Sunday, February 28, 2016

Barbara Boxer for President



Yeah, I know it's too late and there's a 99% chance Hillary will be the Democratic nominee for president ( Bernie has about a 1% chance now after those Nevada and South Carolina results ), but hear me out; I've got a point to make.

Now that Donald Trump is ( remarkably ) the favorite to win the GOP nomination, I find myself worrying that the Democratic process to pick a nominee ( the process by which they pre-ordained Hillary as the nominee, and threw all their resources behind her ) is going to pick the wrong kind of candidate to run against Trump.  However, before we discuss the wrong kind of democratic candidate to run against Trump, let's discuss the right of candidate to run against Trump.

The best kind of candidate to beat Trump is actually no candidate.  If you polled all Americans on whether or not they wanted Donald Trump to be president, "No" would win in a landslide.  However, the opponent matters a lot here.  If Donald Trump was running for president against David Duke, Trump would win in a landslide, and all of Trumps fiercest liberal critics would line up early in the morning on Election Day to vote for Trump.

No, the Democrats can't run "nobody" for president, but they would have been a lot better off running a relatively anonymous politician, who isn't disliked by a large portion of the country.  Let's make no bones about it, Hillary is disliked, and not just by conservatives who always vote for the GOP anyway.  Just go to facebook and see what Bernie Sanders supporters have to say, and consider that a certain percentage of them will stay home in November if Bernie is not on the ballot.  Also consider all the undecided moderates who are not big fans of Hillary.  Trump's certainly unpopular, but so is Hillary.  She's a little bit less hated than The Donald, but the margin between Trump's unfavorable ratings and Hillary's unfavorable ratings isn't enough to allay my fears about November.

This is where Barbara Boxer comes in ( or would come in, if it wasn't too late, which it is ).  Barbara Boxer has been serving in the Senate for more than 23 years, and I really only know two things about her.

1) She was one of the two women elected to the U.S. Senate from California in 1992.
2) She's not Dianne Feinstein.

I don't say this to diminish Barbara Boxer's career.  I'm sure she's done a lot of fine work in the Senate since January 1993, but unlike some people ( I'm looking at you Chuck Schumer ) she's not on TV every 5 minutes talking about it.  My point is that if a person like me ( who writes political blog posts for fun ) can't tell you much about Barbara Boxer, she hasn't been in the spotlight too much.

And for a Trump-vs-DEM match-up in November, having somebody who is not too famous on the "DEM" side of that match-up is actually a good thing.

Anyway, it's too late to do anything now, but it's something that might be fun thinking about ( in a masochistic way ) as you pull your hair out worrying about Hillary's unfavorable ratings over the next 8+ months.

Rich

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Things I Used to Believe

When I was a child, I believed the following things ...

Age 4: Mommies stayed home and Daddies went to work.
Age 4: All doctors were men and all nurses were women.  Women couldn't be doctors.
Age 7: That it would be best if somebody other than Bella Abzug won the race for New York mayor, because running a government was a man's job.

Age 4: It was cool when cowboys shot Indians.
Age 4: The only "Indians" in the world were the people who wore feather headdresses in the Americas.
Age 4: All "Indians" who has not yet been shot by cowboys still wore the feather headdresses ( just like the crying "Indian" in that pollution commercial ).

Age 4: It was OK to start my writing career by writing a war story ( which I titled "Men at War" ) about American soldiers killing Japanese soldiers with authentic Japanese names like "Private Choo Choo" and "Private Chee Chee."
( If I could find this story, I'd post a picture of it, but alas, I think it has been lost to the ages.  To be fair, this probably wasn't an example of my childhood racism.  I think I had learned about World War II, and had decided to write a story about the USA fighting Japan.  Yeah, the names I choose for the Japanese guys were really questionable, but I probably did not know any real Japanese names.  Anyway, what 4-year old white kid didn't have fantasies about killing Asian people? )

Age 5: The "Ancient Chinese Secret" Calgon commercial was in no way racist.
Age 5: The crows in Dumbo were in no way racist.
Age 6: The depiction of Buckwheat in the The Little Rascals was in no way racist.
Age 8: "The Mandarin" character from Iron Man comics/cartoons was in no way racist.
Age 10: The "Ming the Merciless" character played by Max von Sydow in the Flash Gordon movie was in no way racist.

Age 13: Michael Jackson and Boy George were both straight.  I though they were cool, so I didn't want them to be gay.  I also thought Paul Lynde and Liberace were straight, because I always wanted to think the best of people.  I didn't want to think that anyone was gay, because being gay was bad.  Being gay was very bad.

Age 13: It made perfect sense for the USA to commit resources to building a space defense system to shoot down Soviet Nuclear weapons.
Age 14: Ronald Reagan was the most awesome president ever.

Yeah, so the child version of me was pretty much a future Tea Party member in the making and would have loved a lot of what Donald Trump has been saying.  Of course, the world has changed a lot since I was a kid, and more importantly, I've changed.

My point here is that I think a lot of the people who love Trump really haven't grown up.  A lot of us grew up a culture full or sexism, racism, and homophobia, but most of us grow up, learn about the world, and realize that our childhood views were idiotic.  These people didn't ...


Rich

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Liberals for Trump


OK, so before you think I've lost my mind, I do not want Donald Trump to be president.  However, I do want him to win the Republican nomination.

I'm sure some of you can guess the reason why.  I believe that Trump is the least electable of the GOP candidates competing for the nomination.  To put in terms Trump would understand ...
If Trump is the GOP nominee, the Democratic victory will be HUGE in November.
Trump will be a DISASTER for the Republican party.

Of course, not all liberals feel that way.  Lots of liberals are disgusted by Trump and wish he'd just go away ( I'm actually disgusted by Trump too, but I want him to stick around long enough to lay waste to the Republican party ).  Some of these liberals are friends of mine.  I discussed the issue of Trump's candidacy with two of these friends in person few weeks and on facebook about a week ago.  I was thinking of sending them a facebook response to make the case that all liberals should be rooting for Trump to be the GOP nominee, but I decided the write a blog post instead.

Let me start by addressing one of the primary concerns expressed by one of my friends.  This friend wrote ...

"Trump's candidacy is creating and environment that encourages not only hate speech, but outright hate crimes, and real people are getting hurt."

I can't disagree that Trump's candidacy creates an environment more conducive to hate speech and hate crimes, but I believe this negative effect is ....
1) far smaller than most people think it is.
2) several orders of magnitude smaller than the negative effect a Republican presidency would have.

Every person is influenced by their environment, and the media is part of that environment, so I'd never try to argue that the garbage Trump spews doesn't have any effect on people.  However, I think we give Trump far too much "credit" when we claim that he's going to make violent racist people act significantly more violent and racist.

Conservatives have been claiming for years that violent videos games ( "You can't blame the guns for the deaths of all those kids Johnny killed at his school.  This is all the fault of that Grand Theft Auto video game he was playing." ) make kids more violent and that popular music corrupts our youth ( be it Elvis and his suggestive hips, "satanic" heavy metal, or rap songs like "Fuck the Police" and "Cop Killer". ).

Liberals have correctly pointed out that conservatives are full a crap when it come to their views about video games and music.  You can never say with certainly that the media has zero influence, but ...
1) Harris and Klebold probably would have done something terrible at Columbine even if video games had never been invented.
2) The sexual revolution of the 60s happens with or without Elvis's suggestive hips.
3) Most cop killers never listened to "Cop Killer" and 99.9999% of people who listen to "Cop Killer"  will never kill a cop.

Just as you can argue that video games and music are not responsible for the level of violence in our society, you can argue that Trump's rhetoric will not have a significant influence on hate crimes.  Does he have some influence?  Yes.  Is it a large influence?  No.  The kind of person who would commit a hate crime was conditioned to be a hateful violent bigot long before Trump ever threw his hat in the ring.  Dylan Roof didn't need a Trump to inspire him; a legacy of institutional racism in the South was enough inspiration.

( Just in case somebody wants to make the ridiculous argument that Dylan Roof was inspired by Trump, I do acknowledge that the Charleston Church Massacre did happen one day after Trump announced his candidacy.  However, Trump's candidacy was considered to be a joke rather than a real cultural force after the first day, and even if Roof happened to notice a news story about Trump's candidacy when he took a break from all the racists web sites he was spending time on, there is no way Trump's racists comments about Mexican immigrants had even one millionth of the effect on Roof as that the racist web sites did. )

OK, but let's assume for a moment that Trump's influence will be much greater than I'm assuming it will be.  Let's assume there is a significant  increase in hate crimes, and a few people even die as a result of those crimes.

That would be tragic, but nowhere near as tragic as a Republican presidency.  If the GOP takes control of the White House in 2017, a very large number of people will be hurt and lot more than a few people will die.  You might think I'm being sensationalist, but just look at what happened the last time a Republican was president,  Thousands of American soldiers died in a Middle East quagmire we never should have entered and many more innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed as collateral damage ( To be fair, Democrats have pulled the USA into pointless costly wars in the past ( Vietnam ), but if you listen to what Republican candidates have to say about Iran, Syria, and ISIS, you can't help but conclude that the USA is far more likely to send troops to the Middle East if a Republican becomes president in 2017 than if a Democrat becomes president ).

Even if a victorious Republican presidential candidate avoids military misadventures while in office, I can still think of several other dangerous effects of a Republican presidency.

1) A Supreme Court with 2 to 4 more GOP-appointed conservatives will make decisions that will severely affect the health of women across the nation.  If they ever manage to overturn Roe v. Wade, some women will most certainly die.  It should also be noted that a GOP president will sign any anti-Planned Parenthood bill the GOP-controlled Congress wants to pass.

2) A conservative enough Supreme Court could potentially roll back some of the recent Marriage Equality decisions.  At the very least, a more conservative Supreme Court will rule in favor of all "religious liberty" claims that will make it easier for businesses and employers to discriminate against LGBT people.  A GOP-stacked Supreme Court could legitimize all sorts of discrimination against both LGBT people and women for decades.  I think those effects will be far more damaging that any Donald Trump inspired hate crimes over the next 9 months.

3) A Republican president could help facilitate the gutting of both the FDA and the EPA.  This will lead to a huge number of additional deaths from cancer as well as the occasional tragedy ( like Flint ) due to lax regulations.

4) A Republican president could sign several policies into law which would be disastrous for the poor.   Foods stamps could be cut, welfare could be cut, unemployment benefits could be cut, family leave policies that help new parents could be changed, the minimum wage would be kept ridiculously low, the National School Lunch Program could lose funding ( Remember that the Reagan administration tried to cut school lunch expenses by classifying condiments like relish as a vegetable serving. ).   I'm not saying a Republican president will do all these things.  Congress has a big say in this of course, and even a GOP-controlled Congress would have trouble getting a filibuster-proof super-majority to do the most radical stuff.   However, there is no denying that a Republican President is far more likely to implement policies that will hurt the poor than a Democratic president.  Let's face it, Republicans are more more likely than Democrats to ignore poverty, and ignoring poverty while poor children go hungry and crime runs rampart in communities without hope will hurt poor minority communities far more than than any hate crimes Trump supporters could dream up.

5) Oh, and I almost forgot about Obamacare.  The anti-Obamacare policies of a Republican president could make millions of people lose their health care.  This may not be as dramatic as a Trump-inspired hate crime, but lack of healthcare will kill far more people than any Trump inspired hate.

So, with all that in mind, I don't know why a liberal would rather face the risk of a GOP presidency rather than the risk of Trump-inspired hate crimes unless they believe ...

1) Trump has zero chance of actually winning the GOP nomination and his attacks the other GOP contenders will not do lasting damage to them.

2) there's nearly a 100% chance Hillary or Bernie will win in November regardless of the who the GOP nominee is.

3) Donald Trump has just as good a chance of winning in November as all the other GOP candidates who might win the nomination.

If any of the 3 statements were actually true, I'd want Trump to go away immediately, just like lots of other liberals do.  However, none of the statements above are remotely true.  The poll numbers cited in this recent article show both #2 and #3 above are false.  The polls suggest that Hillary or Bernie would have a tight race against either Rubio or Cruz, but would easily defeat Trump.

Even if you think the GOP establishment will never let Trump win the GOP nomination, his continued presence in the GOP race will certainly damage the other GOP candidates.  We already have proof that he can destroy a viable GOP presidential contender.  Back in mid-2015, Bush was polling even with Hillary in some national polls, and now he's got no chance be on the ballot in November even if Trump disappeared off the face of the Earth tomorrow.  Every time Trump attacks Rubio or Cruz, he helps the Democratic party.  I want Trump going after those guys for as long as possible, even if Trump doesn't wind up being the eventual GOP nominee.

I'll admit that I don't think Trump will be the GOP nominee, but I certainly want him to be, and I'll be rooting for him to do well in Iowa on Monday.

I'll close this post by considered one last argument against my position on Trump.  I know that some readers must be thinking "Rich, be careful what you wish for.  If Trump wins the GOP nomination and the presidency, you're going to feel really stupid about rooting for Trump in the GOP primaries."

Well, while I'll admit that there is a chance that GOP nominee Trump could be become President Trump ( at most a 5% chance ) , I don't think the idea of President Trump is significantly more scary than President Any_other_Republican.  Both President Trump and President Any_other_Repblican will rubber-stamp any bills approved by the GOP-controlled Congress and will appoint several conservative justices to the Supreme Court.  The only significant difference between President Trump and President Any_other_Republican would be the rhetoric, and President Trump would surely tone down his rhetoric to increase his chances of winning a general election in 2020.  So President Trump doesn't scare me much more than President Any_other_Republican, but candidate Any_other_Republican scares me much more that candidate Trump, because candidate Any_other_Republcan has a good chance ( roughly 50% ) of winning in November while candidate Trump does not.  I know rooting for Trump in any kind of election seems to be in violation of liberal principles, but the practical reality is that rooting against Trump in the GOP primary is rooting for Marco Rubio's presidential prospects to improve.  President Rubio would be a HUGE DISASTER, so I'll be one of Trumps biggest fans in the GOP race.

Rich

P.S. I finished writing this post very late on Saturday, January 29th, but didn't have time to proofread it before I went to bed.    I was out with my family until about 2:30 PM on on Sunday, so I didn't get a chance to revisit this blog post until Sunday afternoon.  In the interim, I started to imagine how some some of my liberal friends might respond to this post.  I feared that some of them might consider my position about Trump and hate crimes to be heartless and immoral.  While I made it clear that I found it unlikely that anyone would die as a result of Trump's rhetoric, I also coldly asserted that I thought the deaths of those who might be killed in Trump-inspired hate crimes would be more than made up for by the people who would be saved down the road by keeping a Republican out of the White House.  It occurred to me that my position is similar to the position most people take with presented with the classic "Trolley Problem" ethical dilemma.  Most people, when given a choice to pull a switch that will send a train down a track to hit one person will gladly do so when the alternative is to let the train continue on its current path and hit 5 people.  Of course, an argument could be made that my position regarding Trump-insprired hate crimes is more akin to the "fat man" variant of the "Trolley Problem" ( in which you have the option to push a fat man off a bridge and into the path of the train to save five people from being hit by the train ).  If you feel that way about my position, I won't hesitate to agree with you.  When it comes to politics, I'd be willing to push that fat man off the bridge every time.












Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The Sexism Awakens: Why Rey's great, but J.J. could have done better.



( WARNING: This post is basically nothing but SPOILERS for "Star Wars: The Force Awakens". )

After watching Star Wars : The Force Awakens ( which I'll just call TFA for the rest of this post ) opening weekend, I was curious to find out what other people thought about the film.  So, I headed over to the IMDB message board for TFA, and the first threads I noticed were full of people saying TFA had a "feminist agenda" and that Rey was a "Mary Sue".  I had no idea what a "Mary Sue" was, so I had to look it up.  According to Wikipedia, a "Mary Sue" is a term for a female "idealized fictional character, a young or low-rank person who saves the day through extraordinary abilities", but it seems like the term is mostly used online as a sexist term to describe any strong female character.   After reading all the hateful stuff on those message boards, I not only only felt embarrassed by my gender, but embarrassed to be a human being.

I think Rey's a tremendous character, I'm excited the story is centered around her, and I can't wait to see what happen's next in Episode 8.  That said, I think most defenses of Rey I've read do a disservice to her character and TFA by refusing to acknowledge any faults with her story arc or with TFA in general.

If we want to defend Rey and TFA against the sexists trolls who call her a "Mary Sue" and claim that TFA isn't a real Star Wars movie then we can't fail to acknowledge that there is something unusual about her character and about her story arc.  We can't say that her story arc is no more extraordinary than Luke's in A New Hope ( ANH ).  It's definitely a lot more extraordinary.  Only a few hours after she realizes she's Force-sensitive, she's doing thing with the Force that Luke couldn't have dreamed of doing until after he trained with Yoda.  I'm not saying this makes Rey's rapid Force proficiency unrealistic, because there are plenty of hints in the film that suggest Episode 8 will explain why she is such a unprecedented Force-prodigy, but I think we do have to acknowledge that the pace at which the Force awakens in her is unprecedented in the Star Wars Cinematic Universe.  If we fail to acknowledge that, the sexists trolls will just call us SJWs ( another term I learned since reading the IMBD TFA message boards ) who are defending Rey in a knee-jerk way without considering the facts.

So, I'm going to spend this post reviewing the parts of TFA that could be considered implausible, some which involve Rey, and some which don't.  I expect that most of the potentially implausible scenes in TFA will make sense after Episode 8*, but I fear that some are just examples of poor storytelling and will never be fixed ( particularly the Kylo/Finn battle ).

( * I should also note that I think it's often ( but not always ) a sign of bad storytelling when an author/writer/director gives us a confusing implausible scene with the implicit promise that all will be explained in the next book/movie.  I must have watched the 2nd Matrix movie about 20 times trying to construct a narrative that would explain everything that was said in the "Architect" scene.  I eventually constructed several narratives for the 3rd Matrix movie that might being able to reconcile the first 2 Matrix movies, but the 3rd Matrix movie wound up being a mess that made no sense at all.  Since then, I've just pretended that the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies never happened.  So forgive me if I'm suspicious of any confusing TFA scenes that J.J. might not explain to us until Episodes 8 and 9. )

Let me get all the Rey stuff out of the way first, starting with the Force stuff.  The first thing I'll note is that the Force is, for the lack of a better term, magic.  Everything about the idea of people moving things with their minds and controlling the minds of others is essentially unrealistic.  Clearly, we need to accept that the Force exists in the Star Wars Cinematic Universe, but in accepting that it exists, we also need to accept that the Force is a magical thing that regular rules of logic do not necessarily apply to.  So, there's really no rule that says Rey couldn't be extremely strong in the Force without any formal training ( much stronger than Luke or any other Force newbie we've encountered in the previous films ).  However, it has been established in the films that Jedi are generally trained starting at a very young age, and it was even mentioned in The Phantom Menace that young Anikan was "too old" to begin Jedi training.  So, while I don't know if a magical power like the Force can have any unbreakable rules, it does seem to be well-established in the Star Wars Cinematic Universe that it would be extremely unusual for somebody as old as Rey to develop Force powers as quickly as she did in TFA.  Still, there are enough hints in the film that Rey has been trained before, so for now I'm going to assume she received Jedi training as a young child, her memories of those childhood years have been suppressed or repressed, and the events of TFA awakened Force powers she had developed many years ago.  So, I'm fine with all Rey Force stuff, assuming we are all right about Rey having prior training.  If we are not right about her prior training, J.J.'s going to have some 'splainin' to do.

The next Rey-centric thing I'd like to explore is what I'm going to call the "Magical Mechanic Syndrome".  Over the last 30+ years, movies and TV shows have been plagued by what I'll call "Magical Hacker Syndrome".  It seems that movies and TV shows often have a magical hacker that can break into a system instantly whenever the plot demands it.  Whether it was Mathew Broderick in War Games,  KITT doing impossible things like unlocking door with regular mechanical locks, Penny doing all sorts of impossible things with her Computer Book in the non-wired world of the 80's, or hackers breaking into systems instantly by doing a "SEND SPIKE" in GoldenEye, it always bothered my computer-geek sensibilities that movies/TV have always made hacking seem so easy.  In the same way, I've got to imagine that real mechanics are insulted by how Rey can solve mechanical problems almost instantly.  I know the film establishes that Rey is a scavenger who has lots of experience with mechanic devices, but even an expert mechanic should not be able to diagnose and fix mechanical issues as quickly as she did in this movie.  It's one thing to be able to recognize every mechanical part, and understand how they work together in general ( which I'm going to assume Rey has the ability to do ); it's quite another thing to walk into a ship you've never been inside before, and almost instantly diagnose the mechanical problems the ship has and fix them all within a few minutes ( which Rey does after entering the Millennium Falcon ).  She was so proficient inside the Millennium Falcon, it made me wonder if she had ever been in there before.  However, as a scavenger, you would think any time she spent in the Falcon would have been spent stripping it clean, in which case, the Falcon would not be fit for flight.  I really like Rey and TFA, so I've been racking my brain trying to think of reasons why she might be familiar with the Falcon ( because it would have been impossible for any mechanic to fix any complex machine that quickly after seeing it for the first time ).  She did say it was "garbage" before she and Finn ran to it, so there is a chance her "garbage" comment indicates that she had already seen the "garbage"-y innards of the ship.  Perhaps the scavenging boss Unkar Plutt ( the guy who keeps short-changing Rey for the parts she brings him ), had hired Rey to refurbish the Falcon with parts she had scavenged so he could sell it to the highest bidder ( After all, Plutt does yell "That's my ship" when Rey flies off with the Falcon ).

Yeah, let's go with that - let's assume she'd worked on the Falcon for Plutt in the past.  That's the only thing that really makes sense, so I'm just going to believe that until somebody proves otherwise.  Still, that fact that I've got to construct a narrative to makes sense of Rey's almost instant repair of the Falcon is a storytelling failure on J.J.'s part.

( Jan 1, 2016 Update: I watched TFA a second time today.  It was clear from Rey's dialog inside the Falcon that she was aware of and probably participated in Plutt's modifications to the Falcon.  At one point she told Han that she disagreed with one of the modifications Plutt had made.  Thus, it's almost certain that she had worked on the Falcon before, so it makes perfect sense that she would know the mechanics of the modified Falcon even better than Han did. )

However, even if I construct a Plutt/Rey/Falcon narrative to make sense of the Falcon scenes, it still doesn't explain the other examples of Rey's magical mechanical abilities later in TFA.  She seems to know exactly what lever to manipulate to open a panel in a Starkiller Base wall, she is quickly able to manipulate a few compents in a wall to make a bunch of Starkiller Base doors open ( There's no chance she'd been at Starkiller Base before -  I doubt there is any chance Starkiller Base was using the same kind of components that were being used in the 30-year old Star Destroyer she was scavenging earlier in the film. ), and she seems to know what fuses in Han's large smuggling ship can be used to open and close doors ( The fact that she opened the wrong doors does add some realism, but not enough for me* ).  Part of me wants to believe that her mechanical abilities/experience combined with some kind of Force instinct gives her the ability to choose the right lever/button to activate, but once again, J.J.'s storytelling should not force me to invent my own narratives to make sense of the plot.  Also, the fact that she opened the wrong doors on Han's smuggling ship argues against my Force instinct theory.

( * I thought the scene where Rey opens the doors on Han's smuggling ship was the most unrealistic mechanical/engineering part of the movie, even though Rey opened the wrong doors.  Putting aside Rey's magical abikity to instantly figure out which fuses regulated power to the doors , it makes no sense that pulling fuses would open or close doors.  Both opening and closing the doors requires power, so if you cut off the power to a door by pulling a fuse, the door is likely to remain in the position it was in before you pulled the fuse.  Expecting the doors on Han's ship to open and close when a fuse is pulled is like expecting automatic garage door to open or close when you flip off the circuit breaker that controls the power to the doors.  I guess it is possible that the fuses Rey magically identified regulated the control signal to the doors and main power was still being supplied to the doors' motors, but if the control signal was interrupted to a door and the control system to that door wanted to return the door to a default position, it would make the most sense if the default position for the door was closed and locked.  In any case, I'm sure I'm probably nit-picking too much here.  I know that Star Wars is more of a space fantasy rather than science fiction, and I guess I shouldn't expect too much technical accuracy from a series that maintains that a parsec is a unit of time.   Still as a person who spent 5 years studying Mechanical Engineering in school, this stuff bothers me. )

In any case. I'll let the mechanical issues slide for now, because it is not a core part of the film.  Still, I think it's bad storytelling on J.J's part, because he could have found ways to show us Rey was an expert mechanic without breaking the rules of common sense.  I guess J.J. and his team are no more guilty than than other movie/TV writers and directors.  In addition to magical hackers, and magical mechanics, movies and TV are full of magical doctors, magical lawyers, magical scientists, magical detectives, and magical politicians.  I don't like it, but these magical short-cuts are always going to be a part of movies and TV.

The last Rey issue that needs to be addressed is the criticism that she was portrayed as being too good of a pilot.  I don't have any problem with her piloting skills at all.  Admittedly, we are only working with a sample size of two people, but what we've seen from Anakin and Luke suggest that ...
1) People who are strong in the Force are great pilots.
2) People with Skywalker blood are great pilots.

Well, we already know that Rey is extremely strong in the Force and many believe that she is a Skywalker.  There's no reason to believe she wouldn't be a great pilot if she had enough experience flying a skip.  My only small quibble with TFA is that we don't get any information about how she learned to fly a ship.  Maybe flying a ship is just like driving a car is the Star Wars Cinematic Universe, and almost everyone is trained in the basics of flying a ship.  However, part of me wonders where she had the opportunity to pilot a ship prior to taking the controls of the Falcon.  We leaned in ANH that Luke used to "bullseye womp rats" in his "T-16" in "Beggar's Canyon", which fortuitously enough, was just the kind of training needed to hit a target in a Death Star trench.  I've always assumed that Luke's Uncle Owen either bought Luke the T-16 or gave Luke enough of an allowance for his farm work so Luke could buy the T-16 himself.  It's not clear if Rey ever had enough money to buy a ship considering she was poor enough to be living in a discarded AT-AT.  Perhaps she picked up flying experience running missions for Plutt ( If Plutt needed somebody to fly missions for him in his scavenger community, Rey would be the best choice, because as somebody with no desire to leave her home on Jakku , she could always be counted on to return back to the community with Plutt's ships.  I could be wrong, but when we see that flashback of young Rey watching that spaceship ( presumably carrying one or both or her parents) leave Jakku, I think the hand that is grabbing her belongs to Plutt.  If that's true, Plutt knows Rey is likely to stick around and not fly off with one of his ships. ), but it would be nice to eventually get some background on Rey's flying experience just like ANH gave us tidbits about Luke's background as a pilot.

( January 1, 2016 Update:  According to Rey's Survival Guide, Rey learned to fly using a Y-wing simulator.




)


So, I hope by now I've debunked the Rey "Mary Sue" stuff while acknowledging some of the flaws in J.J's storytelling.  However, the storytelling issues related to Rey are nothing compared the storytelling issue with some other parts of the movie.  I'll start with the some of the my smaller quibbles first before getting to the big one.

- A 3rd Death Star?  Really?  Oh, it's a "Starkiller Base", is it?  Sure - keep telling yourself that.  You know the Death Star thing is a problem for the Star Wars franchise when the rebels in TFA  start comparing the size of Starkiller Base to the size of the Death Star and you find yourself thinking "Are they talking about the Death Star in the original Star Wars or the other Death Star in Return of the Jedi?

- I still haven't decided if Poe leaving the secret map with BB-8 at the start of TFA is an homage to the Leia/R2-D2 secret plans moment at the start of ANH or just a rip-off of it.

- All serious Star Wars fans know Harrison Ford has wanted Han to die since Empire, so we all assumed Ford would only agree to appear in TFA if the script called for Han to be killed off in it.  So, as soon as Han stepped onto the walkway with Kylo, we knew Kylo was going to kill him.  Ideally, that Han/Kylo moment should have been one of the more emotional/shocking moments of the film, but no true Star Wars fan was shocked by it, and Han and Kylo didn't interact enough to draw me in emotionally before Han was killed.  I know J.J. was in a tough spot accommodating Ford's wishes, but he could have handled this pivotal scene better.

OK, so now let's get to my biggest issue - Kylo Ren.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kylo is a great character and Adam Driver was great in the role, but the movie was inconsistent about Klyo's mastery of the Force, and that's a pretty big deal considering that Kylo is the primary villain in the film.  When we first see Kylo, he's stopping a blaster bolt with his mind.  This led me to believe he was extremely powerful in the Force, and would be an very formidable foe for our heroes.  In all 6 previous Star Wars films, we had never seen any Jedi or Sith stop a blaster bolt with their mind.  Not Obi Wan, not Luke, not Anakin/Vader, not Darth Maul, not Windu, not Dooku, not Yoda, not Palpatine, not anybody.  Every Jedi/Sith needed to deflect a blaster bolt with a lightsaber rather than stop the bolt in mid-flight.  So, my first impression of Kylo Ren was "This guy is more powerful in the Force than any Star Wars character I've ever seen."  That's why it made made no sense at the end of movie when he had a fight with Finn that lasted more than one second.

I don't care that Kylo had been shot in the side by Chewbacca;  I don't care how much pain he was in or how much blood he was losing or how conflicted he felt about just murdering his father.  He has just effortlessly Force-thrown strong-in-the-Force Rey up against a tree.  He could have done that to Finn over and over again.  Considering  he was strong enough in the Force to stop a blaster bolt  and toss Rey he probably could have used the Force to break Finn's neck instantly.  There was no reason for Finn to engage Finn in lightsaber duel.  He engaged Rey in a lightsaber duel because his goal was to subdue her and turn her to the dark side rather than kill her, but there was no reason for him to engage Finn in a fair fight.  Finn should have been killed instantly.

Now don't get me wrong; I absolutely love Finn's character and I don't want him to die in any of the new films, but if you don't want a character to to die, you shouldn't put him is situation in which it is laughably ridiculous that he would survive.  The entire Kylo/Finn thing is a huge storytelling failure on J.J.'s part and I don't think anything can be done in the next 2 films to fix this.

What's most frustrating is that the Kylo stuff would have been be such an easy thing to fix.  If you just remove the Kylo-freezes-a-blaster-bolt thing and have Kylo dismissively thrown Finn into a tree ( in  a non-fatal way )  before engaging Rey, the Kylo portion of the movie would be perfect.  I like the petulant poser Kylo who can't control his emotions or his Force powers properly.  J.J. should have just stuck with that and shouldn't have tried to wow us with the blaster bolt stuff ( I'll admit, I was wowed by the blaster blot stuff, but it just doesn't fit with the portrayal of Kylo in the rest of the film ).

All my criticisms aside, I loved this movie and I can't wait to see it again.  I thought everything up to point where Rey and Finn entered the Falcon was the best start to a Star Wars film I'd ever seen.  The chemistry between Finn and Rey was fantastic.  The chemistry between Finn and Poe was fantastic.   The chemistry between BB-8 and everybody was fantastic.  The humor was amazing - there was more humor in the first 30 minutest of TFA than the 3 prequels combined.  The root of my disappointment with TFA is that the rest of TFA did not live up to the fantastic start.  There was point in the early part of the film where I was absolutely giddy - more giddy than I had been in a theater for more than 30 years.  I was giddy with the hope that this Star Wars film would be as great as The Empire Strikes Back or as great as A New Hope.  In the end, I think TFA was as good as Return of the Jedi, which still makes it a worthy successor to the original trilogy.  It was one hell of a film, but I just wish it could have been a little bit better.

Rich







Sunday, November 29, 2015

Cuckoo Clock



It's time for a mea culpa.  I was wrong - twice.

I was wrong back when the Ahmed clock story broke.  I believed he was a gifted kid who designed his own clock and only took it to school to show it off to his science teacher.  I liked every pro-Ahmed post I saw on facebook including the posts that announced he'd been invited to the White House to show off his clock.  I was wrong to accept the Ahmed clock story at face value.

I was wrong a second time when I didn't criticize Ahmed and his family a few months ago.  Shortly after the Ahmed clock story broke, it became clear to me that Ahmed and his family had engaged in a sting operation to catch islamophobes and racists.  The people that were caught by this sting certainly were islamophobes and racists, but that didn't make the entrapment Ahmed's family engaged in right.  This made me unconformable, but I didn't post anything on social media about it.  My only defense is that I didn't want to do anything that would make it look like I was defending the racists* involved in the Ahmed  clock incident, and while I strongly disagreed with the method used by Ahmed's family, I wasn't going to raise a big stink about a couple of racists being publicly shamed.

* From this point forward in this post, I'm just going to use the term "racists" as shorthand for "islamophobic racists".  I think racism and islamophobia are often two side of the same coin anyway, and in the Ahmed clock incident I doubt very much that a white muslim would have been arrested for doing the same thing Ahmed did.

However, it was wrong of me not to speak out about this, a point that was driven home in my mind by the news that Ahmed's family is demanding $15 million dollars from Irving, Texas and its independent school district.  If I had even the smallest doubt about the motives of Ahmed's family, they were washed away by the news of the $15 million demand.

Now, before I go on, let me make something absolutely clear to my readers - the vast majority of whom are as liberal as I am.  I am in no way defending the actions of the teachers/administrators in Ahmed's school or the Irving police.  The fact that Ahmed wound up being led away in handcuffs is absolutely ridiculous.   While I actually do believe that the teacher who fell for Ahmed's sting operation sincerely had an irrational fear  that the clock might be a bomb, it's clear that the administrators of the school and the police did not think the clock was a bomb.  The school was not evacuated, the bomb squad was not called in, and the police drove Ahmed and his clock to the police station.  It seems that nobody in any position of authority thought that this clock was threat.  Perhaps they thought Ahmed was trying to play a trick on them ( which I believe he was ) and wanted to make an example out of him, but they made an example out of him for racists reasons.  The school administrators  and police definitely would not have reacted this way if he was a white non-muslim kid, and they probably would not have reacted this way even if he was a white muslim kid.  It was definitely wrong for the school administrators and the police to react the way they did, and their reaction underscored the problems this nation has with racism and islamophobia.  That being said, Ahmed and his family were wrong to set a trap for the racists and islamaphobes.

Because there's no way getting around it - this was a trap.

Oh, I didn't realize it at first.  At first, I reacted the way most liberals did; I was excited by the Ahmed clock story.  It's a little embarrassing to admit this, because nobody should ever feel happy about story that includes an innocent kid being hauled off to jail, but this story actually filled me with glee.  It had everything that liberals love; it was like raw meat being thrown to a bunch of lions.  It had islamophobia.  It had racist islamophobia!  In the south.  In Texas!  To top it all off, it had racist cops persecuting a member of an ethnic and religious minority.   Seriously, in the minds of most liberals at the time, this story was awesome.  It confirmed a lot of liberal folk's negative assumptions about the south, about Texas, and about racism in policing.  And then the President invited him to the White House, Mark Zuckerberg invited him to facebook, and MIT practically told him they had a spot waiting for him.  We all loved this - we all were pumped up to #StandWithAhmed and show all those racists how wrong they were.

And while the racists certainly were wrong, most of us ( including me ) were too blinded by our excitement about the story to see that Amhed's narrative was a lie.  It's pretty easy to see that Ahmed wasn't an innocent kid who just wanted to to impress his science teacher.  All you you really need to see the truth is the video below and some common sense.



I had initially believed that Ahmed had hooked up circuits by hand to create his own clock.  While this certainly wouldn't have qualified as an "invention" ( which is what Ahmed called his clock ), it would have been an impressive project that any 14-year-old should have been proud to show his science teacher.

However, that's not what Ahmed did.  As the video above shows, his clock "invention" was simply the result of taking the innards of a store-bought clock out of its casing and mounting them in a pencil case shaped like a briefcase.  This isn't a project any kid should have been proud to show a science teacher.  All you are really showing off by doing this project is your ability to use a screwdriver.  If I was a science teacher and a kid presented this clock to me as an original project, I would give that kid a failing grade.  There's really no chance in hell that Ahmed was bringing that clock to school to impress his science teacher.  There's was nothing impressive about that clock project.  He took a perfectly good clock and made it worse.  If you walked around with that pencil case clock open, the innards of the clock would dangle out and be exposed to damage, and if you closed the case to protect the innards, there's no way you could read the display of the clock.

So, if you accept that there's no way Ahmed brought that shitty clock project to school to impress his science teacher, you needed to ask yourself why he really brought it to school.  You also have to ask yourself why he mounted the clock in a pencil case that looked like a briefcase.  I've heard a lot a liberals protest that the clock was mounted in a pencil case, but not a briefcase, but c'mon, that pencil case looks like a little briefcase.  I've seen a lot a pencil cases in my day, and none of them looked as much like a briefcase as the pencil case used for Ahmed's clock.  If you don't think that Ahmed chose a pencil case that looked like a briefcase for a reason, you're just being naive.  After Ahmed showed the science teacher the clock, he bought out the clock in other classes after that.  The teacher who feared the clock was a bomb said she noticed the clocked because it beeped.  Why was Ahmed taking the clock out in every class?  Why did he have the clock turned on at all ( with the alarm ready to beep, apparently ) after he was done with science class.  My common sense tells me he was fishing - fishing for racists.  It took a while, but eventually he hooked one, and the rest is history.

Earlier in the is post I had accused Ahmed and his family of being the type of people who would run a sting operation.  Now that I've thought about it a bit while writing this post, I've decide that they are worse than that.   They're con men.  They conned almost all of us into believing that Ahmed is just some innocent young genius who wanted to impress his science teacher, and now they are going to try to con a jury into giving them $15 million.  I hope this con doesn't work, and liberals who care about fairness and justice should speak out against this con.  If Ahmed's family wins $15 millions dollars in a lawsuit, I think it would be an insult to all the truly innocent victims of racism in this country's history.

Racism and Islamaphobia are big problems.  Lots of people have people have harmed by it and deserve compensation.  If class-action lawsuit awarded a trillion dollars to victims of racism in this country, I'd have no problem with it - as long as that little con man Ahmed doesn't get a cent.

Rich

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Top 10 Mets Home Runs



I though about writing this post back in early August.  When Wilmer Flores hit his dramatic home run against the Washington Nationals on July 31st, it made me reflect on the top home runs in Mets history.  I actually wrote down a preliminary top 10 list - a list I needed to crumple up and throw away after Daniel Murphy's exploits.  So, with the understanding that Murphy and the Mets might still add to this list over the next week, here is my list ( in chronological order ) of the top 10 Mets home runs of all time.

Pre-me Honorable Mention

Before moving on to the list, I should note this list only includes homers I actually saw.  It doesn't include any of the homers hit by the 1969 Mets which happened when I was in my mother's womb, or any of the homers hit by the 1973 Mets which happened when I was far more interested in Cookie Monster than the Mets.

However, it would be remiss of me to not mention Al Weis' game 5 home run in the 1969 World Series.  In addition to being used as a major plot device in the fine 2000 film "Frequency", this 7th-inning solo home run tied game 5 of the 1969 World Series at 3.  The "Miracle Mets" would go on to win that game 5-3 to win the World Series 4 games to 1 against a powerful Baltimore Orioles team.

Of course, the Mets were already leading that series 3 games to 1, and they did score 2 more runs in game 5 after Weis' homer, so I'm not 100% sure if this homer was as important as the other homers on this list below ( all of which happened when the Mets were either tied or trailing in a playoff series or pennant race, with the exception of a homer that actually won a playoff series ).  However, those Orioles ( who won 109 game in 1969, won the World Series in 1970, and lost the World Series in 1971 ) were a great team, and I'm sure all Mets fans were terrified of the prospect the Mets going back to Baltimore for game 6 and a potential game 7.  Of course, I wasn't there, so it's hard for me to give a fair verdict on Weis' homer.  I'll leave it to people older than me to decide if Weis' homer belongs on the top 10 list below.

Top 10 Mets Home Runs in Chronological Order

Darryl Strawberry, Game 3, 1986 NLCS

The Mets and Astros were tied 1 game apiece in the series with the nearly unbeatable Mike Scott looming as the Astros starter for game 4.  The Mets had been stymied by Astros southpaw Bob  Knepper for 5 innings and found themselves trailing 4-0 going into the bottom of the 6th.  Two hits and and error made it 4-1 that inning before Darryl Strawberry strode to the plate.  One mighty Strawberry cut later, the score was tied at 4.



Lenny Dykstra, Game 3,  1986 NLCS

Despite Strawberry's heroics earlier in the game, the Mets still found themselves trailing 5-4 going to the bottom of the 9th.  After Wally Backman reached on an infield hit and advanced to 2nd on a passed ball, Lenny Dykstra came to the plate with one out and did something he had only done before "in a Strat-O-Matic game against my little brother".



Lenny Dykstra, Game 3, 1986 World Series

Mets fans were shocked when the 108-win 1986 Mets lost the first 2 game of the 1986 World Series at Shea to the Boston Red Sox, and some Red Sox fans were talking sweep as the series headed back to Fenway for game 3.  Lenny Dykstra ended that talk with a lead-off home run to start game 3.



Todd Pratt, Game 4,  1999 NLDS

The Mets were winning this best of five series 2 games to 1, the game was tied at the time, and I still think the Mets would have won the series if Pratt had not homered, but a walk-off home to win a playoff series is still a walk-off home to win a playoff series.



Mike Piazza, Game 6, 1999 NLCS

This homer is nowhere near as well-remembered as another "homer" in that series, but in my mind, Piazza's game 6 homer was far more dramatic than Ventura's "Grand Slam Single" in game 5.  The Mets had rallied from a 3 games to none deficit in this series to take games 4 and 5 at Shea, but found themselves in a 5-0 early hole in game 6 at Turner field.  The were still trailing 7-3 in the top of the 7th when the Mets mounted a rally.  They had gotten 3 hits to make it 7-5 when Piazza hit a one-out 2-run home run  off future Hall-of-Famer John Smoltz to tie the game at 7.  I had thought all hope was lost when the Mets had trailed 5-0 after 5 innings, but now I thought the Mets were going to pull off the miracle by beating the the Braves in this game and then finishing off the shell-shocked Braves in game 7 ( I don't think the Braves would have recovered from losing via the "Grand Slam Single" in game 5 and then blowing a 5-0 6th-inning lead in game 6.  As Yankees fans can attest, this 90's Braves team wasn't exactly clutch, so if the Mets had won game 6, I think the Braves would have folded in game 7 ).  The Mets would have actually pulled off the miracle if they'd had clutch relievers.  John Franco blew an 8-7 lead in the bottom of the 8th and Armando Benitez blew a 9-8 lead in the bottom of the 10th.  However, neither Franco's or Benitez's failures were Piazza's fault.  He still hit one of great clutch home runs in Mets history.



Benny Agbayani, Game 3, 2000 NLDS

This is the only homer on the list that I experienced in-person.  My brother Craig and I were at Shea for this one, and there was a feeling of apprehension in the stands all game.  The best-of-five series was tied at one game apiece, we were facing a powerful Giants team led by Bonds/Kent, and we had a guy with a 5.06 ERA slated to pitch for us in game 4 ( Hey, nobody could have predicted that Bobby Jones would pitch a 1-hit shutout in game 4.  This guy had a 5.61 ERA in 1999 and hardly anybody was surprised when he went 8-19 with a 5.12 ERA in 2001.  Believe me, most Mets fan had written off game 4 and figured we needed to win games 3 and 5 to win this series.  To the 56,000+ Mets fans at Shea that day, game 3 was a must-win. ).

The Mets fell behind early 2-0.  We managed to tie the game by scratching out a run in the 6th and a run in the 8th, but after we tied the game, the Giants had men on base almost every single inning after that.

Top of the 9th:    Barry Bonds strikes out with a man on first.
Top of the 10th : Giants leave runners on 1st and 3rd but fail to score.
Top of the 11th:  Giants go down 1-2-3 for a change.
Top of the 12th:  Giants leave runners at 1st and 2nd but fail to score.
Top of the 13th:  Bonds pops out with runners on 1st and 2nd to end the inning.

By the bottom of the 13th inning, all of us in the stands at Shea that day felt emotionally exhausted, and we were beginning to feel like we were living on borrowed time.  Then, with one out in the bottom of the 13th, Benny Agbayani sent us all home happy.



I've witnessed a lot a great moments at Shea over the years.  I've seen Ed Kranepool and Darryl Strawberry hit walk-off homers to turn 9th-inning deficits into wins.  I was there when Gary Carter hit his opening day walk-off homer in front of a packed house in 1985, and I was there when Ray Knight hit a walk-off homer in front of a sold-out Shea on Fireworks Night in 1986.  I was even in the stadium when the Mets won the 2000 pennant.  However, I never experienced as much noise and joy at Shea Stadium as when Benny Agbayani hit that home run.  I still consider it to me the greatest sports moment I've witnessed in person.

Mike Piazza, September 21, 2001

This is probably the most famous home run in Mets history.  Everyone remembers that Piazza hit it in the first baseball game played after 9/11 in New York City, but few remember that it helped keep the Mets in the 2001 pennant race.  On the morning of August 19th, the Mets were 13.5 behind the Braves in the standings, but they had cut the lead to 8 by the end of the day on September 10th, and 3 straight post-9/11 wins on the road had left them only 5.5 game behind the Braves on the morning of September 21st.  It was still a long-shot that the Mets could catch the Braves, but winning the first game of a 3 game series with the Braves would be a good start.  The Mets trailed the first game of that series 2-1 in the bottom of the 8th, but Piazza's 2-run homer secured the victory and uplifted a city.  The Mets managed to win the next day, and were 3 outs away from getting within 2.5 of the Braves when Amando Benitez blew a 4-1 9th inning lead in the 3rd game of the series.  Once again, Piazza was not to blame for Benitez's failure.  Piazze deserved all the credit in the world for hitting a clutch home run that the city will never forget.



Wilmer Flores, July 31, 2015

I wrote about this home run in detail here.  All that is left to say is that this Flores homer was the turning point in the 2015 season and just might be a turning point for the franchise.



Daniel Murphy, Game 1, 2015 NLDS

Mets fans knew it was going to be tough to beat the Dodgers duo of Clayton Kershaw and Zack Greinke in the 2015 NLCS.  We had confidence that Jacob deGrom would pitch great in game 1, but we were not sure the Mets would be able to score against Kershaw.  Out doubts were erased when Daniel Murphy homered off Kershaw to lead off the 4th inning.  Murphy's homered reminded the Mets and their fans that Kershaw and Greinke were human.



Murphy hit that ball so hard that he branded the reverse image of his name on the ball.



Daniel Murphy, Game 5, 2015 NLDS

Mets fans wouldn't be getting ready to watch  the 2015 Mets/Royals World Series if Daniel Murphy hadn't won game 5 of the NLDS all by himself.  With the best of 5 series tied at 2 apiece the Mets' Jacob deGrom faced off against likely 2015 Cy Young Award winner Zack Greinke.  The Mets pitching held the Dodgers to 2 runs that night, but the Mets would not have scored any runs if not for Murphy.  He drove in a run with a 1st inning double, laid the groundwork for a 2nd run with a heads-up stolen base in the 4th, and put the Mets ahead for good with a home run off Greinke in the 6th.  The Mets pitchers certainly played a big role in the Mets the NLDS victory, but Murphy played the biggest role, and his game 5 home run was the biggest hit.



Honorable Mention

Darryl Strawberry, October 1, 1985

The Mets were trailing the Cardinals by 3 games with 6 games left in the 1985 season.  The first of those last 3 games were against the Cardinals in St. Louis.   They really needed to win all three games to have any chance of catching the Cardinals.  The first game of series was scoreless going into the top of the 11th when Strawberry hit a home run that would probably still be going if it had not hit a digital clock about 440 feet from home plate.  The Mets wound up losing the 3rd game of that series, and had to wait until 1986 to be champions, but I'll always remember that shot by Straw.



Darryl Strawberry, Game 5, 1986 NLCS

Game 5 of the 1986 NLCS matched Dwight Gooden verses Nolan Ryan.  The Mets eventually won this game 2-1 on a Gary Carter single in the bottom of the 12th, but this game never even gets to extra innings if Darryl Strawberry doesn't hit a home run off Nolan Ryan to the tie the game at 1 in the bottom of the 5th.  I couldn't find a video of this home run. but what you need to know about this day is that the infamous Shea Stadium winds were blowing in from right field.  The winds were blowing so hard that it was almost impossible to hit a home run to right field day.  Strawberry did though, by hitting a screaming line drive right down the right field line.

Edgardo Alfonzo, 2 homers, Game 1, 1999 NLDS

The 1999 wild card New York Mets were huge underdogs in the 1999 NLDS against the Randy Johnson-led Arizona Diamondbacks.  However, much like Daniel Murphy showed the Mets meant business by homering off Clayton Kershaw in game 1 of the 2015 NLDS, Edgardo Alfonso broke Johnson's aura of invincibility  by hitting a home run in the top of the 1st off Johnson.

( I wish I had video of this, but YouTube let me down on this one.  It was a really impressive home run;  he hit it over the center field fence which was 407 feet deep and 25 feet high. )

As great as that was, Alfonso wasn't done.  With the game tied 4-4 in the 9th, Alfonso hit a Grand Slam.



It's also worth noting that Alfonso hit a 2-run homer to open the scoring in the wildcard playoff game the Mets needed to win to get to the NLDS.  You could almost always count on Fonzie in the clutch.



Robin Ventura, Game 5, 1999 NLCS

Everyone remembers Ventura "Grand Slam Single" in the 1999 NLDS, and some might wonder why I included Piazza's game 6 NLCS home run and not Venturas "home run" ( technically not a home run because he was mobbed by his teammates after he rounded first base and never finished running the bases ).  The thing is, Ventura didn't need to hit a home run to win the game there - he didn't even need to get a hit.  Todd Pratt's ( there's that guy again ) bases loaded 15th-inning walk had already tied the game at 3, and considering there was only one out when Ventura came to the plate with the bases loaded, he only needed to hit an average outfield fly ball to win the game.  As soon as Ventura hit the ball, I knew it would be deep enough to score the runner from 3rd and win the game.  The fact that the ball went over the fence was just icing on the cake - but oh what delicious icing it was!



Mike Piazza, June 30, 2000

This 3-run 8th-inning homer was the exclamation point on a 10-run Mets rally which turned an 8-1 deficit into a 11-8 lead.  This was a home run that I should have seen in person, but didn't.  My brother Craig and I were at the game, but I had to get to work early the next day, and when the Mets fell way behind, I decided not to torture myself anymore and go home and get some sleep.  I'll always regret leaving, but I actually did see Piazza hit this home run on TV.   Right after "Mr. Clutch" Alfonso tied that game at 8 with a 2-out single, I turned on my TV at home.  I heard the Mets announcer scream that the game was tied at 8, and as I struggled to process this, Piazza ripped a 3-run homer over the left field wall.  About 10 seconds later, Craig called me to chide me for leaving the game ( I deserved it ).



The reason this home run is not on the top ten list is that the Mets wound up finishing second to the Braves that year anyway.  The Mets did wind up making it to the World Series via the wildcard route when the Cardinal beat the Braves in the NLDS ( while the Mets were beating the Giants in the other NLDS ) and the Mets beat the Cardinals in the NLCS, but the Mets of the late 90's and the early 00's never did manage to beat the Braves of that era.

Daniel Murphy, Game 2, 2015 NLCS

The Mets won 1 of the NLCS against the Cubs, but the Cubs were counting on their ace Jake Arietta evening the series at one game apiece before it went back to Wrigley.  Murphy's home run off Arrieta in the 1st made the score 3-0 and paved the way for the Mets' NLCS sweep



Rich

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Shop-ers




Sunday morning, I noticed a post on Barack Obama's facebook page featuring the photo above of Barack and his mother.  While browsing the comments on the post, I notice something disturbing that I had never been aware of before.  I found that in addition to the birthers who insist Barack Obama was born in Kenya, there are also people who insists that any photo of Barack Obama with a white relative must be photoshopped ( admittedly, there is probably a huge overlap between those people and the birthers ).

For the purposes of this post, I'll call these people "shop-ers".  The fact that these shop-ers exists at all, is more disturbing to me than the existence of the birthers, the truthers, any of those other crazy conspiracy nuts out there.  I don't know any shop-ers ( thank god ), so I don't know what their motivations are, but I've got to imagine that the shop-ers are white racists who can't conceive that the black President they hate could be half white.  So, they make up ridiculous theories to "prove" that Obama does not have any white ancestry at all.  For example, see the photo below; do you see anything wrong with it?


Of course you don't, because there's nothing wrong with it.  It's just a nice photo of young Barack with his mom, his grandfather, and his sister.  However, to the shop-ers, the photo above is proof of something nefarious.  Shop-ers point to Obama's mother's right hand, the hand that is obscured by Obama's right arm.  To an ordinary person, the hand in the photo shows up being darker than the rest of her arm because the hand is clearly in a shadow.  To a shop-er, on the other hand, the "black" hand under Obama's arm is proof that this photo has been photoshopped.

The shop-ers are also not above photoshopping a real photo ( such as the photo of Obama with his grandparents below ) and claiming that the original photo was photoshopped.




This is all rather depressing, and it got me thinking about what this all says about race relations in the USA.

As a white person, I've never experienced racism directed at me, so I have no direct way to know whether racism has gotten better or worse over the course of my lifetime.  However, I've certainly been a witness to racism at times, and the things I've witnessed have changed over the years.

As a adult, you largely choose the people you associate with, but as a child, the group of children you interact with is based mostly on proximity.  I grew up in an area that was almost a 100% white and had a racist reputation.  My neighborhood ( Ozone Park, New York ) was right next the the infamous Howard Beach.  I interacted with kids from both Ozone Park and Howard Beach over the years ( school, little league, etc. ) and plenty of the kids I knew from Ozone Park had racial attitudes that probably were not very different that the attitudes of the teens who perpetrated that horrible racist beating in Howard Beach.  Now I'm not saying that the majority of people in Ozone Park and Howard Beach were racist.  Most people there were ( and are ) good people, and some of them are still among my best friends to this day.  However, I'd be lying if I told you that I didn't hear a lot of racist stuff growing up.

As I adult, I very rarely hear any of that kind of racist stuff in person for two reasons ...
1) As an adult, you have more of a say in who you associate with, and I choose my friends wisely.
2) Society has now gotten to the point where most white people would want to hide their racist attitudes from other white people.  I have no doubt that some of the people I know ( while you can choose your friends, you can't choose everyone you need to interact with ) have racist attitudes, but people do their best to hide such attitudes.  ( Also, I don't want anyone to think I'm claiming to be guiltless here.   I was raised to love all people, and I always got sick to my stomach growing up when I heard fellow students spew racists garbage, but children are sponges, and I'd be lying I told you I didn't absorb at least some of the racist bile that was occasionally spewed.  I try my best each day to excise myself of that bile, but I'll never be completely free of it. ).

However, reason #2 often doesn't apply on the Internet, because people can be anonymous.  Still, I didn't really notice a lot of racist stuff on the corners of the Internet I frequented until Barack Obama was elected; right after that happened, the racists started to come out of the woodwork.

I guess the point I'm making is that while I don't think the election of Barack Obama made the country more racist, I think it exposed a lot of racism we couldn't see before, like a UV light revealing body fluids at a crime scene.  Ultimately, revealing that racism is a good thing, even if seeing it out in the open might make us uncomfortable.

In the end, I'm still optimistic.  After all, Barack Obama is right when he says the the USA is the only country in the world where his story could have happened.  Where else could a country consisting primarily of of people of one race, elect a leader who belongs to another race?  OK, sure Obama, is half white, and Peru elected a Japanese president, but you get my point.  The Germans are not going to elect a Chancellor who is not ethnically German, the Japanese are not going to elect a Prime Minister who is not ethnically Japanese.  The Barack Obama story could have never happened in those places, but it did happen in the USA, because there is no such thing as an ethic American ( Well, except maybe Native Americans, but that's a can of worms to open on a different day ).  The USA is still a special place, warts and all, and there is no better proof of that than President Barack Obama.

Rich