The More Things Change. . . . (Part One)

With the second half of the season underway, as we barrel into the dog days of August, now seems as good a time as any to share our thoughts on the changes adopted by Major League Baseball over the last couple of years,

Baseball is often romanticized as some never-changing artifact of Americana.  This image, though, has never been accurate.  Baseball gloves have grown from, essentially, the size of standard gloves one might wear on a chilly day to large, webbed contraptions in which even the screamingest of line drives can be easily handled.  Batting helmets have presumably saved many a life--or at least prevented many a concussion--since their introduction in the 1940s.  Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier long after Ty Cobb broke the racist barrier--I kid, I kid: There were ALWAYS racists in baseball.  Still, certain fundamental aspects of the game have never changed: The pitcher's mound (or, more specifically, the rubber thereon) has always sat 60 feet, six inches from home plate.  The distance between bases has never shrunk from 90 feet.  The Yankees have always been despicable.  This bedrock of unshakable tradition has allowed the game to evolve around the edges and so to remain just as exciting--or, to haters, boring--as ever.

The last two years, though, have seen some major changes, mainly adopted in response to the pandemic-forced shortening of the 2020 season.  Apparently, some of these changes are to be discarded after this year, but let's take a moment to review them and consider which worked well and which should rightly be eliminated.

We begin our discussion today with:

The Three-Batter Rule

Many changes recently adopted by the lords of baseball concern efforts to accelerate the "pace of play."  MLB feared that fans were turned off by lengthy games, and so sought ways to speed things up.  There are now rules about how long a pitcher can take between pitches--rules which I've never seen actually enforced--and limitations on the number of times the catcher or manager can visit the pitcher's mound during a game.  Perhaps the most significant rule-change of this type, though, is one requiring any pitcher brought into a game to face at least three batters.

This is a good rule.  It prevents a manager from, say, bringing in a right-handed pitcher to face a right-handed batter, and then replacing that pitcher with a leftie to face a leftie. . . and then replacing that leftie with another rightie. . . .and on and on ad infinitum as the viewing audience slowly dies.  And yes, this sort of thing would frequently happen, while announcers inevitably--and futilely--tried to sell us on the beauty of this time-honored baseball strategy.  So while the three-batter rule has somewhat diminished the market for that most fabled of baseball professionals, the left-handed specialist, it has sped up this one aspect of the game.

I should state at this point that I, myself, am unconvinced that "pace of play" really is a problem.  Certainly, baseball games can often last far longer than any disinterested observer would consider necessary, but why must baseball pander to the disinterested observer?  To those who enjoy baseball, the comparatively languid pace--when measured against, say, basketball or hockey or high-speed mouse-tossing--is a feature, not a bug.  Baseball will never be a high-velocity sport; no need to try to make it into one.

Still and all, though, constant pitching changes, with pitchers accompanied by the  "Final Jeopardy" theme music as they stroll in from the bullpen, with strategy conversations with the manager and infielders, with the (at least) eight warmup pitches--these can get kind of tedious even for the most dedicated baseball enthusiast.  Plus, it is interesting to watch left-handed pitchers who haven't faced a right handed batter since the Clinton administration suddenly, unavoidably, staring down the likes of Mike Trout or Pete Alonso in a high-pressure situation.  

Good rule!  Keep it!

On deck: Seven-inning double-headers

Shakespeare in the Park? Get Off My Lawn!

I’m not old, OK! Middle-aged, at best—or worst—or something! Leave me alone! My mind isn’t as sharp as it used to be. But I’m. Not. Old.

Only, sometimes I certainly FEEL old.

I work with this theatre company. Every summer, we do Shakespeare in the park. This year, after a Covid-forced shutdown in 2020, we’re doing The Tempest. I play Sebastian, and despite my desperate entreaties, they’re refusing to allow me to burst into a rousing rendition of “Under the Sea,” but that’s another story. I enjoy working with this group, but inevitably I find myself surrounded by considerably younger people. A lot of college students or recent college grads seem to end up in the annual troupe. In the past, it hasn’t bothered me that much, but this year, perhaps because I’ve lost a year to virtual house arrest, the younguns just seem that much younger.

I’ve found myself utterly bemused by their cultural references. I think the main source of dissonance has to do with the fact that these people draw much of their cultural capital from the internet—from YouTube and Tik Tok and the like. Like, they actually watch YouTube, as if YouTube is something you watch.

I don’t get this. YouTube isn’t shows. . .YouTube is just. . .I don’t know… random clips of more or less entertaining value… Like, I’ll go to YouTube if I’m looking for something in particular, like a music video or Colbert’s last monologue or reassurance that Trump actually won the last election! Make America great again!!! Who actually goes to YouTube for, like, destination programming? And then my castmates will make references to YouTube “celebrities” (or “YouTubers” as I’m told they’re called) as if I’m supposed to know what they’re talking about!

Don’t even get me started on Tik Tok.

Maybe I am old.

Reconcilable Differences

Shortly after Congress passed President Biden’s $1.9 trillion pandemic rescue bill earlier this year, Mississippi senator Roger Wicker issued a celebratory tweet about the bill’s provision of nearly $30 billion to support the restaurant industry.

Here’s the thing, though: Wicker and every other Republican had voted against the legislation. His tweet and similar statements from his GOP colleagues can and should of course be written off as typical political hypocrisy, but they suggest a likely preview of how the current political debates over the President’s latest spending proposals will play out—and also why Republicans should, frankly, not worry too much about them.

Since these bills, through the magic of a parliamentary maneuver called “reconciliation” (which we’ve all had to learn way too much about), can pass with simple majority support, they are likely to squeak through Congress with only Democratic votes. Once this happens, feckless Republicans can brag to their constituents about all the goodies they’re receiving while still proudly proclaiming their anti-Biden credentials. Win-win.

And while I hate to be giving Republicans any advice, I take comfort in the fact that the “win-win” alluded to above includes the country as a whole.

Solipsistography: “Democrats Push a Budget to Fulfill Biden’s Aggressive Economic Ambitions”

The Lord Giveth in Mysterious Ways

This week, the biggest American poverty-relief program to be created in generations will begin delivering financial aid to families with children. An expansion in the child tax credit will send cash payments of $250-300 per month per child to the vast majority of American families. Almost everyone thinks this is a good idea. Even reliable conservatives like Mitt Romney have offered little in the way of criticism. 

Still, there are those who continue to stamp their feet and advocate against their own interests. A Louisiana parent who has been out of work for over a year and who, with four children, would stand to receive over $1000 a month from the government to, you know, help feed them, is considering not accepting the money because, as he says, “I’m a Christian believer—I rely on God more than I rely on the government.”

Here’s my question for people who invoke God to resist governmental programs: Did it ever occur to you that the governmental program might just be God’s mysterious way of helping you? Or were you just expecting money to literally fall from the sky? And if so, why is accepting mysterious welfare from some unseen deity inherently better than just taking a check from Uncle Joe?

On Vacation

 See you in a couple of weeks!

Global Warming, Schmobal Warming

Sure, climate change is scary, and this week's record-setting--not to say, insane--temperatures in the Pacific Northwest bode ill for continued human existence on the planet.  But look at it this way: We start to worry when we hear about temperatures "10 to 15 degrees" above normal.  If global warming continues, though, this normal will gradually increase as well.  In other words, before long, what we now consider record heat will just be average, and then we can look at the panting, sweating, gasping population of Juneau, Alaska, as a sign that all is right with the world.

Of Communion, Conservatorships, Conservatives, and Covid

Last weekend, a conference of Catholic bishops in the United States overwhelmingly approved a draft statement that could potentially prevent prominent Catholics—including, conspicuously, one prominent Catholic in particular, President Joe Biden—from receiving Communion due to their support for abortion rights. This despite admonitions from the Pope against the statement.

(Is the Pope Catholic? Some American bishops might have their doubts. And so much for rendering unto Caesar….)

The coverage of this vote, in an effort to explain to laypeople (and Jews) the significance of the Eucharist, frequently mentions the belief of devout Catholics that, when they eat the cracker and drink the wine, the Communion comestibles are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

So, if I understand this correctly, Catholics believe that supporting a woman’s right to choose an abortion is a mortal sin, but they’re perfectly OK with cannibalism. And not for nothing, but these folks have also been eating Jesus for some 2000 years now. How much flesh and blood did the man have?

*****

On Wednesday, June 23, and Thursday, June 24, the front page of the New York Times featured stories about the New York City mayor's race, Supreme Court decisions, the ongoing deterioration of American democracy at the hands of revanchist Republicans. . . and Britney Spears' attempts to free herself from a conservatorship.

Now, I have nothing against Britney Spears.  I've never particularly cared for her music, but as far as I know, Britney's never hurt anybody or kicked puppies, and she's brought joy to millions through her catalogue of danceable bubblegum pop.  She’s a grown woman who, like all of us, has made some mistakes in judgment and haircare, but she certainly has a reasonable case that she should be free to manage her own affairs.

All that being said: IS THIS FRONT PAGE NEWS FOR THE PAPER OF RECORD? FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE DAYS?!?

This is why they hate us.

*****

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a high-school cheerleader who was disciplined by her school after she posted a vulgar Snapchat rant about not being selected for the varsity squad. Now that’s what I call team spirit!

Anyway, a good decision by the Supremes, but, frankly, this whole case falls under the heading of, "How is this even a question?"  To recap: The cheerleader, Brandi Levy, posted a mini-rant in which she cursed out the school, softball, cheer, and "everything." She didn't threaten anyone.  She didn't use any racial or ethnic slurs.  She wasn't on school property when she posted the screed--from her cellphone--on a Saturday.  And she posted it to her followers (about 250 of them) on Snapchat, a social media tool designed to be ephemeral: Snapchat messages automatically disappear after a few hours.

I'm glad the Justices found in her favor, but, much like the Britney Spears' conservatorship question, I can't help but think there are more important things for us to be spending time on.

One interesting note: The decision was not unanimous.  It was 8-1.  The "1" was Clarence Thomas, which I found a little surprising considering that he's "Mr. Originalist."  One would think this open-and-shut challenge to the First Amendment would have garnered his support.  Yet, no.  I can only assume that this speaks to Thomas's commitment to always be on the wrong side of every question.

*****

I’m tired of Facebook posts sharing news articles with headlines like, “Young Mother, 24, Dies of Covid Despite Being Fully Vaccinated.” I don’t doubt the veracity of the headlines—I’m not engaging in Trumpian shrieks of “Fake News.” Nor do I mean to belittle the anguish faced by the families and loved ones of those who die after vaccination. But I do question the motives of those who publish such “news” stories and those who share them online. These stories are the epitome of fearmongering and serve no purpose other than to generate clicks and undermine efforts to vaccinate as many people as possible—which, to be clear, is the only way we will ultimately end the pandemic.

Let’s consider a scary number: According to the CDC, as of April 2021, nearly SIX-THOUSAND fully vaccinated Americans had contracted Covid! Terrifying, no?

Well, actually no. Because as of today, over 150 million Americans have been fully vaccinated. So, even if we assume that the number of “breakthrough cases” (positive Covid diagnoses after vaccination) is now at 10,000–or, hell, let’s say it’s skyrocketed to 100,000–that would still mean that the positivity rate among the vaccinated is less than one in a thousand people. And the death rate is less than one-tenth of THAT. So another way of looking at all these “scary” headlines is that Covid vaccines are more than 99.99% effective in preventing death from Covid.

That’s a death-prevention-efficacy rate that rivals seatbelts!

The frustrating part of all this is that the people I see sharing these posts are usually intelligent, liberal types. They’re sharing the posts mainly in an effort to encourage people to remain vigilant even after vaccination. But another unavoidable consequence of such stories is that the vaccine resistant—the ignorant MAGAts who have decided that science is a liberal plot—get more ammunition to double-down on their hostility to vaccines: “See, vaccines don’t prevent Covid! It’s all a scam.”

Maybe we should tell the MAGAts that once the vaccine is injected, it transforms into the body and blood of Trump.