Remembering the greatest horse ever

The excitement surrounding Big Brown is wonderful fun. Mike Hindman remembers the greatest horse ever: Secretariat, aka Big Red.

When Secretariat died, his heart was found to be larger than normal. It seems almost unfair to compare normal horses to his greatness. Secretariat in action:

This stuff has to hurt Obama

Doesn't it?

How attractive is SPC Kate Norley, Combat Medic? She's courageous, capable, and attractive. Whillakers.



Something else: Barack, in his ill fated Memorial Day address, said returning U.S. personnel would be ravaged by PTSD, and the government must do more to address their needs. Barack especially pointed to the large number of female personnel who will be ravaged by PTSD suffered as a result of sexual harassment.

Barack's first instinct is not to view military personnel as noble, honorable, and heroic; but rather as victims (PTSD sufferers + crazy uncles in the attic) and as abusive harassers (including harassers of women).

Second, Barack has zero basis for making sweeping assumptions about the upcoming prevalence of PTSD. He pulls this stuff (and a lot of other stuff) out of thin air. Barack consistently makes ridiculous statements which are premised - not on good science or data - but, rather, on leftist fantasy of the day. I'm with Powerline's John Hinderocker: "Why is Barack Obama not a laughingstock?"

Third, what kind of gall (and lack of perspective) does it take to equate combat stress with stress from sexual harassment?

Fourth, does SPC Kate Norley, Combat Medic, look as if she has been debilitated by sexual harassment? What rational person looks at such woman and sees overtly damaged victims?

I suspect the left is largely cut off from personal interaction with personnel in our volunteer military. If the left interacted with our soldiers, if the left ate potato salad with our soldiers at family reunions: the left would neither make nor believe their own sweeping assumptions about victimhood and pervasive harassment.

The problem with the NBA

The problem with the NBA is fans are asked to pay big money to watch "Refereed Basketball".

One of my early blogposts wondered about moral behavior when playing a sport which is refereed. I admit I still do not know what is just and righteous - especially in the instance of high school age sport. Do Team A and Team B implicitly agree they are playing "Refereed Sport", and therefore anything (short of injuring an opponent) which is done to influence or obscure a referee is understood to be fair inside the context of "Refereed Sport"? Or, are Team A and Team B playing "sport", and therefore effort to influence or obstruct the referee ought not be made?

I won't do it now, but I could easily jot off 1000 words on this subject. For instance: if you are sliding into a base, and you know you are tagged out, yet the umpire calls you safe, should you then call yourself out and jog to the dugout? This happened to me in a high school game, and I always felt dirty that I did not call myself out. Was my feeling silly and misguided? Or, was it moral, just, and inspired by God?

But: morality is not my point today. The problem with the NBA is fans are asked to pay big money to watch "Refereed Basketball".

This was additionally driven home at the intro press conference of new Mavs coach Rick Carlisle. Answering a question about personnel changes which need to be made on the Mavs, Carlisle said(paraphrasing) "because of the way the game is refereed today, you need athletic players who will drive into the lane and draw fouls." Carlisle was not saying the Mavs need players who are more skilled at basketball. He was saying the Mavs need players who are more skilled at "Refereed basketball".

Now comes the noncall on Derek Fisher during Brent Barry's last second shot attempt. Let it be known: it was a clear, indisputable foul. If Brent Barry were Kobe Bryant, he would've gotten that call 127 times out of every 100 occurrences. He would've never been denied that call. Ever.

Let it also deliciously be known: no other sports team has fans who are as paranoid as Spurs fans. Over a dozen Spurs fans, infused with lava-hot paranoia, spontaneously combusted during the night. I know it without even checking the papers. That Joey Crawford was the closest ref actually tripled the death toll ... and will lead to untold fan combustion catastrophe in the future.

But: the star system is (mostly) not my point today; and possible NBA/referee collusion/corruption is not my point. The problem with the NBA is fans are asked to pay big money to watch "Refereed Basketball".

My point is, after the game, identical reaction came from all these voices - Reggie Miller, Kenny Smith, Charles Barkley, Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobli:

1. It was a foul.
2. Barry did not properly sell the foul.

When Fisher leaped: Barry made a tiny, semi-evasive dribble, then leaped up into Fisher's left side and launched the shot. The proper maneuver is: no dribble + leap squarely into the middle of Fisher's airborne body. Miller, Smith, Barkley, Duncan, and Ginobli were unanimous that Barry would've gotten the call if he had implemented the proper maneuver. Miller, Smith, and Barkley were unanimous that both Kobe and Ginobli would've leaped squarely into Fisher 100% of the time, and would never have made Barry's "mistake". Barkley avowed that he tells players all the time to leap squarely into defenders when they are in the air. Barkley said Barry's initial reaction was to make an evasive dribble, which is also Dirk Nowitski's initial reaction when defenders leap near him, which is another reason Dirk and the Mavericks will never win a championship. Barkley said this type of poor play drives him crazy.

Notice: no one talked about basketball. No matter Barry's proper or improper maneuver: everyone agreed Fisher nevertheless fouled Barry, and everyone agreed Joey Crawford blew the call.* The problem is: everyone focused on how to properly play "Refereed Basketball". Brent Barry didn't make a bad basketball play. He made a bad "Refereed Basketball" play. NBA fans pay large sums of money to watch "Refereed Basketball".

Although watching basketball is fun, beautiful and inspiring: watching "Refereed Basketball" is less fun, less beautiful, and MUCH LESS inspiring. THAT is the problem: value vs. cost. Less fun, less beautiful, and less inspiring = less value.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I only point out the problem - if I fail to suggest a solution - then I am part of the problem. The solution:

1. Triple referee salaries, to: a) increase the pool of qualified and motivated applicants; b) justify additional workload of off the court video study and other work with league officials.

In every calendar year there are 200 talented yet short and slow guards who dream of making the NBA. When their dream eventually dies (on or about age 21-28), 50 of them should gleefully leap into their secondary dream of making $750K per year as an NBA referee. The NBA should provide them a $50K income while they matriculate through the rigorous NBA referee university. The NBA should farm them out to the CBA. The NBA should farm them out to travel with NBA teams and call practice drills, practice scrimmages, and post practice one-on-one sessions. Their efforts should be videotaped and graded and critiqued. Individual players and teams should grade and recommend and criticize those practice and scrimmage efforts.

Huge effort should be made to develop and maintain outstanding referees. Since most trainess will fail to make the league, the NBA should help them find careers both inside and outside basketball. NBA referee training - which will have included background investigation, physical exams, psychological training, displine and rigor, and performance under stress - should be considered favorable resume material by American corporations, and by schools looking to hire coaches. The military might consider offering officer training to any NBA referee trainee.

This is a radical (and expensive) way to think about things, and yet: the credibility of the NBA depends - not on it's specific players - but on it's referees.

2. Vastly increase size and scope of league oversight of referees: grading, study, conferencing with, replacement of or discipline of less effective referees. Many current referees should be graduated to the league oversight office.

The future financial success of the NBA depends on increasing emphasis on basketball, plus decreasing emphasis (as much as possible) on "Refereed Basketball".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*After the game, both Popovich and Barry said Crawford made the correct call for the situation. However, this was post-game, NBA insider spin. Immediately after the call, on the court, both Popovich and Barry were obviously, unquestionably furious with Crawford.

Should a baseball defense

guard the line and deepen the outfielders in the final inning?

Assuming a one run lead and no one on base: what is the defense's best chance of preventing anyone reaching second base?

Therefore: what are the offense's odds of hitting a double ... vs. ... the odds of stringing singles together; or of a single and an extra base hit; or of a single and a walk or a HBP; or of a single and an error during a second batted ball; or of a single and a batted out which advances the runner; or of a single plus an advance to second base via: error during the original hit, stolen base, passed ball, wild pitch, balk, error during a pick off attempt?

It seems logical these odds would change when one out is made, then change again when a second out is made. However, if odds with two outs dictate guarding more strongly against a double: why not guard the line and deepen the outfielders - throughout the game - during each situation in which you have two outs and no runners? Should - throughout the game - defenders play far off the foul lines when none are out; then move a bit towards the foul lines when one is out; then move a bit more towards the foul lines when two are out? Should outfielders play shallow with none out, a bit deeper with one out, and a bit deeper still with two out?

There's a good chance a sabermetrician has studied this issue. Maybe Google can help me ............................................... hmm: I've temporarily struck out. I did find this interesting article, which posits that runners should try to take extra bases far far far more often than they do - especially when two are out and the runner is trying to take home plate. Exceptions:

• when none are out and the runner is trying to take home plate,
• when two are out and the runner is trying to take third.

Base coaches and runners should continue being careful during those situations.

Marvin Gaye National Anthem

When Marvin Gaye sang at the NBA All Star Game, no one had ever sung a version remotely resembling .. his ... Greatness.

His performance came out of the blue. There wasn't any national conflict going on. There wasn't any particular anything going on. We expected just another rote performance; and here came Marvin Gaye; and then, out of the blue: he electrified the arena with something totally fresh and heartfelt. People talked about it for the longest time, and still do.

Memorial Day

Josh Hamilton's workload

I thought, when Hamilton came to the Rangers: given that 2007 was his rookie season, and that 162 games is a heckuva grind, and that Hamilton's mental and emotional health is primarily important ... I thought Rangers management would give him a lot of off days - not for physical health, but rather just to keep him mentally and emotionally fresh and rested: to keep everything about his situation balanced, rested, and pointing in the right direction.

Instead, the Rangers are working him like a Clydesdale on a farm: constantly, every day, working him, working him, working him. Working hands are happy hands.

Now, the Rangers have Jerry Narron and Johnny Narron watching Hamilton. They are from North Carolina. They know his parents. They've known Hamilton virtually all of Hamilton's life. They, as well as anybody, ought to know what's best for Hamilton. It could be that keeping Hamilton in a steady and grinding routine of farmwork is what's best. I don't know for sure. I do appreciate that routine and habit is a very good thing.

Still, are Ron Washington and Jon Daniels and all involved losing sight of the big picture? The 2008 Rangers are a wonderful, plucky story ... yet there is not going to be a playoff series win for this team. Those might come in future seasons - IF Josh Hamilton is mentally and emotionally healthy.

Alba suddenly marries Cash

before their child is born. I hope the couple will be wonderfully happy. Jessica is sweet as bread pudding ... if bread pudding were dancing in an art deco cartoon movie come to life.



A year or so ago, some ostensibly scientific study of the human body found Jessica Alba had the most perfectly proportioned hips and buttocks of any woman in the world. You'll get no argument from me.

Rangers rookie is a learning robot

The Rangers just started 3 consecutive rookies, in Cleveland, against Fausto Carmona, Cliff Lee, and C.C. Sabathia, and the Rangers came away winning 2 out of 3 in the series. That is not nothing. And (!) the Rangers have four pitchers between AAA and AA who are frothing at the bit to start in major league games(Murray, Mendoza[as soon as he is activated off the DL], Tejeda[consecutive outstanding starts], Harrison). That, also, is not nothing - and does not even account for Nippert(who's started 3 times at OKC, with medium results), the scuffling Hurley, and the still injured McCarthy.

The Rangers have a better season record than Cleveland, Detroit, and the Yankees. The Rangers, after having one of the best records in baseball over the last half of 2007, now have the best record in the American League over the last three weeks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In "The Incredibles", Mr. Incredible is instructioned as to how to go out and fight a robot on the evil guy's island: The robot is a learning robot. The more you fight it, the more it learns about you and adapts. So, disable it quickly.

Rangers rookie pitcher Doug Mathis is like that robot. He's a ways away from being a good major league pitcher. Five of the first eight batters reached against him - several via well struck line drives - yet he dodged fatal bullets. He loaded the bases in the second - with only one out - then danced around and escaped. The important thing is: Mathis was better in the third inning than he was in the second. He was better in the fifth inning than in the third. He's a learning robot. He completed six innings and miraculously gave up only one run.

As he ran off the field after innings, the camera would zoom in on his relieved expression. He looked like a man who was getting away with something: Whew! One more inning down. They haven't figured out yet that I'm not any good!

I think, however, Doug Mathis might become something good. Baseball is all about being a learning robot (as well as all about being 6'4", throwing 91, and controlling 4 pitches).

Dang you Marlon Byrd

I have advocated - since all through the offseason, for the Rangers to trade Marlon Byrd. I still advocate that. Marlon is not part of the Rangers long-term future.

But, what makes me so mad about Marlon is that he keeps on making me love him: he does all the little things; he's got a leadership personality in the clubhouse and in the dugout. When Brandon Boggs came to take his job, Marlon gave Boggs playing tips and encouraged him along every step of the way. Dang you, Marlon Byrd.

Just now, I hear Tom Grieve say Marlon gets the best jumps of any Rangers outfielder. I go to watch the replay. It's a well hit line drive: directly at Marlon and sinking in front of him. A line drive directly at an outfielder is difficult: he must ascertain if it is going short of him or over him. If in doubt, his first step has to be back. For some reason, even though the line drive is well hit, Marlon instantly knows this is in front of him. On the crack of the bat he is heading in. Five or six full speed strides, and he hauls it in knee high - no muss no fuss: a difficult play which looks easy. Of all high school outfielders in America, maybe 30% (at most) make that play which Marlon made look so easy. If that ball were hit at me, I would back up and take cover.

Then Marlon leads off the Rangers next inning, against a Cliff Lee sporting a 1.66ish or something ERA, and Marlon drives the first pitch off the centerfield wall.

Dang you, Marlon Byrd. Dang your .265 hitting soul and your Ewok body and your frequent smile. I can't stop loving you.

PS: this season, Cleveland Indians are wearing throwback jerseys during all weekend home games. They look fantastic. All franchises should do this.

PPS: Marlon just threw an Indian out at Home Plate. I am hatin' life. Marlon doesn't even have that great of an arm. He just ... throws it ... exactly ... on target. I am so mad.

Supporting the troops

Giving yourself over, wholeheartedly, to the cause.

Texas Rangers are plucky

This season, the Rangers will not go away in the pennant race. Because I respect the Angels, I will not predict the Rangers will win the pennant. I do predict the Rangers will doggedly hang around in September. What if Vlad Guerrerro goes down...?


What helps the Rangers is their depth: it creates competition. Everyone knows they must excel, b/c everyone can name their replacement who is kicking derriere at either AAA or AA. Everyone HAS to be plucky, or they get to be unplucky in OKC.

What also helps is the unheralded yet outstanding job Ian Kinsler is doing as the leadoff hitter. The Rangers have almost never had a true leadoff hitter. Kinsler is that guy. He's making an important contribution.

Also not as praised as it should be: Milton Bradley is coming up huge as the clean-up hitter.

I did not expect Josh Hamilton to be this good. I think he's legit.

I did not expect David Murphy to be this good. I don't know what to think about him. I need a larger sample size.

I did not expect Ramon Vasquez to be this good - either in the field or at bat. I don't know what to think about him. Again need a larger sample size.

I've suspected, for a long time, Chris Shelton might be a serious hitter. After a slow start, he is showing his ability. I will spout profanity if he is sacrificed on the altar of Ron Washington's obsession with Marlon Byrd.

Catalanotto is unquestionably one of the top 9 hitters on this team. And yet, if they are going to keep Marlon Byrd, they should trade Catalanotto for a low minors prospect, and let Chris Shelton's career play out in Arlington. You do not yet fully know what Shelton is. He might be Frank Thomas-ish ... with a better glove ... and the flexibility to back up at both Catcher and Right Field.

Lookaround 4: Barack ignorant of history

Charles Krauthammer:

Another unmistakable sign [that election-year discourse has gone surreal] is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

While I was away - in defending his improvised doctrine of counseling with Castro, et al - Barack launched a series of invalid, ahistorical comparisons with previous Presidential meetings.

If Barack simply had good people around him (to pull him back from the edges of both intemperate and ahistorical cliffs): much else could be forgiven. Instead, the necessary impression is of historically ignorant ideologues surrounding historically ignorant Barack.

Here we go with:

Barack Obama's Review of History Which Only Occurred in Liberals' Dreams...


Barack, in defending himself against Pres. Bush, said JFK met with Khrushchev in Vienna "when we were on the brink of nuclear war with the USSR".

We were not on the brink of nuclear war until Khrushchev - during that very Vienna meeting - judged JFK to be weak. JFK's meeting with Khrushchev was a disaster(for both the U.S. and Germany). Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins in NYT:

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy’s own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year ... “Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy’s aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.”
[...]
Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

In extricating the U.S. from the specter of Soviet missiles in Cuba, JFK agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey. JFK demanded Khrushchev keep the agreement secret. Hollywood spent ensuing decades lionizing JFK for standing up to Khrushchev.

Barack, in defending himself, referenced FDR and Truman meeting with Stalin. (Stalin is apparently the reference - as no one can remember any other controversial leader which either FDR or Truman met with)

Barack seemingly discounts that Stalin was America's ally at the time. If Ahmadinejad were helping us fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Mahdi Army (as opposed to what he is doing: helping Al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army fight us) then a Presidential meeting might arguably make sense.

Barack, in defending himself, referenced Nixon going to China.

First, Nixon needed China as a counterbalance to the USSR during the Cold War. Nixon going to China was strategically brilliant.

Second, Nixon's career long anti-Communist credentials inoculated him - both domestically and internationally - against any criticism or perception that he would not stand up to Communism. This is why it was said: "Only Nixon could go to China." Barack, ahem, doesn't have the same credentials.

Third, there were not exactly "no preconditions". Karl Rove, in a WSJ op-ed:

I recommend [Obama] read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqué worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

Barack, in defending himself, referenced Reagan meeting with Gorbachev.

As discussed in this post, Reagan was making a strategic effort to crumple the government of the USSR. In contrast, Barack would be making a direct Presidential effort to beseech Ahmadinejad: Please don't hurt us! We'll give you stuff.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More Krauthammer, for the road:

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining precisely the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.
[...]
What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets ...

Now Obama is saying his detractors are "obsessed". Balderdash. Obama sprung the new doctrine of Presidential level engagement. Obama mischaracterized U.S. efforts as "not talking" - then labeled that strawman "a disgrace". Obama serially asserted invalid comparisons involving 5 U.S. Presidents. When his doctrine and assertions are found wanting; when he cannot defend himself on merit: he falls back on "obsession" + "this is a distraction". Horse manure.

The government we deserve

In House Subcommitee Hearings this week...

John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil:

I can guarantee - to the American people - because of the inaction of the United States Congress: ever increasing prices - unless the demand comes down. And the $5 [per gallon] will look like a very low price, in the years to come, if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.

Maxine Waters, D-CA, in reply:

And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh, would be about ... basically ... taking over, and the government running all of your [oil] companies.

Video:
Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize America's oil industry.

Powerline takes a look:
Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless.

Baseball public service message

Josh Hamilton is the best player in baseball. He's a threat to win a Triple Crown - this year.

Offense. Defense. Baserunning. Threw 95 when he pitched in high school. He even sounds like Mickey Mantle during interviews. Understands the strike zone - does not just wildly hack away.

If the drug factor did not exist, you wouldn't trade Josh Hamilton for any other player.

Public service message 2:

There's a rookie CF in Minnesota: Carlos Gomez, who could soon give Josh Hamilton a run for his money as a talented player with awesome physical gifts. Gomez looks like one of the top 5 or so fastest players in baseball. He plays hard. He fields his position. He steals bases. He bunts for hits. He hits home runs. He is 6'4" 195. Awesome player; awesome physical specimen. He needs time to learn the league. But he doesn't need that much time. I doubt the Twins would trade him away for too many other players.