Joe's own worst enemy -- is he in the mirror?

Here's The Monk's question of the day: Is Joe Girardi his own worst enemy?

The Yanks have a 2-0 lead in the ALCS, which they've achieved four times in 8 ALCS since 1996 (1999, 2001, 2004, 2009). In 1999 and 2001, they won in five games after losing game 3. We don't discuss 2004 here.

In the ALDS, Girardi established a pattern with his pitchers: have the starter pitch 6 or more, use Coke for the first lefty in the 7th, use Joba for righties in the 7th, use Hughes in the 8th, use Rivera in the 9th. Problems: Hughes was ineffective, so Rivera entered in the 8th; Coke and Joba were erratic even though they worked out of trouble.

In game 2 of the ALCS, Girardi reverted to that same formula. Burnett pitched 6.1 and left after Cano's error put a runner on, Coke issued a walk and got a strikeout, Joba gave up an infield single hit and struck out Guerrero in a 15-minute at bat with about 10 conferences between Joba and catcher Jose Molina. Even though it was a tie game and Joba could have pitched another inning, Girardi again used Hughes in the 8th and again for 2/3 of an inning (although Hughes would have pitched the full 8th if Jeter hadn't bonked a double play ball). Then, on came Rivera for 2.1 IP.

I'm unsure which of this is what Yahoo Sports' Jeff Passan called Girardi's misuse of the bullpen. I thought it was when Girardi actually used Damaso Marte . . . but Joey G. got away with it. Maybe Passan didn't like the use of Rivera . . . but this is the playoffs and winning managers don't leave the closer in the bullpen just because it violates a "Rule" in "The Book."

My concern going forward is what Joe is going to do if presented with the same situation he had in games 2 and 3 of the ALDS: a starter with plenty of gas left (Burnett was at 95 pitches, Pettitte at 81) and game in the 7th inning. I'll take Pettitte for another 25-30 tosses, Burnett for another 10-15 (I have no problem with Girardi giving him the hook on Saturday, Burnett was at 115). Girardi went to the 'pen early and often. I hope that doesn't turn out wrong later in this, or another, series.

P.S. -- The MLB Network's breakdown show seems pretty good. I watched for about 10-15 minutes after Saturday night's/Sunday morning's game and was impressed by Wild Thing Mitch Williams' breakdown of Burnett showing why A.J.'s balance and breaking ball is so much better when he pitches from a full wind-up than from the stretch and discussing the importance of a good balance/gather point for a tall lanky pitcher like Burnett. Williams' co-analyst (didn't get his identity) also rightly observed that when A.J. throws a wild pitch, he misses left or right, not short or high.

Quote of the day

James Morrow in response to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn's citing Mao Tse-Tung as one of her favorite political philosophers:

the Obama White House is rapidly becoming a big tent for the sort of cranks who set up card tables on the fringes of growers' markets and pass out hand-xeroxed fliers.

A five-game sweep?

In 2004, the Detroit Pistons whupped the Lakers in the NBA Finals 4-1. The Pistons' four wins were by an average of 13+ points; the Lakers' lone win came after a miracle game-tying shot that forced overtime. Sports journos called it a "five-game sweep" because of the Pistons' dominance.

The NLCS is shaping up to be the same. The Phillies can pound the ball, their starters have pitched 15 consecutive scoreless innings, and even the Phils' bullpen can hold an 11-0 ninth inning lead. The Dudgers won Friday thanks to some poor fielding and surprisingly decent pitching. But the Phils have four or five solid starters, the Dudgers couldn't hit Pedro Martinez (who now throws like a right-handed Jamie Moyer) and the series is out of the California sun until Friday . . . if it goes that long.

The Dudgers are fighting history. Since the advent of divisional play in 1969, the same two teams have met in the NLCS in consecutive years four times. The previous year's winner won twice, the loser gained revenge once, and the Phils are halfway to repeating. The one time since 1995 that the same two teams matched up in consecutive NLDS, the winner repeated (2004-05 Astros over Braves).

In the AL, the prior year's loser has fared worse in the rematches. When the ALCS has been a repeat of the previous year's matchup, the prior winner is 5-1. When the ALDS has been a repeat of the prior year's matchup, the prior winner is 4-2 (and the eight times the Redsax were not involved, the prior winner was 8-0). Total for the two leagues: 12-4 advantage for the prior year's winner, and we're halfway to 13-4.

Team of the Decade -- who will it be for MLB?

This is a debate for every decennial -- which one is the team of the decade for the sport? The 2009 World Series will be the last of the decade and the answer is . . . still up for grabs.

The sine qua non of any "team of the decade" is championships. Championships means sport titles, not conference titles or pennants, not most times with the best record, not division titles (although these factor into ties), not best record of the 10-year period. The Lakers are the team of the '00s in the NBA because they won 4 titles, San Antonio (with a better overall record) won 3. The Stars aren't in the mix for NHL team of the decade for the '90s despite various President's Trophy wins (best record) because the Penguins and Red Wings won more Stanley Cups.

In baseball, the Team of the Decade in the World Series era has been clear cut in seven of the ten decades to date. Here's a list, along with best team (to win the WS) and honorable mentions:

1900s = the Cubs (2 titles, 3 pennants including the WS wins) of all teams. Honorable mention = Pirates (1 WS, 2 pennants), Tigers (3 pennants). Best team = 1909 Pirates (110-42) because the '06 Cubs (116-36) lost in the Series.

1910s = the Red Sawx (4 WS). Yuck. Honorable mention = Philly A's (3 WS, 4 pennants), Giants (4 pennants). Best team = 1912 Sawx (105-47), led by Tris Speaker and Joe Wood (34-5 in 43 starts!).

1920s = Yankees (3 WS, 5 pennants). Honorable mention = Giants (2 WS, 4 pennants). Best team = the 1927 Murderers' Row Yankees (110-44) that had four Hall of Famers in its starting lineup (Combs, Lazzeri, Ruth, Gehrig), two in its rotation (Hoyt, Pennock) and a third who should be in (Shocker).

1930s = Yankees (5 WS). This will become a pattern. Honorable mention = Cardinals (2 WS, 3 pennants). Best team = 1939 Yankees (106-45) who outscored their opponents by 411 runs! Compare that to the 1975 Reds (254 run differential). No contest.

1940s = Yankees (4 WS, 5 pennants). Honorable mention = Cardinals (3 WS, 4 pennants) -- this was the Cards' decade until the '47 and '49 Yanks won. Best team = '42 Cards (106-45).

1950s = Yankees (6 WS, 8 pennants). This is no contest. Honorable mention = Dodgers (2 WS, 5 pennants). Best team = '53 Yankees (99-52) by default because no WS winner won 100 games in the regular season, although a pair of WS losers ('54 Indians, '53 Dodgers) did.

1960s = Dodgers and Cardinals (2 WS, 3 pennants each). Honorable mention = Yankees (2 WS, 5 pennants). The Yanks had the longer list of accomplishment, but lost to both the Dodgers and Cards in the WS. The Dodgers had one of the most dominating WS wins ever in '63 over the Yanks, and took probably the worst beating ever in '66 from the Orioles (shut out three times). Best team = '61 Yanks (109-53).

1970s = A's (3 WS). Honorable mention = Reds (2 WS, 4 pennants, 6 division wins); Yankees (2 WS, 3 pennants); Pirates (2 WS, 6 division wins). This is why championships matter. Fans always talk about the Big Red Machine, but the A's won the most titles. Best team = '75 Reds (108-54) and '70 Orioles (108-54). Unlike the Reds, the Orioles led their league in pitching as well as hitting and the O's had some decent players (Palmer, B. Robinson, F. Robinson). The Big Red Machine is continually overrated because it had a modern AL-quality lineup in the NL, but the pitching was not notable. Think the Reds could beat the '98 Yankees? Think again -- the '75 Reds bonked 5-1 (5-2 after 6 innings) and 6-3 leads against the RedSawx in two different games of the '75 WS; the Mariano-era Yanks don't blow those leads.

1980s = Dodgers (2 WS). This is pure default and fluke. The Dodgers are the only multiple winner of the '80s. And for half the decade, the Dodgers sucked. If the Yanks had used anyone other than George Frazier in key relief situations in the '81 WS, baseball might have had 10 different winners. Honorable mention = Cards (1 WS, 3 pennants); A's, Royals and Phils (1 WS, 2 pennants each). Best team = '84 Tigers (104-58); yes, they were better than the '86 Mess (108-54).

1990s = Yankees (3 WS). This is especially great because in '95 the Braves had their WS rings engraved with "Team of the Decade" on them and the Yanks beat the Braves twice in the Series: once by grit and good fortune ('96), and once by whipping a** ('99). At the time the Braves had their rings engraved, the Blue Jays had won more titles (2-1). There's a deadly sin for that . . . Honorable mention = Toronto (2 WS); Braves (1 WS, 5 pennants). Best team = '98 Yankees (114-48). They're the best team since the end of WWII and it's really not close (Tom Verducci had a great piece on this).

2000s = currently RedSax (2 WS). And that's where the fun is. If either AL team wins the WS, there's a legitimate debate. The Yanks will have 2 WS, 4 pennants and 8 division titles; the Angels would have 2 WS and 6 division titles. The Red Sax have 2 WS and one division title. And although the Redsux would be 3-1 in playoff series against the Angels, they've split two with the Yankees. The Phils would get a close second to Bostin if they go back-to-back because they only made the playoffs three times; the Massholes have won six playoff berths ('03-05, '07-09), although their actual participation in '05 and '09 is subject to speculation as to whether it really counts as participation. Best team = '05 WhiteSax (99-63) -- they had the best playoff run (11-1) and the most impressive pitching performance in a series since the '96 Braves when their starters threw 44.1 of 45 possible innings in a 4-1 ALCS wipeout of the Angels.

Now we know the stakes.

As for predictions: the Yanks SHOULD win, but who knows what will happen. Lackey and Saunders match up well with the Yanks, the Angels 'pen is weaker than it was when the Angels beat the Yanks in '02 and '05 -- the game is longer than six innings now. And for all the chatter about how the Angels own the Yanks in the postseason -- the Angels survived in '05 by about 5-10 feet -- the distance by which Matsui's blast with two runners on in the 9th inning of a 5-3 ALDS game 5 went foul.

The Yanks need to pitch well and not fall into traps: (1) worrying too much about the Angels' running game; (2) going completely by-the-book with 7th, 8th and 9th inning roles for the relievers. Torre would use Mo to START the 8th with a day off to follow and Girardi needs to be ready, willing, and able to make that call.

The Dodgers and Phils will be interesting but I'm thinking the Dodgers win. Bullpens are crucial in the playoffs and the Dodgers' 'pen is far superior to the Phils'. Just ask the '92 and '96 Braves how much a superior bullpen can mean to the team with inferior starting pitching.

RINO stampede

After Olympia Snowe fell victim to her own stupidity, Susan Collins followed and now says she will support some sort of sweeping health care overhaul. Both are Republicans (in name only) from Maine and should da*n well know better considering that Maine's highly regulated and nearly universal coverage state system is a disaster (like Massachusetts' system is, and TennCare in Tennessee was before it was discontinued).

This means that to prevent the US from becoming a European-style statist cooperative in health care, the Republicans need to pick off three Democrats in the Senate. Lieberman is one, Lincoln is being pressed into pulp to adhere to her party line even though it will cost her reelection in 2010. The next best hope may be Ron Wyden of Oregon, who actually has a plan that does not completely suck.

Elections have consequences. Minnesotans who voted for a clown, New Hampshirites who voted for a statist liberal (in the highly libertarian Live Free or Die State) and Alaskans who voted for notTedStevens will be among the 300,000,000 of us who pay the price.

Colossal playoff bonks

As a modern closer in baseball, you have one job. Get the last three outs and seal the win for your team. Despite the specialization of pitching roles and the narrow task of getting those final outs delegated to the fresh-from-the-bullpen closer, the incidence of losing leads late in the game is no lower since the advent of the modern one-inning closer in the mid-80s than it was when guys like Lefty Gomez would throw 25 complete games in 34 starts in the '30s or Bob Feller would throw 370 innings.

The first time a team blew a ninth-inning lead in game 7 of the World Series and lost was 1997, when closer Jose Mesa did it. Such failures had happened in the League Championship Series -- in 1977, the Royals lost a 3-2 ninth inning lead to the Yanks but that dissipated with starters in relief; in 1992, the Pirates blew a 2-0 lead in the ninth inning of NLCS game 7 to the Braves and their starter took the loss.

So even with the closer as a specialty position, teams have not been better served with the fresh arm out of the 'pen late in playoff games. Instead, more closing opportunities has led to major failures: Rivera in the '01 WS, Mitch Williams in the '93 WS, Eckersley in the '88 and '90 WS.

But some bonks are simply bad. Those are the ones where the closer has a multi-run lead and starts the ninth. Worse than the bonk is when the stakes are high. On Sunday, Jon Papelbon gave up 3 runs in the ninth with two out to the Angels . . . and did the Angels' comeback eliminated the Redsax. It was the first time a team allowed a comeback from 2 or more runs down with two out in the last inning of an elimination game in the playoffs and lost. Yesterday, Huston Street had two out, two on, and needed only one strike against Ryan Howard to get the Rox to game 5 of the NLDS. Double, single, three runs and the Rox are setting up tee times. As the closer roles have become more specialized, so have the approaches that hitters take in the ninth inning to the closer -- more careful, more apt to battle the pitcher to force him to throw lots of pitches because the one-inning closer burns out after 18-20 tosses.

Stretching a closer to even four outs is anathema to most managers. Last year, when he set the record with 62 saves, Frankie Rodriguez had ZERO appearances all year of more than one inning. By contrast, Mariano Rivera had nine saves of 4+ outs in 2003 (out of 40), and five more in the playoffs. This year, even as the Yanks have essentially babied him, Mo had seven 4-out saves. Papelbon had six of 4+ outs.

And the Yanks will need more out of Mo. Phil Hughes has looked like Tom Gordon (career postseason = 21 IP, 17 ER, 6 HR, 7.06 ERA). Joba is unsteady. And Girardi, for some daft reason (overconfidence in his 'pen), has had a quick hook (Burnett = 6 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 95 pitches; Pettitte = 6.1 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 81 pitches) even though his starters allowed 3 ER in 19 innings with 22 K against the Twins. If that bites Girardi and the Yanks against the Angels, you'll have heard it here first.

Empire Disgrace

The Empire State Building was lit up in garish red and yellow Wednesday night.

Ostensibly to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China.

It also celebrates two generations of the most murderous regime in the history of man.

Presumably it's ok now because China is strong and up-and-coming and we all want to do business.

Aside from the visceral disgust my first thought was this classic line from Carl Fox [Martin Sheen] from the movie "Wall Street":

"I don't go to bed with no whore, and I don't wake up with no whore. That's how I live with myself."

9-1 > 0-8? The AL East Champs again

In June, following the Yanks' humiliating three-game sweep in Fenway, I said the team lacked character. Since then, I've either been proven wrong (which I hope) or the RedSawx are just terrible (which I don't believe).

Through the first half of the year, the Yanks were 51-37. That's pretty good.

They were 10-8 against the NL East, which is uninspiring.

They were 39-17 against everyone but Bahstin and the LA Angels of Knott's Berry Farm, which is very good.

They were 2-12 against the Sawx (0-8) and Angels (2-4), and that sucked.

Since the All-Star break, the '09 Yankees have played even better than the '98 Yankees did: 51-20 (compared to 53-28) and have blasted their two bitterest rivals by winning 12 of 14 against the Sax (9-1) and Angels (3-1). How?

First, the Yankees learned to pitch at the Stadium. The "bandbox in the Bronx" has been a haven for the team (57-24) and after a shaky 6-7 start in the new home, the Yanks have won 51 of 68 games there -- that's 75%.

Second, the Yankees figured out the Rays by winning 8 of 9 games against the other AL East contender since early June.

Third, the Yanks flummoxed the Sawx at the Stadium. In the seven post All-Star break games between the teams at the Stadium, the Sawx have scored 15 runs and nine in the last 60 innings. The Yanks are 7-0 and FINALLY beat Jon Lester. When the Yanks won a Friday night game 2-0 in 15 innings, it was the first time all season they'd held the redsux to less than four runs.

Fourth, warm weather means warm CC. Sabathia established himself as an ace with his effort in a loss to the Sawx in June and his attitude against the Chisax in an August game where the Yanks were trying to stave off a four-game sweep. After coughing up an early lead, Sabathia shouted "that's it, that's all they get." The Yanks won that game and all 10 CC starts since then (each a quality start, 8 wins, only once allowing even 3 ER, only once going less than 7 IP).

Fifth, the Yanks have one of the best long relievers in baseball, Alfredo Aceves, to get the team through the sixth and seventh innings before the season's best game-ending duo since perhaps the '96 Yankees take the mound -- Hughes (5-1, 1.24, opponents OPS of .430 as a reliever) and Rivera (yawn, 44 saves, 46 chances--that's three bonks in the past two years).

Yeah, the Yanks have a question mark as their No. 4 starter . . . and the 2006 Cardinals won game 1 of the World Series with Anthony Reyes (5-8, 5.06).

Sure, they're older than most teams . . . and the Rays flopped in July.

And AJ Burnett is a question mark: from iffy in April/May to Cy Young caliber in June and July to inconsistent in August, to sharp in late September . . . but he has almost the same quality start percentage as CC, and is a power/strikeout pitcher -- the type that is crucial to postseason success.

So congrats to the Yanks, who have once again assumed their proper spot atop the AL East. Joe Girardi should be AL Manager of the Year. CC Sabathia should be 3rd in the Cy Young ballot. Jeter and Teixiera should be Nos. 2 and 3 in the AL MVP ballot. And hopefully the team will win 11 games between October 5 and December 31, 2009. That's what I'm wanting.

The last roar of the "lion"

The media in the United States completely loses its grip on reality when a Kennedy, any Kennedy related within a couple of degrees of sanguininity to Joe Kennedy, Sr., dies. And the media's reaction to the death of Edward M. Kennedy, the last and in many ways least of the four sons of Joe, has had truly preposterous episodes.

There's the Melissa Lafsky reaction: What would Mary Jo Kopechne "have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it."

And there's the Joyce Carol Oates nonsense.

The Monk is offended by the notion of Ted Kennedy as the "last lion" of the Senate -- THE Last Lion was Churchill and Kennedy was a far inferior man.

The brothers Kennedy included a war hero who died on a bombing run in World War II, a war hero and President who was assassinated by a Communist sympathizer, and a principled civil rights leader who was assassinated by an Arab nationalist. Joe, Jr.'s political career never became a full reality; John Kennedy was a tax-cutter and Cold Warrior (one of two the Democrats nominated as President from 1948-88); Robert Kennedy was a civil rights stalwart of the Martin Luther King, Jr. approach, not the Jesse Jackson affirmative-action-as-reparations approach that Ted Kennedy heeled toward.

As a Senator, Kennedy was what he was -- an old-line liberal of no real fixed ideology other than pro-union, pro-state, pro-liberal interest group. His best decisions included supporting deregulation of the airline industry and the phones. He supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which (as written) was a legislative triumph . . . but he also supported the affirmative action, quota, race-conscious accounting of its implementation that was anathema to its drafters (see Hubert H. Humphrey's defense of the bill when an opponent claimed it would begin a quota system).

The hagiography will continue apace despite the facts of Kennedy's heinous personal actions and uglier moments in public life (two words: Robert Bork). Of course, there is likely much good to balance some of the worst of the bad -- after all, the licentious Kennedy counted the upstanding Orrin Hatch as one of his best friends; and the story that Ted, Jr. recounted about his father, 12-year old Ted Jr.'s prosthetic, and their determination for Ted, Jr. to climb a snowy hill to ride his sled in the snow after Ted Jr. lost his leg to cancer is a paradigm of fatherhood.

There is also a lot to be said for the Kennedy mystique -- The Monk himself understood the Kennedy charisma when he met Rep. Joe Kennedy (RFK's eldest son) walking and shaking hands in a park outside Boston in 1993 during a services fair to help the homeless (we were there on behalf of this fine group). The fair seemed to stop as a short man with curly hair, bright eyes, and a big smile wandered the grounds chatting up the attendees.

But there is also reality. Ted Kennedy was an influential Senator in a narrow niche but his overall impact on policy, politics, and America are far less than what the eulogies in Time, Newsweek, the NY Times and other mainstream media outlets have declared. He was not the greatest or most accomplished of the Kennedy brothers. Ultimately, he probably knew that.

RIP

Two sporting dissents

I dissent.

There are two lines of NFL conventional wisdom that do not work.

First, the Brett Favre signing by the Vikings has raised the team to an NFC favorite, Vegas put the odds of the Vikes winning the NFC at 6-1, down from 12-1. Brett Favre has not made the Vikes the best team in the NFC, and the Vikings will not be the conference champs for the first time since Super Bowl XI.

Here's the argument: Favre will have a great running game, and a great defense against the run, and the team only needed a new QB to become a champion.

But that combination of great running game and defense sounds just like the 2007 Steelers (3rd in rush offense, 1st in total defense), who had a QB who threw for 32 TDs with just 11 INT, had a 1300-yard runner, and lost at home in the first round of the playoffs, just like the Vikes did last year. And it sounds like the 2008 Jets, who had a top 10 running offense and a top 10 defense against the run . . . and went 9-7 and watched every playoff game.

The Vikings barely beat the Giants in the final game of the season last year. The Vikes needed to win to make the playoffs, the Giants rested their starters (no Jacobs at all, Eli sat the second half, various lower workloads for the starters on defense and offense). And the best run defense in football (Minnesota) allowed 135 yards on 30 carries to the Giants' #2 and #3 runners and won only because the Jints had missed a field goal earlier in the game. With nothing to play for, the Giants acted as if the game were a preseason matchup, and nearly won.

Minnesota just was not that good last year: the Vikes should have lost to Detroit at home and won by just four in Detroit against the worst team in the past 30 years. They were no match for the Eagles or Titans. The Jets' improvement from 2007-2008 came as much from having a healthy QB as having a healthy QB named Favre -- look at how well the Dolphins did with the 2007 Jets' QB as their signal-caller (unlike Favre, Chad Pennington has never started 75%+ of his team's games and NOT made the playoffs). The Favre factor may enable another win for the Vikes, but they're not in the top three of the conference.

The second strain of conventional wisdom is that the Giants need a #1 receiver to win the Super Bowl. That's rot. The Giants' defense wilted in the last quarter of the season last year because the team lacked defensive end depth. The Giants' offense failed against the Eagles, twice, as much through error and game-planning (Domenik Hixon's dropped TD in the regular season, Coughlin's bad wind decisions in the playoffs) as the absence of a #1 receiver. The Giants lost to the Cowpatties in Dallas because the Cowmanures were desperate for a win (the Giants knew the next weekend's game against Carolina would be for the NFC's #1 seed), and the Giants didn't have Jacobs available. The Burress mess occurred at the worst possible time because the Giants could not reconfigure their offensive game plan against the Eagles as quickly as the Eagles revamped their defense against the Giants. But the fact is that the Giants had two of their best passing days with Burress out of the lineup (against Seattle and at Washington).

The defense was spent at the end of 2008. The team blitzed on 40 of Philly's 46 passing plays in the playoff matchup but only had one sack and few hurries. The Giants had five sacks in games 12-17 of their season. They allowed 28 points to the Panthers, had the Panthers run all over them and won only because Derek Ward went off. Tom Brady won three Super Bowls without a top-end #1 receiver, so did Ben Roethlisberger, so did the Bucs under Gruden. If the defense is healthy and rested, the Giants can go far.

The stopped clock and a Monkling

One of my colleagues who is basically wrong about everything political and social was right last year when he told me just how enormous a difference there is between a child at his first birthday and his second.

The Monkling turned two yesterday. He speaks in phrases and has an extensive vocabulary, not just a random word or sound (when he was 18 months, we laughed at one of the baby books that said he should have about 4-7 words he routinely sasy -- he had more than 30); he walks, instead of just stumbling around and bear-crawling; he no longer falls asleep on dada's head as we walk around the local greenbelt; he has a full little baby mop of hair . . . and he had that a year ago too. Some things don't change too quickly: mama is the greatest thing ever, Nana and Pawpaw are silly people who grab at his toes, dada is the big voiced man who sings silly songs to him and wins all the one-sided tickle-fights, he likes to pretend to be a zombie or a ghost because he knows when he attacks mama or dada he'll get hugged and kissed and tickled. And his hair is out of control.

But now, he likes specific things like Elmo, Thomas (trains, especially Toby), biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig trucks, pine cones that splash when thrown in the pond, testing what floats and what sinks, buses, Pei Wei, Propel water, raspberries, edamame, noodles, rice, almonds, bacon, peas, spicy food, sidewalk chalk, rocks, itsy-bitsy spiders crawling up water spouts, picking acorns, dada singing him to sleep, walking around the nearby greenbelt, the sticks in his aunt's backyard, rubbing his head against the cats' torsos, Boowa/Kwala, watching the garbage pickups each week, zrbrts (Cosby show reference) on his tummy, reading book after book after book with mama during the day, or dada at night.

And he has his momma's eyes.

That's the Monkling in a moment on his second birthday. What he did yesterday was play with his new train set, take two walks with dada, eat turkey and cornbread at Boston Market, have a big nap, drink his weight in Propel and chase the kitties.

The day before, when we held his party after his pregnant mama worked for hours decorating the house, he received the big train set (Imaginarium set with round house -- a good deal: tons of trains, accessories, double track layout, all for 1/2 the price of a Thomas set, and compatible with the Thomas accessories), opened his presents (lotta Thomas's friends and trucks, a backyard slide, more sidewalk chalk), ate his cake (but cried when we were about to cut the Thomas design in the frosting), had his favorite food for lunch (Pei Wei teriyaki chicken, rice, edamame) and fell asleep with dada as dada nodded off in mid-song.

That's my son.

Defiant ignorance

The most disturbing thing about Obama is not his preternatural self-assuredness. That's almost acceptable on some level because he is about as charismatic as he thinks he is. Instead, The Monk is most disturbed by Obama's belief that what he says is true even if it is undeniably false, and his unshakeable belief that his policy prescriptions will work even when every shred of scientific and economic evidence (depending upon the subject) conclusively prove otherwise.

This is nothing less than defiant ignorance, or aggressive solipsism. And it's not the sign of an intellectual or a highly intelligent person, it's the sign of a doctrinaire demagogue. For all his love of Keynesian economics (most of which is bunk), Obama still hasn't taken to heart the Keynesian maxim "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Thus, Fred Barnes' column on Obamanomics is a must read. Here's the core:

. . . He wants to eliminate many deductions for upper middle class and wealthy taxpayers. He's eager to spur the growth of unions, though success here is likely to slow the rate of growth and increase the rate of unemployment. He wants government to intervene more aggressively in the economy, a reliable job killer. He's asked for authority to seize any financial institution deemed (by his administration) a "systemic risk" to the economy. He thinks government can teach the private sector lessons in efficiency. That would be an historic first. He believes his budget, which triples the national debt, "lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity."

Whew! And this is just what Obama has proposed in the first six months of his presidency. Obamanomics pays lip service to a free market economy. But Obama hasn't a clue what makes it work.

Not the only one

I'm not the only contrarian who thinks the latest HP movie is a dud.

First, on second look Monkette agreed with a couple of my main complaints -- most notably how director David Yates botched the climactic scenes at the end. She just finished re-reading the book and that persuaded her I had a point. (Seriously, if this were anyone else other than my better half, I trumpet this as a mea culpa and publicize it all over the country).

Second, a friend of mine who is both Irish and a Jew (don't ask), let's call him Seamus O'Goldberg, mentioned that upon re-watching the movies for HP3 and HP4, and considering HP6 once again, he and the O'Goldberg family are a bit worried about the upcoming two-part finale film. The most redeeming feature of the finale, however, is that there's a LOT of Harry and Hermione adventure (Ron buggers off for a while) and Emma Watson is the strongest of the three young actors.

Third, the dropoff -- the HP take for weekend #2 was 61% less than for weekend #1. That's huge in Hollywood terms. Worse yet, that weekend #1 take was a bit lower than it would have been if the movie had actually opened on a Friday instead of a Wednesday. HP6 made more than 1/2 of its Wednesday-Sunday take in its opening week on its first two nights. Last year, The Dark Knight made $158M+ in its first three nights, HP6 made $159M+ in five. Then again, TDK was a fantastic movie.

See? Sooner or later there are people who come around to agree with me when I have a decent point to make. It's just a question of when they admit it . . . like PaMonk, who completely botched his most recent presidential vote.

To have come so far, with so far left to go . . .

Years ago, The Monk was a sports reporter. Not a "professional" journalist, I was an associate editor and editor of the sports section of The Cavalier Daily, Virginia's college newspaper. And considering the talent I worked with (four of my six associate editors became professional journalists; the smart ones became lawyers) and the accolades the paper routinely received, we were certainly legitimate reporters.

One endeavor I attempted was to attract female reporters to my department. It was a boys' club, no question, and that was a turn-off in recruiting. And in the late '80s and early '90s, there were not many young women interested in writing about sports at Virginia generally -- football was a dating event and drunkfest, basketball games were covered by editors, and other than soccer, the other sports were uninteresting. I made little traction. My successor as editor did groom a reporter for our section and she became the first female associate sports editor at the paper in about five years and maybe the third or fourth ever. She was also too smart for the business -- she's a partner at a law firm in the Tidewater area.

Access to the players was another issue: after a game at Kansas, Virginia's strength coach barred a female reporter from the football locker room by physically blocking her path. And if a female reporter gained access, the default for jocks is to see "female" and not "reporter" -- just ask Lisa Olson or Suzy Kolber.

There are a lot of obstacles for female sports reporters to achieve success and respect, not just the old warhorse men who think women and sports reporting don't mix. Some are their own colleagues, like Carolyn Hughes who committed adultery with pitcher Derek Lowe, and Lisa Guerrero -- a pretty face with vacant space above her neck. Some are the network fools, like the ones at ABC who decided to axe pioneer Lesley Visser because they thought she was too old (after that backlash and Guerrero's incompetence, ABC has used old pro Michelle Tafoya on NBA broadcasts). Some, unfortunately, are the ones who've achieved decent positions but are not good at their jobs (Pam Ward -- seriously, why doesn't ESPN just replace her in all assignments with Beth Mowins who can actually call a game?).

And heaven forfend if: (1) you're a female sports reporter; (2) you're good at the job; (3) you're attractive. Melissa Stark had to fight for acceptance. But she never faced this: getting videotaped nude after undressing in her hotel room by a stalker.

That's what happened to Erin Andrews, the extremely popular and perpetually genial ESPN sideline reporter. Andrews is pretty good at her job, and that's not easy because sideline reporting is a job in which it is more difficult to be good than to suck. She's also off-the-charts popular because she's attractive, friendly, and covers primarily college sports.

Whoever taped and posted that video should be prosecuted criminally. Andrews has vowed to kick his a** through the legal system. Good. If so, he'll get what he deserves.

But female sports reporters will have another inconceivably heinous thing to worry about while fighting for respect in a male-dominated business.

The 66-year old overnight sensation, RIP

It's a bit rare for retired New York City schoolteachers to become overnight sensations. It's a bit surprising when the sensation in question has been to your house, had a few with your dad, and you played with his daughter when you were kids. And Mom and Dad STILL had to buy my copy of his book as a Xmas present! That teacher was Frank McCourt, whose unorthodox teaching methods and overflowing classes were notorious in the City's elite Stuyvesant High School.

In 1930, Angela and Malachy McCourt had their first child, Francis. He was the product of a knee-trembler -- a drunken fit of passion that resulted in Malachy and Angela's marriage and led eventually to (at least) five more pregnancies, six more kids and a completely failed life together until the early 1940s. Their time together is aptly described in one of the most arresting passages in non-fiction literature:

When I look back on my childhood, I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of course, a miserable childhood: The happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood. People everywhere brag and whimper about the woes of their early years, but nothing can compare with the Irish version: the poverty; the shiftless loquacious alcoholic father; the pious defeated mother moaning by the fire; pompous priests; bullying schoolmasters; the English and all the terrible things they did to us for 800 long years.

That's the second paragraph of Angela's Ashes, the memoir that transformed an unknown retired English teacher into a media and publishing sensation around his 66th birthday. Frank McCourt was a colleague of PaMonk from 1972-1987, and was the oldest of the seven McCourt children, of whom four boys (Frank, Malachy Jr., Alfie and Michael) survived into adulthood, but his sister and a pair of twin brothers died before age 6. Angela's Ashes, McCourt's tragicomic tale of growing up in Depression-era Limerick, Ireland, is by turns sad, horrific, and hilarious.

And serendipitous. McCourt had wanted to write about his childhood for years, and when he finally found his voice and constructed his manuscript, his timing was perfect. In 1996, a tremendous international publishing convention in Germany had as its theme Irish culture. The word of mouth for McCourt's memoir was fantastic, and the momentum continued as the book became a bestseller (4,000,000 in hardback sales), Pulitzer Prize winner, and National Book Critics Circle Award recipient. Here's the rave review from Michiko Kakutani.

McCourt himself was a media darling. From Letterman to Charlie Rose to Larry King to talk shows throughout the nation, the charming, understated and slight aging gentleman with the soft Irish lilt was the perfect guest -- profound, funny and sharp-witted. And he had more reason to show his face on TV almost immediately after the initial book momentum died down -- the Alan Parker adaptation of the memoir into a movie (far inferior to the book). McCourt wrote two more memoirs, the introspective and self-pitying 'Tis and the episodic Teacher Man, neither of which attained the critical, financial or literary success of Ashes. By the publication of those books, however, McCourt was a commercial publishing hit and a millionaire.

Not bad for a retired teacher who stole apples and milk to survive childhood and help feed his family, struggled to obtain the qualifications he needed to become a teacher in New York City because he'd quit schooling at 13 to help his family, and taught in some of the best and worst schools in the City.

Yesterday he died as a result of metastatic melanoma.

Frank McCourt, RIP.

Harry Potter #6 -- that was the best they could do?

The Monk and Monkette saw the HP6 movie yesterday and have a full he said/she said take -- the boss liked it, I thought it sort of sucked -- the worst one since Chris Columbus's kiddie flicks for HP1 and HP2.

Because the boss doesn't have a blog, I can have my say here.

Everyone knows the set-up: After HP5, the return of Lord Voldemort is known and irrefutable. Harry is now The Chosen One -- the wizarding world's Jesus. The best way to protect him is to keep him going to school in the exceedingly well-protected confines of Hogwarts. And as the Death Eaters perform their mischief in the wider world, and the darkness of old Snakeface begins to affect the world, Hogwarts is a safe haven. The kids go to school, become adolescents and suffer their hormonal fugue states, the professors continue their teaching . . . but all in the lee of a dark wind blowing.

The book itself is 600+ pages, but far tighter and shorter than book 5, HP and the Order of the Phoenix (800+ pages), or book 4, HP and the Goblet of Fire. Books 4 and 5 were made into far better movies.

Here is the Good, Bad and Ugly of HP6 (movie version):

The Good:

(1) Generally the kids are getting better and better as actors. Daniel Radcliffe continues to get middling reviews, but I think that's a bum rap. He's done far better as the series has progressed. Emma Watson is very good. Rupert Grint has a fine comic acting future.

(2) The reviews for Michael Gambon have been universally positive and with good reason. He plays a wistful and perhaps mildly regretful Dumbledore very well. The other old bugger of note, Jim Broadbent, is quite good too.

(3) The opening set piece with Snakeface's minions destroying the Millenium Bridge is pretty cool.

(4) The boys playing the young Tom Riddle are quite creepy, especially the teenage version.

(5) Luna Lovegood had a far larger role than in the book -- Evanna Lynch is just the perfect space case for the role and consigning her to the three lines she had in the book would have been a disappointment.

The Ugly: (we'll go out of order because the Bad may be a long list)

(1) the effects in the cave where Dumbledore and Harry fight the zombies protecting Voldemort's horcrux hiding place are weak -- too obviously effects.

(2) Helena Bonham Carter's teeth -- perfectly British, crossed with vampire.

(3) The comment by Tonks that the werewolf Lupin's agitation and irritation as the moon ascends to full are worst at the "beginning of the cycle" -- lycanthropy as the magical equivalent of the menstrual cycle. Ick.

The Bad:

First, a preliminary note. Warner Bros. pushed the release date of the movie back from Thanksgiving 2008 to mid-July 2009 to make it a summer "tent-pole" movie (supporting the company's earnings for the year). But with eight extra months to make the film better . . . the filmakers failed. There's no quality comparison between last summer's mid-July blockbuster (The Dark Knight -- an all-time great) and this mess. Specific criticisms (SPOILERS ABOUND):

(1) The Dumbledore-Harry relationship's foundations are undercooked. As compensation for avoiding Harry in book 5 (and movie 5, as the ending colloquy between them showed), Dumbledore specifically sets up a special independent study class for Harry with himself as the professor -- the life and times of Tom Riddle. This is the crux of the book and completely lost in the movie. It adds to the relationship between the two in the book, which is lost in the movie.

(2) Lost flashbacks -- there are at minimum four flashbacks of Tom Riddle and his evil foundations, only two are shown in the movie (although one isn't really about him being evil) and that's bad. The ones cut from the film show Riddle as a parricide and conniver -- making Voldy seem far more evil and adding to the dread of the book.

(3) The love-sick kids. One of the best scenes in the movie has Hermione pining for Ron and asking Harry how it feels when he sees Ginny Weasley kissing her boyfriend. As Hermione cries on Harry's shoulder, he says, "it feels like this." That's brilliant. But the ridiculous amount of screen time for Jessie Cave (Lavender Brown) and Ron's love foibles is just far too much.

(4) Quidditch. Again, a bit much. HP5 had none and the movie certainly didn't suck. There were 10-15 minutes of quidditch in HP6 and it could have been cut in half.

(5) Pacing. Good gosh this was awful: bang-up opening, interesting scenes until Hogwarts, dreary, choppy, slow, inconsistent thereafter. The two final action sequences come completely out of the blue.

(6) The finale. This was botched twice over. First, one key aspect of the battle in the cave is that Harry must get himself and Dumbledore back to Hogwarts (and I think he took Dumbledore over the latter's objections) by apparating (Rowling's equivalent of teleporting). Harry had never done any such task -- he could only do so over short distances by himself. Now he shows his courage and dedication by performing such magic over a long distance to save his professor's life -- that was completely lost in the movie both emotionally and functionally (couldn't even tell Harry performed the magic).

Second, Dumbledore's death. This was a complete failure to mark the scene. Usually in large productions the movie handles such a scene as well as the book (see, Gandalf v. Balrog in The Fellowship of the Ring). Not here. In the book, Dumbledore paralyzed Harry during the Draco-Dumbledore confrontation and Harry was hidden under his invisibility cloak. It is not believeable that Harry would just stay silent and hide when Dumbledore is in trouble, but that's what happened in the movie.

Third, the attack on Hogwarts is completely botched. This was a huge battle and action scene in the book; in the movie, the scene plays like the art museum defacing by the Joker in the original Batman movie -- a band of ne'er-do-wells committing mere mischief. But Hogwarts is the bastion of "good wizards" and the attack is a challenge to the peace and prosperity for which it stands. Good luck discerning that in the movie.

(7) The Half Blood Prince. This is one of the weaker mysteries in the series and a bit of a dud, but ultimately makes some sense. In the movie, it's barely a footnote and the revelation is a real yawner.

David Yates has the helm for the last two movies in the series (book 7 is getting split into two films). He did well with book 5, he needs to redeem himself after this adaptation of book 6.

Palin and the GOP

On further review, the grand old dame of the GOP (Peggy Noonan) is dead-on in her evaluation of Sarah Palin.

Her history does not need to be rehearsed at any length. Ten months ago she was embraced with friendliness by her party. The left and the media immediately overplayed their hand, with attacks on her children. The party rallied round, as a party should. She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be. She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

Noonan liked Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention and has not become an Obamacan like other "conservative" pundits like David Brooks, Kathleen Parker or William F. Buckley's son Christopher. In other words, she didn't lose her f*cking mind last year. So her short summary on Palin's rise, fall and failure is both credible and thoughtful.

We liked Gov. Palin when she blew away the GOP Convention. We liked her when she held her own in the VP debate. We liked how she rallied the base around a candidate that had formerly been anathema to it. She didn't lose the 2008 election, McCain's panicky response to the financial crisis did (along with his unwillingness to hammer Obama's weaknesses). But as a future standardbearer for the party and a potential candidate for 2012 or 2016, she's inadequate. There are far better possibilities. The GOP just needs to find them because there's no telling what damage Obama can do to this country if he serves two terms.

The idiocy of Obama

Just 5.5 months into the Obama Administration and the following has been revealed: Obama is merely a useful idiot.

He's a useful idiot for (or of) the environmental Left, which wants high energy taxes that will have the most negligible possible effect on "climate change" even as the global warming science has become increasingly discredited and the Obama Administration has suppressed contrary viewpoints. Do you really think "renewable energy" will solve our alleged energy problems? Ask the Californians how that's working out.

He's a useful idiot for the socialization of health care, which is perfectly summed up as "We'll raise your taxes and in exchange we're going to cut your treatments."

He's a useful idiot for the unions, who even get a huge lift from the ridiculous climate change bill because government grants for projects will only go to grantees who implement union wage rules under the Davis-Bacon Act -- a guaranteed added cost to any project of about 30%.

And ultimately, he's a useful idiot for the despots of the world. Every major foreign policy decision by Obama has been wrong: pressuring Israel, calling for Zelaya's reinstatement in Honduras, silence in the face of the Iranian popular uprising (where now a major clerical group is defying the ayatollahs), betraying Poland and Czech Republic on missile defense, and prioritizing a moronically ridiculous idea of nuclear arm reduction negotiations that demonstrates only that Obama learned nothing from Reagan's triumph in the Cold War.

Oh yeah, the economy has become worse than Obama's tax-and-spend aides predicted too.

And to think, we have 3.5 to 7.5 more years of this. What a disaster.

On Liberty

Something to ponder on the 233rd anniversary of the founding of the Republic:

"Liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right to do what we ought."

- The British historian Lord Acton

Most would define freedom as the ability to do what he wants. That understanding is venal and incomplete.

A contribution from the late Henry Hyde:

Democracy is an ongoing moral experiment in a people's capacity to govern themselves. And only a certain kind of people can be self-governing: People who have been formed by a life-affirming culture; people who are not, in the depth of their souls, utter pragmatists; people who do not worship false gods; people who are inwardly self-governing in terms of their appetites and aspirations; people who cherish goods worth cherishing and honor heroes worth honoring.

When the Founders staked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on the American democratic experiment, they did not think that free government was inevitable, only that it was possible. And the Founders believed that its possibility depended on a certain kind of people: a people who knew that freedom, rightly understood, is not a matter of doing whatever we like, but of having the right to do what we ought. Freedom and virtue were inseparable, in their minds, and that meant that the house of freedom must rest on the foundation of a life-affirming culture.

The Great Rivera: 3000, 500 and 1

Congratulations to Mariano Rivera, The Great Rivera, for recording his 500th career regular season save last night. He also has 34 post-season saves (next best = Dennis Eckersley with 15).

The three numbers in the title have this significance:

3000 is the number of dollars in Rivera's signing bonus in 1990. He was a 20-year old beanpole from a fishing village in Panama who was expected to do very little as a starting pitcher, but the Yanks took a chance on him. Credit to scout Herb Raybourn, who signed the future Hall-of-Famer. What a bargain.

500 is obvious -- the save total he reached yesterday. Fittingly, in this age of three-out closers (*cough*Frankie Rodriguez and Eckersley*cough*), Mo came into last night's game in the eighth inning to secure the Yanks' win.

1 is his RBI total. Last night, in one of the worst pitching sequences possible, K-Rod (the aforementioned Rodriguez) walked Mo (career 0-for-5 including postseason) with the bases loaded to give the Yanks an insurance run in a 4-2 win.

In 1995, the Yanks called up Rivera to pitch in the major leagues as a starter. Other than an 8-inning, no-run, 11 K performance against the Chisax, he was an awful starter (3-3, 7.07 ERA). He fared better as a reliever -- after a rough first outing, he held down a 3.00 ERA over his final eight appearances. In the 1995 ALDS, he was a revelation: whiffing 8 Mariners in 5.1 IP and not giving up a run. As closer John Wetteland flopped, and the Yankees' staff as a whole bombed (5.94 ERA), Mo was brilliant.

In 1996, Rivera was THE bridge to the closer -- 107 IP, 130 K, 2.09 ERA and 1 HR allowed as the set-up man for Wetteland. Rivera finished third in the Cy Young Award voting as a set-up reliever, and 12th in the MVP ballot. That 2.09 ERA is great . . . but he has eight sub-2.00 ERA seasons.

The list of Mo's accomplishments as a player is long and The Monk would miss too many spots just trying to hit the highlights. The career statistical record says it all.

Congrats to Mo.

Buyer's remorse

The Monk would hope that PaMonk would be feeling some, at least at the same level that Marty Peretz does.

Peretz is the publisher of The New Republic, a political mentor of Al Gore, Jr., and strongly pro-Israel. Even as his magazine has become intellectually more akin to extreme left-wing periodicals like Mother Jones and The Nation, thanks to John Judis, Jonathan Chait, and Michelle Cottle (to its credit, TNR has also continued to print moderate liberals like Anne Applebaum, Leon Wieseltier and even moderate conservatives like Alvaro Vargas Llosa), Peretz is at minimum a voice of reason on Israel issues.

Or so it seemed until he famously wrote that friends of Israel and Jews could trust Obama. Peretz came to that conclusion in early 2008, and campaigned for Obama. Now, after Obama's speech in Cairo last week, Peretz seems to realize he screwed up. Some of Peretz's analysis of Obama's mythmaking:

When Obama attributes the establishment of Israel, and also Israel's fear that the Iranian government and many Arabs would quite happily visit another devastation on it, to the Holocaust, he is in fact accepting [Iranian Pres.] Ahmadinejad's analysis of the Zionist triumph and also one of the tenets of Palestinian rejectionism, which is that the Palestinians are correct in their phobia that they have paid the price for what the Nazis did to the Jews.

If the president does not grasp Israel's history, he should be more modest in his judgments. Here's just one huge fact that does not fit into the president's sweeping explanation for the success of the Jewish state: Why did more than 800,000 Jews return to Zion from their thousands of years of exile in the Muslim world beginning with the very morn of independence? Surely this rupturing of communal life dating back, in some cases, three millennia was not Holocaust-related.

* * *

I, too, am for a two-state solution. I always have been. As the president said, "many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state"; he should have said "most" rather than "many." . . . Alas, Obama cannot and does not say that most or even many Palestinians recognize the need for a Jewish state or even, for that matter, the Israeli state. Here there is no symmetry, alas, that will serve. The most he can say is that, "privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away." Why does he not say "many Palestinians"? Perhaps because it would be stark deception. So which Muslims? The democratic but, alas, irrelevant and tolerant Muslims of Indonesia? Or Cairenes, especially the intellectuals, who have lived under a peace treaty with Jerusalem for all of three decades, but have not quite accommodated themselves to the existence of Israel?

* * *
So, in the end, the grand conciliator violated his own principle and spoke asymmetrically: He was very tough on Israel, but he was vague to the Palestinians and to the Arabs. The president was not at all specific about what he wished from people who are still enemies of the Jewish state. Every Israeli concession requires a reciprocal concession, and not just words. But even words are difficult to extract from the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates. Mahmoud Abbas said only a fortnight ago that he had only to wait on what Israel surrenders. . .

Marty, and you too Dad:

I told you so.

Snakebit? More like suck

The Yanks aren't snakebit against the Red Sawx, they just suck. The problem is the Yanks like their shiny baubles -- the high-ceiling emotional flakes; the Red Sawx are tough. This has been the tale of the two teams since 2004, when the Yanks procured A-Rod, Kevin Brown, and Sheffield and let Pettitte go, while the Red Sawx obtained Schilling and dumped Nomah in mid-season. Since the 2004 ALCS, the Yanks have lost all three playoff series they've played; Bahstin has won the 2004 and 2007 World Series.

The Yanks have lost to the Sawx in nearly every way imaginable: they've blown 8th and 9th inning leads (game 1, game 8), they blew a 6-0 lead to lose a slugfest (game 2), they've been outpitched (game 3), they've been dominated (games 4, 5, 6) and from the fourth inning of game 2 until the 7th inning last night, they NEVER EVEN LED after the completion of an inning for five straight games against their biggest rival.

The Redsax toughness is now the stuff of legend: they scraped by the Yanks in games 4 and 5 of the '04 ALCS (one of which Mo blew, one of which Joe Torre blew) and never trailed in games 6 and 7; they fell behind Cleveland 3-1 in the '07 ALCS, then pounded the Indians 7-1, 12-2 and 11-2; they fell behind Tampa 3-1 in the '08 ALCS and 7-0 in the 7th inning of game 5 and extended that series to seven games. This is the toughness that the Yankees had from 1996-2001 -- the teams that were on the brink of defeat against Texas (1996, down 1-0 and trailing in the 9th in game 2 of a best-of-five series), Atlanta (1996, the '96 Yanks were the first team to win the World Series in 6 games after losing the first two at home), Oakland twice (2000 ALDS game 5 in Oakland, trailed 2-0 in ALDS in 2001), and even Arizona (ninth-inning miracles in games 4 and 5).

This is why signing AJ Burnett was a mistake (high-ceiling, Yankee-killer, injury-prone, complete flake) and the Yanks should have signed Derek Lowe (7-3, 3.44 with the Braves), who has started 32-35 games in each of his seven seasons as a full-time starter, cracked 200 IP five times, has five seasons of 14+ wins (Burnett has one) and who pitched six innings of one-hit ball in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS on TWO DAYS' REST. That's the kind of toughness the Yanks used to display.

The Yanks made two good moves this offseason by signing Teixiera (1.081 OPS, 3 HR, 7 R against the Sawx this year) and Sabathia. Tex is tough and has singlehandedly improved the Yankee defense by an order of magnitude. Sabathia pitches long, well and hard. He stayed in a batter too long last night. Burnett is going to be a 16.5M/yr bust, even if he averages 13-11, 4.60 each season. Joba has the requisite toughness to win (see his 1-0 win at Fenway last year), but the team as a whole is in a morass thanks to too many flakes (Cano, Cabrera, A-Rod) and bouts of plain stupidity (Swisher).

The Monk worried less when the Yanks fell behind Bastin in their season series 1-5 (2007), 1-4 (2006), and 1-5 (2004) because those teams tended to start slow, always played well against the Sawx the third time around (the Yanks won 9 of 10 v. Bastin at one point in 2006), had Torre at the helm (who managed every regular season game [tho' in 2004-07 not every playoff game] as if the Yanks needed the win; Girardi doesn't do that as well), and had taken their pound of flesh from the Sawx before the All-Star break. This year, the Yanks stink against Bahstin and won't get another change at redemption (the past three days were supposed to be the redemption) until August. At least in '97, when the Orioles were good and beat the Yanks like a drum, it was only 4-0 O's before the break and, even after the Orioles ran that series to 7-0, the Yanks immediately thrashed the O's four times in the final five games in the following 10 days (the one other loss was the two-game difference in the final standings).

There's no way to spin this -- the 0-8 start is a complete disaster.

Wongdoer is right about one thing, that ball two call on Pedroia last night changed the game a bit, but borderline calls are 50-50 propositions. Bad managing, bad execution, and bad character are not.

Snakebit

The Yankees are snakebit against Boston in 2009.

I'll leave the hard analysis to Monk who is good at this sort of thing. A few thoughts:

1. The Yanks need to IGNORE that they've been swept in Boston. NY, with the exception of the that five game Boston massacre, has completely lost its mojo/confidence/edge against Boston since the 2004 disaster. Take 2 out of 3 or sweep the Mutts and get on with life. Unless in the unlikely event that there is a tie for a playoff spot getting to and winning in the playoffs trumps even being 0-19 v. Boston

2. If CC had gotten that inside fastball call against Dustin Pedroia, it would have been one down and man on first. That should have been a strike. Compare that with the high strike on Teixeira in the 9th. That was very, very high.

3. A gripe that I've long had about the Yanks is how they went down in the 9th: 1-2-3. No fight. Can't blame Tex for that really because that should have been a double if it was hit four feet on either side of Youkilis. The Yanks are terrible at extending at-bats...except...

4. in the top of 8th in that bloody squall when the Yanks half took FOREVER and my continuing thought was get out of there and let CC come in before he gets cold. Can't blame the guys for fighting in the 8th but it was just bad timing.

Go Hoos II!

The Monk is a bit remiss (workload) and a bit late with this:

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE VIRGINIA CAVALIERS BASEBALL TEAM -- COLLEGE WORLD SERIES BOUND!

Virginia not only swept through the Irvine regional, as I discussed last Monday, it won its Super Regional and will now participate in the College World Series for the first time in school history!

Last weekend, Virginia had to travel to Oxford, Mississippi for a best of three series against the University of Mississippi. Ole Miss had received a #1 seed from the NCAA, which was appropriate (#9 or #11 ranking, top 16 RPI); Virginia had been screwed and given a #2 seed (#11 or #7 ranking, top 10 RPI). So Ole Miss hosted as the higher remaining seed.

Virginia bonked game 1, squandering a 3-2 lead entering the 9th with an error by the secondbaseman and a questionable pitching decision (not bringing in the team's lock-down quality closer to start the inning). Ole Miss won 4-3 on a leadoff homer in the bottom of the 12th.

In game 2, Ole Miss returned the favor, bonking a 3-2 lead entering the 8th with a terrible error by its secondbaseman (Chuck Knoblauch-ish throw) and the Cavs rallied for a 4-3 win.

In game 3, Ole Miss scored one in the first inning and nothing else. The Cavs' top-notch pitching carried the team; its hitters scraped together a three-run, error-aided rally in the fifth to take a 4-1 lead and Virginia coasted to the 5-1 win and a celebratory pile up in Oxford. Virginia is the only CWS team this year to lose its first game of the Super Regional.

On to Omaha, site of the College World Series and even tougher teams. The eight-team field is separated into two sub-brackets (basically teams seeded 1, 4, 5, 8 in one bracket; 2, 3, 6, 7 in the other). Virginia is essentially the #6 seed in the CWS, it faces national #3 seed LSU in its first game. The other teams in the sub-bracket are national #2 seed Cal-State Fullerton (the runner-up to UC-Irvine in the Big West Conference, but CSFU actually had a better resume because it fared better against non-Big West teams) and upstart Arkansas, which dropped Florida State in the Super Regionals.

This is the bracket of death: LSU is excellent again and is coached by Virginia coach Brian O'Connor's mentor, CSFU is a powerhouse, and Arkansas has feasted on good teams (5-0 against Florida, swept FSU, drubbed Oklahoma twice in Norman). Unlike Irvine or Ole Miss, Virginia's next opponents can BASH, which will be a big test for the Cavs' pitchers (who held UNC to 13 runs total in their four games this year -- a great total in high-scoring college baseball). Sub-bracket winner plays the survivor of Texas, North Carolina, Arizona State and darkest of dark horses Southern Miss (a #3 seed in its regional).

So this will be interesting. The semi-unknown Cavs on the biggest stage in College Baseball against two perennial powers (LSU has five titles, CSFU has four) and the "other" team from the nation's strongest conference, the SEC.

Go 'Hoos!

The Gipper

The Monk hoped that Mark Steyn would post his excellent eulogy to Pres. Reagan last week, but in the absence of Steyn doing so on his own website, The Monk found the eulogy on Free Republic.

Five years and three days ago, Ronald Reagan died. His public life came to an end 11 years before that. But his legacy still endures, despite the current president's efforts to defenestrate it. Here is the importance of Reagan:

[The 1970s] was the era of “détente”, a word barely remembered now, which is just as well, as it reflects poorly on us: the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the free world had decided that the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated. Under cover of “détente”, the Soviets gobbled up more and more real estate across the planet, from Ethiopia to Grenada. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the usual suspects who subscribed to this grubby evasion – Helmut Schmidt, Pierre Trudeau, Francois Mitterand – but most of the so-called “conservatives”, too – Ted Heath, Giscard d’Estaing, Gerald Ford.

And Reagan confounded those, like his misbegotten "biographer" Edmund Morris, who could not understand that certain evils had to be confronted, not cozened.

“The Great Communicator” was effective because what he was communicating was self-evident to all but our dessicated elites: “We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around.” And at the end of a grim, grey decade - Vietnam, Watergate, energy crises, Iranian hostages – Americans decided they wanted a President who looked like the nation, not like its failed government. Thanks to his clarity, around the world, governments that had nations have been replaced by nations that have governments. Most of the Warsaw Pact countries are now members of Nato, with free markets and freely elected parliaments.

The paramount success for the sportscaster, actor, governor of California and President is that he succeeded in ultimately making unfree people free.

Unlike [Heath, Ford, d'Estaing, et al.], unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism for what it was: a great evil. Millions of Europeans across half a continent from Poland to Bulgaria, Slovenia to Latvia live in freedom today because he acknowledged that simple truth when the rest of the political class was tying itself in knots trying to pretend otherwise. That’s what counts. He brought down the “evil empire”, and all the rest is fine print.

65 Years

Omaha Beach today.

65 years ago, on June 6, 1944, an estimated 4,500 Americans spent died here establishing the first beachhead against Hitler's 'Atlantic Wall'.   A first hand account of the assault is available here.

Note the width of the beach, its about 200 yards.   The fastest runner in the world trained and unencumbered can sprint that distance in about 20 seconds.   American GI's had to land on a sandbar 50 to 100 yards in the surf, wade to the edge of the water and make those 200 yards again a wall of enemy fire.  

20 Years

20 years ago this past Thursday a student-linked insurrection against the totalitarian government in the People's Republic of China was crushed by tanks. The photo above of a student with a shopping bag standing in the way of column of tanks is perhaps the most indelible memory of June 4, 1989.

China economic progress in the past twenty years has been nothing short of stunning. In fact fears of Chinese economic power today rightfully overshadows concerns about Japan's 20 years ago. The last ten years has made China rich and a creditor to many nations most notably somewhere near a trillion dollars of the United States. Folks treat China like fine china these days and many are selectively choosing to overlook the hideous warts of the government of this country who consider liberty as anathema as it ever has.

While we admire their single minded dedication to economic superpower status and their superb management of the economy (even this author will grudgingly admit) let's not forget this government rules from the memory and stands on the shoulders of the bloodiest murderers in human history.

A highly negative comparison

Losing out in a comparison of (political) courage* to former Pres. Jimmy Carter is a mark of Cain. And to Holman Jenkins, Pres. Obama is so marked.

In his column, Jenkins notes the perilous political path Carter navigated to push Congress to pass the Staggers Act, which deregulated the freight railroad industry and effectively saved it from mass bankruptcies. Compare that to Obama's sop to the UAW that constitutes his GM rescue plan:

Rail executives and economists had been arguing since the 1920s, when competition from trucks and planes began to emerge, that comprehensive federal regulation had only distorted the industry's pricing, driven away investment, and made competitive adaptation impossible. But the argument had a new ring now that Washington would have to bear the political risk of operating and subsidizing the nation's rail services.

It still took some doing on Mr. Carter's part. When the bill stalled, a hundred phone calls went from the White House to congressmen, including 10 by Mr. Carter in a single evening. The bill essentially no longer required railroads to provide services at a loss to please certain constituencies. It meant going up against farmers, labor, utilities, mining interests, and even some railroads -- whereas Mr. Obama's auto bailout tries to appease key lobbies like labor and greens, which is why it can't work.

In his message to Congress, Mr. Carter warned of a "catastrophic series of bankruptcies" and "massive federal expenditure" unless deregulation was allowed to "overhaul our nation's rail system, leading to higher labor productivity and more efficient use of plant and equipment."

* * *

In 1980, Congress passed the Staggers Act, ending a century of federal regulation and leading to the railroad industry's renaissance. Leo Mullin, then a young Conrail veep, would later look back and praise all involved for having the fortitude to recognize that salvaging the taxpayer's investment in Conrail meant more than fixing a single broken company -- it meant fixing a defective regulatory environment.

Carter also deregulated the airline industry. This is a far cry from Obama's plans to regulate the pharmaceutical (through health care reform) and automotive industries nearly to death.

* -- Despite innumerable political disagreements with the man, The Monk will not question Carter's personal courage. Carter served on submarine duty in the US Navy during World War II, and served under Adm. Hyman Rickover in the Navy's pilot nuclear submarine program.

Go Hoos!

For the first time in its previously far-from-illustrious history, the Virginia baseball team has moved past the regional round. Congratulations to the Cavs.

When The Monk and his friend Luskerdu were at Virginia, the team struggled to maintain a .500 overall record and never even sniffed the NCAA Tournament, which at that time had 48 teams split into eight 6-team regionals with the regional winners advancing to the College World Series. After we graduated (and I think there's documentary proof that Luskerdu did graduate), the Cavaliers caught lightning in a bottle for a year in 1996 led by the quite mortal Seth Greisinger, who played in the majors for the Tigers, Twins, and Braves (he was a first-round pick, he flopped) before going to Japan.

In 2003, the 23-year coaching term of Dennis Womack ended and Virginia hired Brian O'Connor, a Creighton grad who played in the College World Series, coached for his alma mater, then gained national recognition as an assistant at Notre Dame. Since hiring O'Connor, Virginia has been a top-flight baseball program: five 40+ win seasons in his six years, six straight NCAA Tournament appearances (compared to three in Virginia history before O'Connor arrived), an ACC championship and constant success in the ACC -- one of the better baseball conferences in the country considering its plethora of national powers (UNC, Clemson, Ga. Tech, Florida State, Miami).

O'Connor was a pitcher and his knowledge of pitching has been the key to Virginia's baseball success. The Cavs play at the cavernous Davenport Field and consistently have one of the better pitching staffs in college baseball. And it's not just at home -- the Cavs rarely play those 17-15 aluminum bat-aided slugfests (or 37-6 slugfests -- see the beating FSU put on Ohio State) on the road either, even in Atlanta or Chapel Hill or Miami.

The NCAA Tournament now has 64 teams split into 16 regionals with teams seeded 1-4 and eight teams seeded as overall Nos. 1-8 (like seeded players in tennis). The winner of the double-elimination regional goes to a Super-Regional to play a best of three series against another regional winner. The Super-Regional winner goes to the College World Series.

Two years ago, Virginia was up 3-1 and six outs away from its first-ever trip beyond the regional round against defending champion Oregon State. The Cavs threw away that game (four errors) and lost the rematch; Oregon State didn't lose again on its way to another national title.

This year, the Cavs got a complete screw-job from the NCAA Tournament committee. After winning the ACC Tournament (beating UNC, Clemson and Florida State in the process, all of whom received #1 seeds), Virginia's RPI was #6 and its national ranking was #7 or #11 (depending upon the poll). Instead of hosting a regional as a #1 seed, the Committee sent the Cavs across the country to Irvine to the regional with the No. 6 overall seed (UC-Irvine), the best pitcher in college baseball (San Diego State's Stephen Strasburg -- the upcoming No. 1 pick in the baseball draft who throws 98-102 mph with a fantastic curve and slider), and the defending NCAA champ, Fresno State. If the NCAA does the snake-seeding method of the basketball committee, UVa was rated as the No. 27 team in the country. A ridiculous notion.

And yet . . . the team turned that chickens**t seeding into chicken salad. The Cavs took batting practice from 40 feet against pitching machines at top speed to prepare for Strasburg, flew out to Irvine without much talk of their bad draw, and performed. They touched Strasburg (ERA 1.24) for two runs and outpitched SDSU in their first game, 5-1. They shut down Irvine on Saturday 5-0. Last night, the Cavs again stifled Irvine on its home field -- a 4-1 win that sends Virginia to its first-ever Super Regional to play the winner of tonight's Mississippi-Western Kentucky game.

Congratulations to the Cavs. You're moving near the big stage now.

Sotomayor not a bipartisan pick

Ed Whelan has this note regarding how Judge Sotomayor was selected by the George HW Bush White House to be a district court judge:

. . . when President Bush nominated Sotomayor to the district court in 1991, the New York senators, Moynihan and D’Amato, had forced on the White House a deal that enabled the senator not of the president’s party to name one of every four district-court nominees in New York. Sotomayor was Moynihan’s pick. I am reliably informed that Bush 41’s White House nonetheless resisted nominating her because she was so liberal and did so in the end only as part of a package to move along other nominees whom Moynihan was holding up.

So not only did Bush put Souter on the Court, he paved the way for Sotomayor. And Whelan indicates she will be a far left-wing voice.

But as I said before, her lack of intellectual firepower compared to Scalia and Roberts means she won't be an influential one (*cough*Stevens*cough*).

Easy confirmation, no superstar

Pres. Obama took the quick and easy path by nominating Hon. Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court.

First, she's a two-party appointee. Pres. Bush (I) appointed her to a Federal district court bench during his sole term in office, Pres. Clinton appointed her to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (which handles appeals from cases filed in district courts in New York, Connecticut and Vermont).

Second, she is female. As only the third female nominee, she'll receive great deference from the Senate (only three Senators total have voted against a female Supreme Court appointee -- the three dissenters to Justice Ginsburg).

Third, she is Latina. This is the minority category du jour that "deserves" a place on the Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada would have been the first undoubted Latino to serve on the Supreme Court if the Democrats had not filibustered his Court of Appeals nomination under Pres. Bush (II). Whether Justice Benjamin Cardozo (served 1932-38) was Hispanic is an open question.

Fourth, her paper trail, while not overwhelming the average Rhodes Scholar for its intellectual content, is not overly controversial. For a Democrat's nominee to be "controversial" to the media, the nominee would have to take opposite positions on Iraq War or War on Terror issues (Elena Kagan) or have doubts about the legality of abortion. For such a nominee to be controversial in general, the nominee would have to espouse a judicial philosophy that questions whether the law should be applied as written. Her comments that a wise Latina woman with the experiences of growing up poor, female, and Latina should reach the right conclusion in a case more often than a white male who was never poor nor Latino, is nonsense and preposterous on its face. It's the same "empathy" quality that elevates the feelings of the litigants over the rule of law. But it's less easy to challenge her dedication to the rule of law than Obama's alleged favorite.

Obama had a Supreme Court candidate whose dedication to the rule of law is highly questionable. That candidate was Diane Wood, a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She seemed to be the favorite of liberal interest groups and the professoriat because she supposedly has the intellectual candlepower to go toe-to-toe with Scalia and Roberts. That's highly unlikely. But Wood was also the most controversial candidate possible precisely because her dedication to the rule of law is more open to question than any of the other rumored candidates (Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Sotomayor). After Sen. Jon Kyl said Republicans would fight any nominee who placed empathy over analysis (a shot at Wood), Sotomayor became the most logical pick.

Possibility of her nomination passing the Senate = 100%.

Possibility of her appointment passing without dissenting votes = 45%.

Possibility of her reasoning in decisions ever being equally persuasive as Scalia's = 0%.

Why Government Can't Run A Business*

John Steele Gordon's column today in the Wall Street Journal on why government cannot by its nature run businesses efficiently is the best I've ever read. The piece requires very little commentary but if there is one fact to take away it's: 

Governments make political decisions whereas running a business requires sound economic decisions.

By all means read it all but here are the bullet points:

1) Governments are run by politicians, not businessmen.

2) Politicians need headlines.

3) Governments use other people's money.

4) Government does not tolerate competition.

5) Government enterprises are almost always monopolies and thus do not face competition at all.

6) Successful corporations are run by benevolent despots.

7) Government is regulated by government.

Obamessiah is Wrong

Cliff Asness, founding principal of AQR Capital Management which runs $20 billion, savaged President Obama for his attack on hedge funds during the Chrysler bankruptcy process. It's exceptionally well-written. The key point:

The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power.

As for the arrogance of this administration I would draw attention to the comment by White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs this week: "We cannot rule out management changes after the stress-tests."

Specifically as Obamessiah executed Rick Wagoner at GM, they won't hesitate to execute bank and finance company CEOs.

Arlen Ambushed

My initial reaction on learning that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania had crossed the aisle to become a Democrat was something like "That EFFING TRAITOR!!#$" in large part as Specter would give the Democratic caucus cloture proof sixty votes in the Senate which is in reality the last real obstacle to a liberal President and liberal Congress running rampant.

For many conservatives Specter has been a RINO (Republican In Name Only) for some years now in particular on his judicially activist views specifically calling Roe v. Wade and its subsequent survival a super-precedent. There were also those rancid "Kerry/Specter" lawn signs from 2004. On the other hand he did shepherd though the not particularly easy appointment of Samuel Alito the high bench.

It was amusing and a pleasant surprise this week when it turned out that the Senate Democratic leadership led by the sanctimonious snake Harry Reid that they essentially screwed Specter. Specter, who apparently was promised that he would maintain his Senate seniority if he switched parties, found himself treated as the most junior Democrat on Senate committees. This is a deep blow to Specter who attempted to sound Reaganesque on the reasons for his switch, i.e., "I didn't leave the Republican Party, THEY left me" but admitted that the catalyst of his switch was the fact that conservative Pat Toomey would run against him in Republican primary in 2010 and that the likelihood of him prevailing in that contest was bleak.

Essentially he switched parties, a month after stating unequivocally that he would not, to save his exalted seat in the Senate.

There may a silver lining somewhere in all of this.

2010 is a long way away but assuming that Pat Toomey is the Republican candidate, Specter is more likely than not to be a Democratic candidate. A Specter left out in the political cold is likely a very disgruntled Specter (remember his nickname IS Snarlin' Arlen) who won't get many Republican votes at all and might see the most liberal Democrats too disgusted to vote for him. A well run campaign by Toomey and a dulling of the gloss of Obamessiah may be enough to put this seat back in Republican hands. Even if Specter won, he would be a moderate to conservative Democrat rather than perhaps a liberal Democrat so this switch, while not a good thing, may not be such a bad thing after all.

Reid and the Democrats despite Specter's orneriness (still supporting Norm Coleman in Minnesota) should have welcomed Arlen with open arms and just bit their tongue and make sure Specter was in the tent p*ssing out.

Just Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAfJyzN3ak

No idea if there is a backstory to this; e.g., perhaps Bush asked the White House press corps NOT to stand.

I am an Occam's Razor guy and seems to be me that the press has found their Messiah. Just hope it's not the false Messiah from Revelation.

Socialist Meddling

Why did stocks drop sharply yesterday? A pullback after an improbable six week advance? The immediate driver was the leak over the weekend that the Treasury was considering exchanging its preferred equity in US banks into common equity AND SecTreas' Geithner's comment that health of individual banks may not be the SOLE criterion for repayment of TARP money.

Healthy banks, some of whom had TARP money forced on them for the sake of the overall financial system last fall, want to pay it back as quickly as possible to get the government of their boardrooms. Goldman, Sachs and JPMorgan are at the head of the pack.

The Obama Administration likes to meddle and would like to do indefinitely. There's been a largely unspoken fear that healthy banks would not be permitted to pay TARP back. An excuse that it would be better for the financial system was likely or perhaps even more fearfully a diktat that said no one would be allowed to pay it back until all the banks can pay it back to assure a level playing field. Citigroup and Bank of America will take YEARS to pay it back.

If the House's 90% punitive tax plan was any indication, neither the Administration or Congressional Democrats (and the 80 or so idiot Republicans who voted for this bill), government in the boardroom is a bad idea. This is why financials took a tumble yesterday with financials leading the way.

A season in an inning?

That terrible ACK ACK sound you heard yesterday afternoon was the Yankees bonking an eighth inning lead by allowing three two-out runs to the woeful Royals (eight runs in previous five games). And the loss is ultimately Girardi's fault -- too much tinkering at the margins.

Girardi put Brian Bruney in for the 7th inning. Bruney is now being counted upon as a bridge to Rivera, and he responded with an easy 14-pitch inning. Then Girardi put Damaso Marte in for three lefties in the 8th. When the Royals pinch hit with two outs, Girardi lifted Marte.

And that's where the Yanks lost the game. Marte is getting serious money (> 15M/3 years) to pitch 60-70 innings a year and he has the experience and capability of getting righties out. That said, the otherwise underwhelming Billy Butler does hit lefties hard (.983 OPS v. lefty, .649 OPS v. righty). Once Girardi lifted Marte, he brought in Jose Veras. Veras walked Butler. That's inexcusable. But it's not reason to lift Veras to bring in the less experienced Phil Coke against a switch-hitter. Coke is a lefty-specialist; Veras was a general reliever who has a sufficiently effective breaking ball to get lefties out. And Veras has more experience both as a reliever and a major leaguer (Coke was primarily a starter in the minors). Bad move.

The Mess lost nearly 30 games last year that they led in the 7th and 8th innings because their bullpen stank. The Yanks cannot win the most competitive division by over-thinking the matchups against a stiff team.

Ultimately, there will be two repercussions -- more Joba-should-set-up nonsense from the fans, and more questioning of Girardi's handling of the bullpen (which had its own issues last year).

The possible solution is in Scranton -- Mark Melancon. He tore through A, AA and AAA ball last year and is a candidate to take over for Rivera in 2011. He throws hard, and is a career reliever, not a starter who can be converted like Joba. He'll be with the big club before June, especially if Veras and Coke can't find the plate.

Pres. Obama does the right thing

Pres. Obama passed a major test of will -- he ordered the dispatch of the USS Bainbridge and its Navy SEALs who effected the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips of the Maersk Alabama after the ship had been captured by pirates, the Captain had exchanged himself for his captured crewmen, and the crew had retaken the vessel whilst Phillips remained captive of Somali pirates for more than two days.

Obama needed prodding -- the military reportedly urged Obama to act before the president did so, and only when it was apparent that the pirates would kill Phillips did the rescue occur. Indeed, Obama seems to have limited the SEALs' authority to act such that they did not initiate rescue attempts when Phillips sought to escape on Friday. And there had to be some embarrassment level within the administration as Obama dithered Thursday and Friday as the Maersk crewmen took matters into their own hands and retook their ship.

Kudos to the Navy SEALs who gunned down three pirates including the one with a rifle aimed at Phillips. And ultimately, the best outcome occurred -- Phillips was rescued, the pirates were killed and the SEALs' tremendous competence was displayed. This will be a triumph for Obama, which would become a greater one if the president took some initiative and ordered strong action against Somali pirates, who continue to hold more than 200 hostages.

Bad Journalism 101

Read the story linked above and you'll think the Obama State Department is hopelessly cheap -- giving just $50,000 to Italy for relief assistance for the earthquake that hit L'Aquila.

But, as Instapundit noted thanks to one of his astute readers, the US isn't being cheap at all. The chief of mission in Rome immediately granted that 50K and that's the maximum the chief of mission may disburse without additional approval.

The Agence France Presse, which carried the story, should have made that fact apparent.

PECOTA Projections for 2009

Baseball Prospectus has run its PECTOA (Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm) projections for 2009 and come up with the following division winners: Yanks, Indians, A's, Mess, Cubs, Dodgers with the RedSawx and D'Backs as the wild card teams.

These projections are interesting for various reasons, not least of which are that BP has a good track record for picking sleepers (they had the Rays with 90 wins last year).

But some of the numbers they come up with are weird. They had only two AL teams hitting better than .265, which was below the league average last year (.268). They had the Yanks at .264/.337/.413 for average, OBP and SLG but the '08 Yanks were .271/.342/.427 with a weak year from A-Rod, too many at bats for Jose Molina and no Texeira. And BP predicted the Yanks would allow just 634 runs -- the last time the Yanks allowed less than 656 (the 1998 total) in a full season was 1978.

BP also predicted that the three best overall batting teams would be from the National League and even predicted the Rangers would score fewer than 800 runs, something they've never failed to do since The Ballpark in Arlington opened in 1993.

Review the numbers . . . and have some salt grains handy.