Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 211 Editor's Choice: 44
-
What I Hope You're Going to Learn About Mark Warner
[Read the article: "They say it all starts in Iowa"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember what George W. Bush said in 2000 about how he had been a Republican governor with a Democratic legislature and he'd accomplished this, that and the other, and the Molly Ivinses of the world pointed out to us that the Democrats he was working with weren't recognizable as Democrats to anyone outside Texas, and the governor didn't have too much power anyway?
Well, Governor Warner did all the things W. claimed to have done, as a real Democrat in an authentically Republican state. And he did it quietly, sharing credit, and through hard work and a firm grasp of policy.
Unfortunately, of course, the Democratic nomination process is more of a contest in political purity, about position papers about things that are never going to happen, rather than a test of who is best able to run the country. This is more of a shame now, in these parlous times, when we've learned the last five years how terrible it is to have a man woefully unprepared to face an uncertain future. The key is not to mouth that you want to repeal Taft-Hartley, which ain't gonna happen, but how you will operate in a country increasingly divided and polarized. Read Mark's comments about 9/11, and the way he simply went ahead and gave Virginia (which, after all, had been attacked on 9/11) many of the recommendations of the 9/11 report without waiting for Washington to get its act together. That's governing, man.
When Mark says he's not decided about running, take him at his word. This is a man who never practiced law for a single day after a Harvard education. He's knows how to take the road not taken. I would like to think, though, that if he decides not to run it will be the country's loss far more than his or his family's.
-
Only One Medium is Right for TO
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Grand opera.
Can't you see it now.
Act One: TO in SF. It starts with him learning at the feet of the great Jerry Rice, a duet with Rice, then Rice leaving. A wonderful scene in colorful San Francisco where he starts to believe that Jeff Garcia, the only person dressed in "normal" clothes, must be gay. At the end of the act, the entrance of the villain Drew Rosenhaus. Egged on by Drew, TO sings the aria, "I Ain't Going to Baltimore".
Act Two: TO in PHI. Begins with a reprise of "I Ain't Going to Baltimore", followed by Drew's entrance with the news that TO is going to Philly. Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb sing a duet about their excitement that TO is coming, "Now We're Off to the Super Bowl." Staged plays from the 2004 season, ending with the whole team singing "Now We're Off to the Super Bowl", only to have TO get injured while they are singing. Reid, McNabb and Drew all sing about their fears that the team will not make the Super Bowl without TO. TO then sings a lonely song about his Rehab, followed by the team coming in and reprising "Now We're Off to the Super Bowl" again. TO and McNabb sing a duet during the Super Bowl with TO getting increasingly stronger and McNabb weaker. Drew and Reid then do a duet about the holdout. TO sings his criticism of McNabb, and McNabb and the entire team respond. The finale is TO's arbitration loss, ending with a weeping Drew vowing that TO will get his money.
Act Three: TO in Dallas. Bill Parcells sings the aria, "I don't know the player." TO winces in pain and takes pills. You can figure out the rest after the season.
-
The Media Always Picks on One Fact
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's face it, much of the media is lazy, and no one is more lazy than announcers for Fox Sports. Except maybe announcers for Fox News.
Interestingly, the one thing I didn't hear about the AL playoffs this year, even though we've heard enough about (a) Steinbrenner and firing managers and (b) that the Oakland/Detroit series is a rematch of the 1972 ALCS, is that all four teams in the playoffs share a distinction: they were all led to the playoffs at one time or another by Billy Martin. Minnesota in 1969, Detroit in 1972, New York in 1975-76 and Oakland in 1981. The only team he didn't take to the playoffs was Texas, but he improved them significantly, too.
Which segues into . . .
I agree with those who find 119 losses as far more significant than 100 losses. 100 losses means you need only to improve by 19 games reach .500, and as we've seen recently a near .500 record puts you in a playoff hunt. Improve 30 games from 100 lossses, and you're very likely to be in the playoffs. Improve 30 games from 119 losses and you're still under .500.
The story of the 1899 Cleveland Spiders, if memory serves, involved a team that was so financially weak in a league that was so corrupt that they were left to play to world's longest road trip for much of the year. Remembering how hard it was for the 1994 Mariners, after the Kingdome roof tiles fell, in their forlorn road trip for the last month of the season, imagine doing it with a bankrupt team, travelling by train, and playing in front of hostile crowds for half the season. The 1962 Mets were an expansion team in their first year. So the 2003 Tigers, who had literally no excuse, since they had a brand new stadium, a community that has long supported them and an owner with deep pockets, can reasonably be considered to have been the worst-managed franchise in history. That they could turn it around from that to where they are today in three years is pretty damn commendable. In fact, it's a story!