Remembering Ted Williams

I saw Ted Williams play only once. It was in Chicago sometime in the early '50s, the Red Sox were in town for a double header. I found my way to Comiskey Park.

There were only three players on the field that day that I remember after all this time. Williams, of course, Lou Boudreau and Marvin Rotblatt. Who in God's name, you will ask, was Marvin Rotblatt? I'll tell you. He was a White Sox relief pitcher, a journeyman with no illusions about ending up in the Hall of Fame. It was a living. Check this link

Rotblatt was a little fellow, 5'7". From my view high in the stands he looked like Evil Eye Fleagle, that character from the Li'l Abner comic strip who could paralyse a person with his double whammy, or an elephant with his triple. Those of you old enough will remember the bulging eyeball with viens running through it. Ugly!! The bill of his cap seemed to be six inches long, just long enough to keep the rain off the tip of his nose. His wind-up was classic. Standing on one leg, his other leg was parallel to the ground and his torso and head parallel in the other direction. A perfect T. Picture it. From that position his extended arm would whip around as he came to a standing position and the ball would hurtle to the plate.

The White Sox pitchers took great care with Williams. A ball, a strike, a ball, a strike, a foul ball, etc. They nibbled at the corners of the plate. Not Rotblatt. He came right after Williams, mostly strikes. He relieved in both games if I remember correctly.

Naturally, I had come to see Ted knock the cover off the ball, to see that beautiful swing, to see him rounding the bases.

He didn't get a hit all day.

Why our troops die

Stephen Harper tells us that the deaths of Canadian troops in Afghanistan is the price we have to pay so that Canada can assume a leadership role in the world.

Huh? Did I hear him correctly? Leadership role, right? Ok, but why? Is Harper seeking vainglory, like the French? La gloire?

If we attempt to lead, who will follow? A leader must have some one or something to lead. We don't have followers. The leader is the U.S. Harper would have us stand shoulder to shoulder with Uncle Sam despite the fact that our shoulder doesn't quite measure up to his. Policy is going to be determined by the Americans and our voice will not be heard if we differ. Our advice will be politely listened to and ignored. Ask Tony Blair about that.

So this "leadership role" is actually a followership role. One to die for.

Yankees Bite the Dust

The New York Yankees have the largest player payroll in baseball, an astounding $195 million. $25M of that goes to one player, Alex Rodriguez. Compare that with the $15M payroll of the Florida Marlins. The Yankees, operating in a major market, have money to burn and with it they buy the top talent. With sluggers like A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui, Cano, Damon, Jeter, Posada and Abreu, they finished well ahead of the Blue Jays, Red Sox and Orioles in the regular season, teams which are not exactly pushovers. How could they lose?

But lose they did, the victims of inspired Detroit pitching, in the first playoff round. A-Rod is likely to be the whipping boy. Although his statistics for the season would be considered excellent for most players, his super salary didn't bring super results. He fell flat in the short playoff. New Yorkers have been hard on him ever since he and his salary arrived in town. Fans have been tolerant of huge player salaries for years, but the $25M was finally just too much. It will be interesting to watch the fallout.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright.
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light.
And, somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout,
but there is no joy in the Bronx -
the mighty Yankees have struck out.

(With apologies to Ernest Thayer and the mighty Casey.)

Supporting the Troops

Thirty-eight Canadian soldiers have now been killed in Afghanistan. We have a "support the troops" movement underway, crowds in red shirts with appropriate banners gathering on Parliament Hill and elsewhere. What I wonder is this: does supporting the troops mean supporting the war?

Supporting the troops is one thing and that's fine. Supporting the cause for which they're fighting is another matter. Do these redshirts recognize the difference?

The Taliban were driven out before. If they're defeated again, which is problematical, they'll only re-appear, like dandelions. They don't recognize defeat, only temporary setbacks. It's not like they'll sign a peace treaty at some point, redraw the borders and go home. Time is on their side, the "great Satan" will shrivel and die at some future time, and meanwhile they have their holy martyrs. God is great. Religious fanatics are hard to deal with.

So why are the troops fighting for what seems to be pointless and hopeless?

After WW2, the U.S. did not revert to a peacetime economy. Using the Communist bogeyman as an excuse, they remained on a war footing and the defence industry profited handsomely. There was Korea to stop the Chinese hordes, Viet Nam to stop the falling dominoes. No-one remembered Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. So we've arrived at the point where peace would be disastrous to the American economy. The space effort would not be enough to sustain all those industries.

So, in a nutshell, and at the risk of over-simplifying, this is why our troops fight and die.