American history. But that is merely the date independence was declared. If you had one shot at time travel and chose the original 4th of July, you wouldn’t see very much beyond a herald named John Nixon reading the Declaration to a small crowd.

July 2, 1776 is the day that independence was decided. It is of the 2nd that John Adams wrote to his wife:

"The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America…I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival."

John Adams was right about much, but not that.

But it was on July 1, 1776 that independence was debated. Throughout that day and into the evening the bold supporters of independence, led by the eloquence of John Adams, argued for severing the colonies’ ties with England. The opposition was led by John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, and supported primarily by delegates from New York and South Carolina. Adams, of course, carried the day, and independence was declared.

Since time travel only exists in science fiction, I instead settled in to watch the HBO miniseries John Adams. The second episode, “Join or Die”, featured this memorable debate and all of the other momentous events of the Second Continental Congress: Richard Henry Lee’s resolution calling for independence; John Adams’ formation of a committee to write a declaration and his subsequent persuading of the young Thomas Jefferson to compose a first draft; the debate itself; the backroom wrangling with New York and South Carolina; and finally, the momentous vote itself, with Cesar Rodney from Delaware arriving at the final moment to tip the vote into unanimity (if you were wondering why the Delaware quarter has an engraving of a guy on a horse, that is Rodney racing to Philadelphia).

This is filmed history at its finest. And with any luck, John Adams will finally get his due.

“The Colossus of Independence”

Just as Americans have erroneously celebrated July 4th as Independence Day, we have also erroneously celebrated Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration, over Adams, the true leader of the independence movement. To the founders themselves, the document was just that, a document, however beautifully written. Independence itself was won largely by Adams. It was Jefferson himself who called Adams “the colossus of independence”, and rightly so.

The miniseries perfectly captures Adams the statesman, Adams the orator, and Adams the politician as he moves the tentative Congress towards independence. With Benjamin Franklin (played by the excellent Tom Wilkinson) coaching him, we see Adams almost single-handedly moving this body of men into their place in history as Signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Paul Giamatti, a gifted actor, plays the title role. His casting violates Keatang’s Third Law of History Movies: never cast familiar actors in the roles of famous historical figures. When an actor is famous, you can’t help but see the actor playing a historical figure rather than the historical figure himself. Shows like The Sopranos and The Wire have taught us there are plenty of gifted unknown actors out there, but filmmakers can't help themselves. Giamatti is a brilliant enough actor to pull it off, though when he raises a glass of madeira in toast I half expect him to make some snarky comment about the vintage.

Further Reading

The miniseries is based on the popular biography by David McCullough. This is a bit odd. Nothing in the book or the miniseries is McCullough's invention; in fact, the vast majority of the events featured have been written about thousands of times. HBO could have easily made the exact same movie without Mr. McCullough's permission.

But the approval of one of America's finest historians lends a sort of imprimatur on the whole proceeding. Producer Tom Hanks and HBO have produced something that lives up to the standards of McCullough's work.

But...if you want to learn more about the great John Adams, I'm partial to a pair of books by different authors: John Adams and the American Revolution by Catherine Drinker Bowen and Passionate Sage by Joseph Ellis. The former focuses specifically on Adams role as Colossus; the latter on his days as a lion in winter.

And who knows? Maybe one day John Adams will get his own monument...

The Financial Crisis Explained

Not by me, of course. I'm an English major and a history buff. If you want to know which Shakespeare plays take place during the War of the Roses, I'm your guy. But this whole sub-prime mortgage crisis has made me feel like, well, an English major during a financial crisis.

Which was why I was encouraged to read these words today by David Leonhardt in the New York Times:

"Raise your hand if you don’t quite understand this whole financial crisis. It has been going on for seven months now, and many people probably feel as if they should understand it. But they don’t, not really....I’m here to urge you not to feel sheepish. This may not be entirely comforting, but your confusion is shared by many people who are in the middle of the crisis. "

My hand shot up, of course. For the full article, go here. I read it, and for a brief shining moment I think I understood the crisis. Alas, I think the moment has passed...

Gael-Mheiriceánach

What St. Patrick's Day Means to Me

Saint Patrick’s Day is one of the High Holy Days on our family calendar. Family legend holds that one of our clan has marched in every New York St. Patrick’s Day Parade since the 1920’s, not long after my paternal grandparents arrived here from County Clare. I myself have marched since childhood.

Some people mock the New York Irish and our embrace of March 17th. They say, with the hint of a sneer, that in Ireland they don’t go this crazy about St. Pat’s Day. They note that nobody in Ireland listens to Irish music anymore – that they disdain it as “trad” (i.e. traditional). Or if they’re feeling particularly snide, they’ll take a shot at the creeping Hallmarkization of the holiday, as beers and bagels are dyed green and businesses try to get a piece of the action.

What they are really saying, of course, is that Irish Americans don’t truly understand Ireland, and that our celebration of the holiday is somehow inauthentic. But here is what they don’t understand: on March 17th, we are not really celebrating Saint Patrick, and we are not even celebrating Ireland. We are celebrating Irish Americans and their story, the story of our ancestors. And for the people gathered on 5th Avenue between 44th Street and 86th Streets, we are very specifically celebrating being New York Irish Americans.

My Irish Epiphany
I didn’t realize this for many years. St. Patrick’s Day was just something our family did. I was excited that it got me out of school. I enjoyed walking up 5th Avenue staring at the skyscrapers. It was fun to see the occasional “celebrity” like Ed Koch or Gerry Cooney wearing Irish sweaters. And I loved the soda bread at my grandmother’s apartment in Astoria afterwards.

Then one year in my early 20’s, I wanted to blow off the parade. I was working in the city and began to believe marching was a little ridiculous. It would be more fun to have a late Guinness-soaked lunch with work friends. But I knew how much my Dad cared, and reluctantly headed from my office to the parade.

As I walked over, though, I realized that the city was somehow…different. I’d been working in New York over a year, and it had become commonplace to me. But as I continued my stroll over, though, I noticed the changes. Bagpipes skirled in the distance and the rat-a-tat-tat of drums ricocheted off the skyscrapers. Street vendors barked out their wares. I passed Irish bars, filled at 10:30 AM, resounding with good cheer and good music.

And the faces! Pretty young ones with shamrocks emblazoned on their cheeks; old men with ruddy cheeks ‘neath twill caps; cops and firefighters, in dress blues, with bushy moustaches. And my favorite, Hispanics and Italians and African-Americans and Asians in Irish sweaters or green plastic hats. If you don’t understand the expression “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”, go to the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City, and you’ll know.

I realized that on this day, the city again became the magical place of my youth. Magical in a way that Christmastime, with its massive influx of tourists, could never be. This wasn’t about Ireland. Or rather, it wasn’t just about Ireland. It was about being an Irish-American descendant in the greatest city in the world.

"The Golden Door"

And of course America, and New York, is where the Irish came in massive numbers for hundreds of years. In the 2000 census, over 30 million Americans claimed Irish ancestry, 11% of the total U.S. population, and 7 times greater than the population of Ireland. Twenty-three American Presidents, including Washington, Jackson, Grant, TR, and of course JFK can claim Irish ancestry. It's something the Clintons and Bushes share. Our greatest living writer is Irish-American, as is the last movie star, and America's newest sports hero. Even Barack O’Bama’s great-great grandfather, Fulmuth Kearney, comes from Moneygall in County Offaly.

The point is that Irish-American culture isn't just a pale imitation of Irish culture; it is a formidable culture unto itself. It dates back hundreds of years, counts numerous notables among its members, and has a powerful and fascinating history. Many Gael-Mheiriceánach, or Irish-Americans, myself included, have stories of our own family’s emigration, stories that are as powerful to us as creation myths. On Saint Patrick’s Day we are not trying to imitate Ireland – we are being Irish America.

So don’t worry about the differences between the Irish in America and the Irish in Ireland. Instead, take a day off work on Monday, grab the kids out of school, and head to Fifth Avenue in New York to soak in some Irish-American culture.

And one tip…Tullamore Dew looks an awful lot like apple juice, so if you’d like a little nip now and then, grab a Snapple Apple bottle and fill it with the juice of the barley…

Book tip: For years I've tried, without success, to persuade book-loving friends to read Thomas Flanagan's excellent trilogy of Irish history. This blogger does as good a job as any of summing up this excellent trio of novels.

"The Inequality Myth"

We've heard a lot about the growing income gap between rich and poor - a common theme around election time. In the Wall Street Journal today, economist Brad Schiller breaks down the details. He says the idea of inequality rests on two facts, but many other facts mitigate those two.
The two facts in favor

• The top 20% earners have increased their share of the pie from 43% in 1970 to 50% today while the bottom 20% have decreased their share from 4.1% to 3.4%.


• The middle 60%, meanwhile, have seen wage stagnation. The median household income is at $48,200, only $200 more than 1998 totals.

The mitigating facts

• First, the pie is much bigger. GDP is three times larger than it was in 1970, so that 3.4% slice actually represents a 36% increase in income. It's a nearly indisputable fact that the poor have significantly higher purchasing power than in 1970, even if they are farther away from the rich in income.


• Second, the population has grown by 20 million since 1970, most of it through immigration, legal and illegal. Which means that the newest Americans are poorer. Schiller gives the metaphor of a line of people moving forward...the line keeps moving, but new people keep getting on the end of the line, so that the line in fact gets longer - the people in front are even farther away from the people in back.


• And finally, and this was very interesting...all of the data is based on household income. But the combination of divorce and people marrying later has dramatically changed households. The average "population" of a household has decreased from 3.14 to 2.57, so that even if wages stagnated, the actual income has increased, because it is supporting fewer people.

My one complaint about the piece is that he uses 1998-2006 for some comparisons, and 1970-2006 for others. Clearly when Democrats talk about income inequality, they are talking about the Bush Tax Cuts. I wish Schiller had used 1998-2006 as the comparative period for all of the data points.

A point of annoyance with both parties...the Democrats hammer away at the first two points, never mentioning the latter three. And Republicans generally stay mute on the subject, instead of engaging in debate. Perhaps it's because they realize that true populist campaigns, like that of John Edwards, tend to flame out. A majority of voting Americans, it appears, don't like being told how poor they are.

Note: WSJ is a paid subscription, but I believe the opinion page is accessible for free.

Time After Time

Last week I mocked Time magazine's cover story on George Clooney. This week I notice the cover story is very similar to the first long piece I wrote, The Dubious Value of Experience, in which I argue that experience hasn't been a very useful predictor for White House success.

I think mine is better, but it's possible I'm biased. More interestingly is the accompanying piece, The Science of Experience, in which it is argued that "the number of years of experience in a domain is a poor predictor of attained performance."

Which plays right into my theory that you should hire inexperienced head coaches...

Okay, I think I've patted my back enough for one day...

Monolingual Americans

If you’ve traveled around this world of ours – in continental Europe, in South America, in many parts of Asia – you have noticed that many of the world’s citizens speak two languages, and some speak three or more. In fact, there are more multilingual people in the world than monolingual.

Monolingual Americans – and if you are American you are likely monolingual – invariably feel a twinge of shame about this. In Germany or Singapore, Moscow or Rio, folks switch from their language to ours because it’s understood us backward Americans can’t switch from ours to theirs. We live in the land of the single tongue, and surely this must be because we are less cultured, less intellectually curious, more barbaric even. How much more sophisticated would we be if we could only parlez-vous francais?

Nonsense. Any first-year economics student can tell you that people do things when they have an incentive to do so. Americans (and Canadians) have very little incentive, economic or otherwise, to invest the time and energy required to learn a foreign language, and very little opportunity to maintain it if they did. Europeans, on the other hand, have an enormous incentive to learn the languages of their neighbors. And, along with affluent, educated, or ambitious South Americans and Asians, they share an enormous incentive to learn the language of the world – English.

Do You Speak Jersey?
I live in New York. The New Jersey border is four miles South, and Connecticut is about a half hour to the East. Let’s imagine that each of these three states spoke a different language.

Welcome to Switzerland. Switzerland is not a very big country – if it was an American state it would rank 42nd in square mileage, between West Virginia and Maryland. But it is bordered by five other countries speaking 3.5 different languages: France (French), Italy (Italian), Germany and Austria (German), and Lichetenstein (a dialect of German called Alemannic).

It doesn’t stop there, though. Switzerland is in the European Union, and the EU alone recognizes 23 official languages.

Many Swiss can speak French, German, and English. This is not because they are a particularly cultured people – in fact (and I apologize to my large Swiss readership), Switzerland hasn’t contributed very much to world culture. The list of Swiss writers and composers, painters and pop stars, is alas, rather small. No Shakespeare or Twain, no Mozart or McCartney, no Picasso or da Vinci. They speak multiple languages for the simple reason that they have to – they are economically and geographically impelled to do so.

English is the Frankish Language

The term lingua franca literally means “Frankish language”, but the actual definition of lingua franca is the unofficial language of the world, the language that is used in business, science, aviation, and diplomacy.

Many languages have played the role of lingua franca. Greek, Latin, then the aforementioned Frankish language (which wasn’t a real language, but a pidgin mix of Italian and other romance languages). French was the language of global diplomacy from the 17th century until very recently.

But now it is English. English ranks only 4th in terms of number of speakers. But it is the global language of scientific papers, of business conferences, of air control towers, of treaty negotiations.

So in addition to their neighbors' languages the citizens of Switzerland need to know English, especially if they want to go work at the bank. The same is true of educated people around the world. English is, at this particular point in world history, the most important language in the world.

For an educated New Yorker, there is no real incentive to learn another language. He can travel to New Jersey and Connecticut, and they speak the same language. He can travel 2000 miles to the South, 3000 miles to the West, across most of Canada, its giant neighbor to the North, and all points in between - and the people, with little exception, speak English. (And things aren't looking good for the exceptions this week...)

He could then hop on a plane East to the United Kingdom, and except for a few odd words, they speak the same language too. Even more, in business meetings from Berlin to Beijing, Reykjavik to Rio, Honolulu to Hong Kong, the lingua franca will be English.

For the Swiss, as for the German and Singaporean, learning another language is often a necessity. For nearly all Americans, it is a luxury.

What about the English?

The English themselves, incidentally, are a fairly monolingual people. Sure, the particularly affluent might know French, which is a train ride away. But like Americans, with their Mother Tongue in ascendancy, they have little reason to dedicate the time required for a second language, and little opportunity to maintain it if they did.

Unable to tout their language skills, the English instead revel in their passport superiority. Very few Americans, they point out, even have a passport. True, but remember too the range of travel an American can enjoy without owning a passport. He can travel from the volcano islands of the South Pacific to the glaciers of Alaska; from the Big Sky country of Montana to the theme parks of Florida. From the metropolis of New York City to the badlands of the Dakotas to juke joints in the Mississippi Delta to the coffee shops of Seattles. He can surf the waves of Southern California and ski the slopes of Utah, he can hit the Vegas Strip, the French Quarter in Nawlins, and catch autumn in New England - he can go to all of these places without once passing through customs. Or for that matter, breaking out a foreign language phrasebook.

The English have, as you can imagine, significantly more incentive to get themselves a passport.

Confucius Say

So the next time you are abroad, and find yourself humbled by the effortless fluency of your hosts, or even for the paucity of passports we have, remember that there is a perfectly good reason for this.

But don't get too cocky. Lingua francas only last so long, so you might want to send your kid to this site.

American History Class

A friend recently asked me to create a little curriculum for him - everything he should read over the course of a few years to have a solid handle on American history. I thought I'd share it with you.

This list does not intend to be comprehensive. It is a mix of scholarly works, popular history, and historical fiction. And there is no doubt that I've missed many many wonderful books. Looking over the list I notice that I don't have any David McCullough, who I admire, but I have two books from Stephen Ambrose, who I have mixed feelings about. What can I tell you?

Finally, I would describe this list as middle-brow. A very serious reader may see I've included a fairly pulpish book about the battle of Thermopylae rather than the works of Herodotus, and scoff derisively. But this list isn't for post-grad students - it's for the general reader.

ANCIENT HISTORY

Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae
Steven Pressfield

I know. I said this is a list of American history books, and I'm leading off with a novel about Greek history. But American history is really the story of representative government, or as Lincoln would put it, “government of the people, by the people, for the people”. That starts with the ancient Greeks.

And democracy was nearly strangled in its cradle. The mighty autocratic Persian Empire invaded Greece early in the 5th century BC. The Greeks – really a collection of city-states - banded together to defeat them. This war was immediately followed by the Golden Age of Athens (Socrates, Pericles, Aristotle, the Greek dramatists). If this war had gone differently, the whole course of human history may have gone differently.

This is an entertaining and informative novel about the most famous battle of that war – in fact, one of the most famous battles in all of human history. (And yes, it is the battle dramatized in the movie "300".)


COLONIAL HISTORY

Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766
Or

The War that Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War
Both by Fred Anderson

Okay, skipping ahead 2200 years…The Seven Years War, more popularly known here as the French and Indian War, led to the American Revolution as surely as World War I led to the WW II. It was also, in the words of Winston Churchill, truly the first world war.

As Americans, we think of the French and Indian War as a minor conflict in the woods of Western Pennsylvania, the lakes of upstate New York, and the cliffs of Quebec. But that was only part of a much larger war that included Frederick the Great fighting epic battles in Western Europe, and French and English armies clashing as far away as India and South America.

These books mainly focus on the North American part of the war, however, and how it ignited the flames that led to the American Revolution.

Both are by Fred Anderson. I read the first, the definitive book on the war. It is a longer, scholarly but very readable treatment of war, its political and military aspects. It is one of my favorites, but probably goes into more detail than most readers want. The second book is his scaled-down popular version of the first, which I haven’t read.


REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD

John Adams and the American Revolution
Catherine Drinker Bowen

There are so many tremendous books about the American Revolution, it is difficult  to narrow it down. But I’ll start here. Scholarly historians have issues with this book, which is a sort of novelistic history. I choose it for three reasons:

1. To understand the Revolution, you need to understand the period from the end of the Seven Years’ War to the Declaration of Independence, and Adams was the man in this period.

2. No book better captures the drama of July 2-4, 1776.

3. I dig this book, and its my list.


Washington’s Crossing
David Hackett Fischer

The colonists have declared independence; now all they have to do is defeat the mightiest army on earth. How did they do it? This book answers that question as well as any other. Fischer and James MacPherson, two great historians, are editing a series called “Pivotal Moments in American History”, and in this book Fischer argues Washington’s Crossing of the Delaware was one of those moments.

But it's about much more than that battle. It is about how Washington built an army, held it together, and yes, defeated the mightiest army on earth.

It’s also about myth and history. In the last few years, academic historians have attacked icons like Washington and Lincoln, arguing that too much credit has been given to Dead White Males. Fischer, taking the famous painting of Washington’s Crossing as a starting point, argues that sometimes the myth is true.

Miracle in Philadelphia
Catherine Drinker Bowen

Independence is declared; the British have been beaten. Now all that is required is a government.

This book is a dramatic re-telling of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

(The link above is to a beautiful hard-cover edition that can be purchased online cheaply.  Like most book lovers I lament the struggles of independent bookstores, but at the same time it's wonderful that you can find many of these books used, even in hardcover, at incredibly low prices.)

Founding Brothers
Joseph Ellis

This is more a collection of essays than a unified history, but great stories are told about the major founders: the Hamilton-Burr duel; the dinner at which Jefferson and Hamilton negotiated the location of the Capitol; the ups and downs of the 50 year friendship between Jefferson and Adams. The essay on Washington’s Farewell Address is particularly good.

My favorite period in American history is the 1790’s, the period after the Constitution up to Jefferson’s Presidency. This book tells some of the great stories from that period.


The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789
Robert Middlekauff

What I’ve done with the 4 books above is cover the 3 key parts of the Revolution: the pre-Revolutionary period, the War itself, and the creation of a government. But I’ve skipped huge parts, mainly through my somewhat eccentric choice of the Fischer book. Fischer’s telling of Washington’s Crossing illuminates the entire military story of the Revolution, but it doesn’t tell it. So if you just read the 4 books above, you’ll still be short on facts about Bunker Hill, Saratoga, Yorktown, and the other key battles.

On the other hand, you can skip all four books and just read this one. This is a volume of the outstanding Oxford History of the United States, and is a well-written and thorough account of the period covered by all 4 books.


BETWEEN WARS I
Undaunted Courage
Stephen Ambrose

The Lewis & Clark Expedition was an historically insignificant event.

They failed in their primary mission to find a Northwest Passage (because it didn’t exist); the path they took to the West was so arduous as to be completely useless to future pioneers; and the naturalist work they did wasn’t published till long after it would have been useful. In short, they did not open the American West.

But as Ambrose says, "the Lewis & Clark Expedition was the greatest camping trip of all time, and the greatest hunting trip." Worth reading for the adventure alone.

The Life of Andrew Jackson
Robert Remini

The towering figure of the antebellum period is Andrew Jackson. He is also the most entertaining. And few historians dominate their subject matter the way Remini does Jackson. This book is the single-volume condensed version of his definitive 3-volume bio.

It has everything: backwoods adventures, frontier gunfights, Indian fights, the thrilling Battle of New Orleans, a ruffian in the White House, and a fundamental change in the perception and practice of American democracy.

The Gates of the Alamo
Stephen Harigan
Another historical novel about gates…this one about what is arguably the most famous battle in American history.


THE CIVIL WAR

Battle Cry of Freedom – The Civil War Era
James McPherson

I’ve told many people over the years – if you read one book about the Civil War, make it this one. It’s an extraordinary historical achievement, covering everything that is important from the end of the Mexican War (which reignited the slavery debate) to the end of the War. An excellent narrative by one of our greatest historians.

The Killer Angels – A Novel of Gettysburg
Michael Shaara

My favorite historical novel. Read it. (Also, the basis for the great TV movie "Gettysburg").

Lincoln
David Herbert Donald

There are so many great Lincoln books. I'm partial to a book called Lincoln's Virtues. I love Gore Vidal's novel. And of course, there are many wonderful books that highlight certain parts of Lincoln's life - like Garry Wills book about the Gettysburg address. But Donald's book is probably the best single-volume biography that captures the whole life, and isn't dauntingly long.

A Stillness at Appomattox
Bruce Catton

This is the 3rd volume of Catton’s Army of the Potomac trilogy, covering the final year of the Civil War. Winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award, it is worth reading for the surrender scene alone.


BETWEEN WARS II

Son of the Morning Star: Custer and the Little Big Horn
Evan Connell

Using Custer at Little Big Horn as a focal point, Connell tells the story of the Plains Indians wars. He is a novelist writing history, and it is beautifully written and a bit idiosyncratic. But I’ve read a fair amount of books about this period, and this is my favorite.

The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt
Edmund Morris

Forget about history books – this is one of my favorite books, period. TR’s life before the Presidency was amazing; Park Avenue socialite, cowboy, war hero, city cop, writer, politician. And Morris is a stunningly brilliant writer. (And, apparently, the basis of an upcoming Scorcese/DiCaprio flick. Not Morris, the book...)


THE FIRST WORLD WAR

The Guns of August
Barbara Tuchman

This doesn’t really qualify as American history, since it’s very specifically about the start of the Great War, and the Americans didn’t show up until 1917. But it’s one of the finest history books I’ve ever read, particularly the first half which focuses on how the war ignited.

The First World War
John Keegan

If you want to know about the entire war, then this is the book to read, from the finest military historian of the 20th century.

All Quiet on the Western Front
Erich Maria Remarque

By now, you know my fondness of learning history through fiction. This is probably considered the greatest war novel ever written.

THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929 – 1945David Kennedy

This is another book in the Oxford History of the U.S. series. It takes a gifted historian to cover, in a mere 900 pages, virtually all of American history from the stock market crash to the surrender of the Japanese on the deck of the U.S. Missouri. Like the McPherson and Middlekauf books above, if you read one book, make it this one.

At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor
Gordon Prange

The genius of this book is that it tells the Japanese side of the story as well as the American – and the Japanese side is much more interesting. The Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor – arguably the biggest strategic blunder in the history of warfare – is told side by side with the planning and execution of the attack – arguably the greatest tactical success in the history of warfare. The politics, the backdoor diplomacy, and of course, the attack itself, are all marvelously told.

War & Remembrance
Herman Wouk

Another novel. Wouk tells the story of WWII through one family, the Henrys, who conveniently have family members located in every theater of the war, including the concentration camps. The highlight of the book is the account of Midway.

The Liberation Trilogy:
Volume I: An Army at Dawn: The War in Africa 1942-43,
Volume II: Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy 1943-1944
Rick Atkinson

It appears that Atkinson is the Second World War’s Bruce Catton. Catton was a journalist turned historian who wrote two brilliant trilogies of the Civil War. Atkinson is a journalist turned historian who is writing a trilogy about the U.S. military in the European theater of WWII. The first book, focused on the least known part of the war, was outstanding, and the second fulfilled the promise of the first. I can’t wait for the third, which will obviously go from D-Day to Berlin, and will presumably feature the word “night” or “evening” or “dusk” in the title…

Citizen Soldiers: The U.S. Army from the Normandy Beaches to the Bulge to the Surrender of Germany
Stephen Ambrose

I’m not a huge fan of Ambrose’s. I find his writing to be a bit melodramatic. But this is a terrific book, because it is based on terrific research. Ambrose has interviewed thousands of soldiers, and tells the story through their stories – amazing, extraordinary stories – and does so in the larger context of the war in Western Europe.


Post-War Period

Sorry, I’m not your guy for this. I’ve never read a book about JFK or Eisenhower’s presidency or the Korean War or the Vietnam War or the Cold War. Volume II of Taylor Branch’s biography of Martin Luther King sits on my bookshelf unread. (I can never quite bring myself to read multi-volume biographies. I like to wait for the condensed single-volume.) I’ve been told by many people that Robert Caro’s “The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York” is the greatest book about the wielding of political power ever written, but it remains on my “someday” list.

So I’m going to go ahead and recommend a book I haven’t read:

Great Expectations, The United States 1945-1974
James T. Patterson

Yet another volume in the Oxford History of the United States. I’ve read 3 volumes in this series, so I can vouch for the quality of the series. It did win the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 1997. And the critics loved it: The Wall Street Journal called it “a tour de force” and the Washington Post said "One can hardly imagine a better overview of American life during the Cold War, the struggle for civil rights, and the debacle of Vietnam.”

Hmm…maybe I should take my own advice and read this one…

Update (7/3/2013):  Since writing this, I've read several books on the post-war period, including Volume II of the MLK biography and Robert Dallek's biography on JFK.  You can find my comments on those books here.  I also read Robert Caro's latest installment in his LBJ masterpiece, The Passage of Power.  Still haven't delved into Vietnam (though I've read some excellent novels like Matterhorn, The Quiet American, and the wildly underrated novels of Charles McCarry).  But The Bright Shining Lie is on my list.

Follow up on Last Movie Star

Yesterday’s piece on George Clooney got a ton of traffic (by FreeTime’s incredibly humble standards), thanks to Jason Kottke mentioning it on his hugely influential blog (thanks, Jason). Many of the comments people made, though, disagreed with my thesis, or at least, tried to explain to me why Clooney is so popular. (It’s my own fault for focusing too much on his box office weakness.)

I understand why he’s popular. I get that he’s handsome and debonair and charming, that you can drop him in his tuxedo right into the 1952 Oscar ceremony, and he’d fit right in. I get that he has an interesting mix of movie-star glamour and eclectic choices. But my point still stands: where are his great movies? Not his really really good movies, but his great, classic, remembered-for-all time movies?

If he is going to inherit – if he is going to deserve - Jack Nicholson’s throne in the front-row middle seat of the Oscars, he needs a One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Plus a Chinatown and a Terms of Endearment. The Departed and The Shining. He needs hugely memorable performances like the Joker and Colonel Nathan Jessup. Jack’s filmography is such that I haven’t even mentioned seven other films for which he was nominated for an Oscar, including one in which he won Best Actor (fun game: try to think of them).

I realize I’m setting the bar high here, but that’s what great movie stars do. They make multiple movies that are praised by critics, loved by audiences, and remembered for decades. Humphrey Bogart, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne and Tom Hanks made those kinds of movies. George doesn’t have a single Maltese Falcon or African Queen, much less a Casablanca, on his resume, but is treated as if he does.

His continued struggles at the box office may mean the window could close soon. Unless he starts making some classics, he may get bumped back to the 16th row at the 2012 Oscar ceremony.