The current POTUS is massively unpopular with the country at large but is incredibly popular with members of his party. If anything, we can deduce from this he is EXACTLY the president they want. And that, my friends, is a very bad omen.
For the longest time, those of us with roots in the Americas who learned from our older relatives—and in some instances witnessed it ourselves—what a US-backed and installed right-wing dictatorship looks like, have contemplated why it hasn’t happened here. Maybe it was a condescending ‘That’s fine for those savages, but we’re civilized here’ attitude that for decades kept those thoughts in check. But I’ve always wondered if somewhere, deep in the corridors of right-wing influence and power, over cigars and brandy, while dreaming of or actually plotting the destabilizing yet another foreign county and installing another strong man who’d kindly defer to big business interests while he stomps on his own people, the idea hasn’t been floated: ‘What if we did it here?’
And yes, I know what you’re thinking: I’m just another partisan dilettante yapping away. Sure, guilty as charged. But I’ve quoted him before and I’ll quote him again: “Just because you’re paranoid don’t mean they’re not after you.” Right you were, Kurt.
But seeing the process of delegitimizing the press, rigging elections, questioning patriotism, pointless military parades, etc. etc. etc. is of no surprise to me; I can vouch for the ugliness this portends and worry that most on our side of the political fence here in the US are still in ‘it can’t happen here’ mode. No? Ask yourself how many previously unthinkable things you’ve seen happen in this country over the last year and change. And ask yourself how comfortable you are with a third or maybe more of the country being absolutely fine with these previously unthinkable things.
It doesn’t happen overnight but it moves along steadily and insidiously. And when you have a corrupt government, supported by a number of people who mostly don’t have an issue with autocratic leadership—as long as they’re not on the business end of the 2 x 4 with a rusty nail on the tip—and a core who want to decimate those who believe, feel, live and think differently, how do you think that usually plays out?
Meanwhile, we’re hoping that the same people who wanted this and made it happen somehow become reasonable and let us appeal to their (chained to a wall in the basement) humanity. And that elections, which have now been proven to be easily tainted, will save the day.
Yeah, reminds me of a Judas Priest song.
Thursday, February 8, 2018
Sunday, February 4, 2018
This Is War (part 2)
As we witness blatant, out-in-the-open treason by the POTUS, Congress at various levels, and the myriad of bootlickers and sycophants who carry more water than the Mississippi, it’s quite plain to see how much these people hate the United States of America. And, no, I’m not being hyperbolic.
They hate a country that has tried, over the last 50 years, to shed the horrible aspects of its past, to move towards a place of equality, respect, tolerance and understanding. No. They want a white supremacist fatherland where everyone else is a second-class citizen who speaks only when spoken to and knows their fucking place; what “make America great again” is code for.
Numbers may be the currency of veracity but impressions speak louder: I read all the time that the country is getting more open, more diverse. Perhaps this is exactly the case and those who feel threatened are reacting accordingly. Which reminds me of something I read about how the ‘90s indie/underground/alternative rock ushered a wave of feminism and tolerance that never really took hold in a prominent and lasting manner: the flannel shirt didn’t fit very well.
I took it to mean that the average American is not so much liberal or conservative as they are lodged damn smack in the ideological middle, as mainstream as they come, and not really comfortable with the unadulterated manifestations of either side the social and political fence. (And also, that people will fake allegiance to the trappings of a pop culture moment to avoid looking uncool to their peers but will eventually revert to who they really are.)
We are what we’ve always been; we’re experiencing déjà vu all over again—but with a twist: the American institutions created to ostensibly protect us are being assailed by those for whom treasonous self-preservation is above all, and supported by a third of the country’s population, a staggering number of whom have had enough of keeping the truly dark, hateful, selfish nature of their souls in check.
I have no idea how this ends but I feel that, even if this country remains united on paper, the depth of our divide is too great to overcome in any way that we can coexist without a profound measure of disdain. And that’s what I see as a best case scenario for, in fact, I truly believe any display or support for compassion, openness and tolerance will be met by force, humiliation and subjugation.
Folks, we’re at war and the American Taliban has no intention of taking prisoners. Their actual intention is to crush us so that we may never have any kind of power or even momentum to fight them for the soul of this country. You don’t think so? Look around you: the undermining of bedrock institutions; refusals at various levels of government to comply with the law; the kid glove treatment of sworn international enemies; religious leaders not even bothering to cover their tracks, as they openly and hypocritically rewrite their own rules of morality as befits their political corruption and greed.
They’re in it to win it. And destroy us.
What's our plan?
They hate a country that has tried, over the last 50 years, to shed the horrible aspects of its past, to move towards a place of equality, respect, tolerance and understanding. No. They want a white supremacist fatherland where everyone else is a second-class citizen who speaks only when spoken to and knows their fucking place; what “make America great again” is code for.
Numbers may be the currency of veracity but impressions speak louder: I read all the time that the country is getting more open, more diverse. Perhaps this is exactly the case and those who feel threatened are reacting accordingly. Which reminds me of something I read about how the ‘90s indie/underground/alternative rock ushered a wave of feminism and tolerance that never really took hold in a prominent and lasting manner: the flannel shirt didn’t fit very well.
I took it to mean that the average American is not so much liberal or conservative as they are lodged damn smack in the ideological middle, as mainstream as they come, and not really comfortable with the unadulterated manifestations of either side the social and political fence. (And also, that people will fake allegiance to the trappings of a pop culture moment to avoid looking uncool to their peers but will eventually revert to who they really are.)
We are what we’ve always been; we’re experiencing déjà vu all over again—but with a twist: the American institutions created to ostensibly protect us are being assailed by those for whom treasonous self-preservation is above all, and supported by a third of the country’s population, a staggering number of whom have had enough of keeping the truly dark, hateful, selfish nature of their souls in check.
I have no idea how this ends but I feel that, even if this country remains united on paper, the depth of our divide is too great to overcome in any way that we can coexist without a profound measure of disdain. And that’s what I see as a best case scenario for, in fact, I truly believe any display or support for compassion, openness and tolerance will be met by force, humiliation and subjugation.
Folks, we’re at war and the American Taliban has no intention of taking prisoners. Their actual intention is to crush us so that we may never have any kind of power or even momentum to fight them for the soul of this country. You don’t think so? Look around you: the undermining of bedrock institutions; refusals at various levels of government to comply with the law; the kid glove treatment of sworn international enemies; religious leaders not even bothering to cover their tracks, as they openly and hypocritically rewrite their own rules of morality as befits their political corruption and greed.
They’re in it to win it. And destroy us.
What's our plan?
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
This Is War
The dominant presence of Breitbarters and other assorted knuckledraggers clearly demonstrates, once again, how the hard right is no longer the fringe but the heart of the current GOP.
It’s one big pirate ship of bigoted, corrupt, and power hungry scum who are out to destroy this country. Aided and abetted by fake Christians, the gullible and/or idiotic, and a Democratic Party that doesn’t fucking get it and urgently needs a wartime consigliere.
Make no mistake, short of secession, blue states will not escape the wrath of these demons via states rights. No, those are only to be acknowledged when upholding the continued existence of statues erected to honor traitors to the United States and other loathsome proposals. They will not be happy until they turn us into one of their fucking insolvent backwaters. Hell, if they could round up liberals and PoC into concentration camps they'd do it in a heartbeat. (No, don't think so? Ask any Japanese-American.)
We’re at war, people. The Dems are under the impression we’re just having a disagreement. God help us.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
The Right's Hollywood Hypocrisy
The next time some self-righteous conservative complains about Hollywood celebrities having no clue what it is to be poor/working class and to struggle to make ends meet, remind them of these 10 examples:
- Jim Carrey’s family lost their house and ended up living in a van when he was a teenager; he quit school at 15 to help his family and worked as a janitor for a while.
- Daniel Craig was once homeless and slept on park benches in London.
- Tom Cruise’s mom worked four jobs (4!) to provide for Cruise and his 3 siblings.
- Leo DiCaprio grew up in a drug infested and prostitution riddled part of Hollywood and was homeless for a bit.
- Celine Dion’s father had to support Celine and her thirteen (13!) siblings on a salary of a little more than $600/mo.
- Shia LaBeouf is the child of “artists who never found an audience for their artwork. And so I lived in poverty”.
- Leighton Meester was born while her mother was doing time in a federal jail in Texas for her involvement in a drug ring.
- Demi Moore lived in a trailer park until she turned 16 and left home.
- Sarah Jessica Parker was on welfare as a kid.
- Hillary Swank grew up in a trailer park and later lived in a car with her mom.
- Jim Carrey’s family lost their house and ended up living in a van when he was a teenager; he quit school at 15 to help his family and worked as a janitor for a while.
- Daniel Craig was once homeless and slept on park benches in London.
- Tom Cruise’s mom worked four jobs (4!) to provide for Cruise and his 3 siblings.
- Leo DiCaprio grew up in a drug infested and prostitution riddled part of Hollywood and was homeless for a bit.
- Celine Dion’s father had to support Celine and her thirteen (13!) siblings on a salary of a little more than $600/mo.
- Shia LaBeouf is the child of “artists who never found an audience for their artwork. And so I lived in poverty”.
- Leighton Meester was born while her mother was doing time in a federal jail in Texas for her involvement in a drug ring.
- Demi Moore lived in a trailer park until she turned 16 and left home.
- Sarah Jessica Parker was on welfare as a kid.
- Hillary Swank grew up in a trailer park and later lived in a car with her mom.
Friday, December 22, 2017
The Divided States of America
So, Chumpbots: Got a question for ya.
What part of your hero's Muslim ban was going to protect us from the ex-Marine who was planning a terrorist attack in San Francisco on Christmas Day? An attack thwarted by the ever diligent FBI, btw, which is in "tatters" according to your idol, Mango Mussolini.
It's bad enough that blue state taxes take care of your deadbeat, welfare red states, but you people spew your fucking hate and elect the biggest terrorist recruiter in history and OUR cities have to deal with the terrorist fallout, not Bumfuck, USA. So when you people call us terrorist sympathizers, un-American or whatever bullshit Breitbart, Fox, Alex Jones, etc. feed you, maybe we should point these assholes in your direction. Let them bomb the "real" America. See how you like it.
Trying not to hate you even more than I already do 'cause it's Christmas, but...
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Beware the American Taliban
When
Sen. Barack Obama won the 2008 Democratic primary, noted Clinton
supporter and CNN analyst Paul Begala says the first thing he did was
open his checkbook and “proudly sent him a check for the legal maximum.
On the memo line of the check I wrote, 'FOR NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING ONLY’”.
Begala’s no holds barred approach makes many if not most Democrats
clutch their pearls, but I’m with him. My beloved mother—who was
involved in politics at the grass roots level and beyond for decades—has
always said politics is a dirty thing, so the best you can do is not
defame or lie. But after that—you do what ya gotta do.
Democrats, unfortunately, still haven’t gotten that memo, acting as if it’s possible to shame the shameless into doing the right thing. That being on the side of righteousness is enough to win elections. Or that somehow full-on attacks when politically beneficial is crass or beneath us. (Kudos to the Doug Jones camp for being smart in holding back—and letting the GOPers in Alabama go on a rampage against each other—but that should be an exception, not the rule.)
Guess what? When you’re in politics, you’re by definition already in the gutter. And to reach the moral high ground without climbing over those who impede your way is simply not possible. That moral high ground is obtained, as mom says, by not defaming or lying. But otherwise, whack ‘em over the head with the kitchen sink—or the mop bucket, in the preferred Dominican version.
Bottom line: The people we're up against don't see us as being of a different ideology or philosophy, as we see them. No, we are the enemy. And when you face an enemy you use every resource at your disposal. That's why they have no qualms about supporting bigots, otherwise incompetents, racists or even pedophiles; whatever it takes to reach their nefarious goals.
Whether it’s populating the courts with fundamentalist Christians in the hope that they will repeal women’s rights to their bodies and in the workplace (so they can stay home and become the baby makers the white supremacists want them to be), as well as revoking the separation of church and state as a big step towards turning this country into a theocracy; rolling back social safety nets, environmental protections, student loans and other assistance for higher education aspirants from the working class, and further decimating the rights of the workforce in the name of Big Money; these people are not messing around—they’re playing for keeps. (You think the Koch brothers investing in the purchase of Time magazine is portfolio diversification? Think again.) They've seen it done all over the world—and in many instances by our own government—now it's time for the bigger and better American version.
The very soul of our beloved country lies in the balance, and time is most definitely of the essence: much of the damage done by this administration and its accomplices is likely irreparable. So, what are we gonna do? Continue to act all prim and proper while the other side smears feces in our collective faces and laughs about it? You tell me.
Democrats, unfortunately, still haven’t gotten that memo, acting as if it’s possible to shame the shameless into doing the right thing. That being on the side of righteousness is enough to win elections. Or that somehow full-on attacks when politically beneficial is crass or beneath us. (Kudos to the Doug Jones camp for being smart in holding back—and letting the GOPers in Alabama go on a rampage against each other—but that should be an exception, not the rule.)
Guess what? When you’re in politics, you’re by definition already in the gutter. And to reach the moral high ground without climbing over those who impede your way is simply not possible. That moral high ground is obtained, as mom says, by not defaming or lying. But otherwise, whack ‘em over the head with the kitchen sink—or the mop bucket, in the preferred Dominican version.
Bottom line: The people we're up against don't see us as being of a different ideology or philosophy, as we see them. No, we are the enemy. And when you face an enemy you use every resource at your disposal. That's why they have no qualms about supporting bigots, otherwise incompetents, racists or even pedophiles; whatever it takes to reach their nefarious goals.
Whether it’s populating the courts with fundamentalist Christians in the hope that they will repeal women’s rights to their bodies and in the workplace (so they can stay home and become the baby makers the white supremacists want them to be), as well as revoking the separation of church and state as a big step towards turning this country into a theocracy; rolling back social safety nets, environmental protections, student loans and other assistance for higher education aspirants from the working class, and further decimating the rights of the workforce in the name of Big Money; these people are not messing around—they’re playing for keeps. (You think the Koch brothers investing in the purchase of Time magazine is portfolio diversification? Think again.) They've seen it done all over the world—and in many instances by our own government—now it's time for the bigger and better American version.
The very soul of our beloved country lies in the balance, and time is most definitely of the essence: much of the damage done by this administration and its accomplices is likely irreparable. So, what are we gonna do? Continue to act all prim and proper while the other side smears feces in our collective faces and laughs about it? You tell me.
Sunday, September 25, 2016
The Great Divide(r)
One of the reasons I believe a certain segment of the population has been so openly hostile to President Obama is the realization, conscious or otherwise, that the so-called browning of America has reached the highest point: a black man in the White House. For the prejudiced or outright racist who have seen people of color become more and more prominent in American life, it seems like at least the presidency was something “they” wouldn’t get; the last safe bastion against the encroachment of people of color in all spheres of American society. Then it happened.
And with that, directly or not, the subject of race has come to the forefront.
Clearly, white resentment has not been couched in ambivalence, as we see every day, from how the President is disrespected to the deplorable reactions to the murder of unarmed black men, women and children at the hands of the police. One of the signature claims of that resentment is that Obama has divided the country. It’s that mentality that led a Trump surrogate in Ohio to state there was no racism before Obama. Yes, she got bashed for making such an absurd statement and, at first, my reaction was that I was witnessing an instance of yet another conservative believing their opinions are fact and, as such, are not subject to scrutiny. (See Antonio Sabato Jr. claiming at the most recent GOP convention that he believes Obama is a Muslim, and that his confidence in that belief is enough to make it true.) But in all fairness, what she did was articulate very badly what many like her truly feel: that issues of race and racism are now and have been discussed more in the last 8 years than in the previous 30 or so. And that makes bigots, active or passive, very, very uncomfortable. That’s what she meant.
Whether it’s tacit acknowledgement that folks who have suffered various degrees of ignominy might want payback in more ways than one or just their full-on overt racism, the prospect of being on the receiving end of that purported payback, and that they’d be punished even half as badly as the hurt inflicted on people of color, rattles and scares them to their core. It leads to instances of tragic irony, too. I mean, is there anything more un-American and unpatriotic than to threaten the stifling of dissent using the US flag as cover? You know, the same flag that represents the freedom to protest.
Density or denial? I guess that if the result is the same, it doesn’t matter, right?
Clearly, white resentment has not been couched in ambivalence, as we see every day, from how the President is disrespected to the deplorable reactions to the murder of unarmed black men, women and children at the hands of the police. One of the signature claims of that resentment is that Obama has divided the country. It’s that mentality that led a Trump surrogate in Ohio to state there was no racism before Obama. Yes, she got bashed for making such an absurd statement and, at first, my reaction was that I was witnessing an instance of yet another conservative believing their opinions are fact and, as such, are not subject to scrutiny. (See Antonio Sabato Jr. claiming at the most recent GOP convention that he believes Obama is a Muslim, and that his confidence in that belief is enough to make it true.) But in all fairness, what she did was articulate very badly what many like her truly feel: that issues of race and racism are now and have been discussed more in the last 8 years than in the previous 30 or so. And that makes bigots, active or passive, very, very uncomfortable. That’s what she meant.
Whether it’s tacit acknowledgement that folks who have suffered various degrees of ignominy might want payback in more ways than one or just their full-on overt racism, the prospect of being on the receiving end of that purported payback, and that they’d be punished even half as badly as the hurt inflicted on people of color, rattles and scares them to their core. It leads to instances of tragic irony, too. I mean, is there anything more un-American and unpatriotic than to threaten the stifling of dissent using the US flag as cover? You know, the same flag that represents the freedom to protest.
Density or denial? I guess that if the result is the same, it doesn’t matter, right?
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Oh, Look...A Unicorn!
With every passing day I feel more and more the desire to see this country formally separated. As a 50-state nation we are doomed; the divisions between us have become too great to overcome. We have masses of people who scorn knowledge; who think the gun slaughter of innocent people is some sort of ‘aw, shucks, just the cost of business’ parallel; who only see partisan politics where the water of a town has been poisoned and innocent people have been killed or irrevocably disabled mentally because of this; and view the imposing of their religious beliefs on everyone as par for the course. I am vehemently opposed to all those things but I believe in freedom, and have soured on the idea of helping those who do not want to be helped, which is why I think those folks should continue to pursue those ideals in their own country. Fine by me. But that's NOT a country I want to be a part of. And I'm not gonna leave, so...
However, I have to acknowledge that maybe if I die of old age I might get to see it come to pass. But I'm not holding my breath. For one thing, my utopia would have to face off with the politicians and other interests representing the hypocritical and ungrateful red states who are the biggest welfare queens this country has, enjoying the federal subsidies made possible by the tax revenue collected from prosperous blue states. Why should I pay an ever-increasing subway fare so that Mississippi can have paved roads on our dime, while they insult my fellow New Yorkers without remorse? (Btw, that bullshit happens here in our own backyard with our largely conservative upstate population but at least we're from the same state. Or something.) But I get it: no one wants to dismount from that gravy train. And they’ll want to fight us for our money, too. What a doozy!
Speaking of fighting…
I know I'm being reductive and oversimplifying—remember this is a rant from another nobody on FB, so bear with me—but while I’m aware there were many things to consider, I can’t help but think of the thousands upon thousands of people who died so that we could remain united with those who thought owning people was a God-given right. That was our mistake right there! Dude, WTF?! And the people I used as an example in the first paragraph might not be the actual descendants of those folks, but they are their spiritual children. Man, we need to break this shit off, yo. With the quickness. (Yeah, I know. But I’m old school, leave me alone.)
In the meantime, I'll keep dreaming, trying not to have a heart attack over every new instance of fresh bullshit lobbed this way, and hoping for a day when red states can TRULY pull themselves up from their own bootstraps (their corny sayings are so cute), fend for themselves and finally build that wall around Texas they've been promising us, to keep the reactionary folk inside where they belong. (Austin, we’ll hook you up, don’t worry. We got you.)
Oh, look...a unicorn!
Monday, May 2, 2011
What Does it Mean?
I was raised not to celebrate the death of anyone. So I won't. But I felt overwhelmed when I heard the news of Osama Bin Laden's death. I can only hope that his demise brings a bit of solace and closure to those who were directly affected by the evil wrought by this bastard and his henchmen. It's an emotional thing for us NYers, in a way that few others will ever understand.
I was blessed by virtue of not losing any of my loved ones in the Sept 11th attacks. But I was here in NYC and along with my fellow New Yorkers felt the overwhelming sadness that befell my city. I remember every detail of that fateful day as if it just happened a few months ago. Among the many instances I can still recall was the burning smell coming thru my bedroom window; the parked cars on my street, covered in ashes; seeing a small army of Brooklynites walking home from Manhattan, in a daze, as if returning from a war zone; hearing of how the news cast a pall around the world, particularly in the Dominican Republic--NYC looming so large in the collective Dominican experience.
Incredibly, it wasn't until Sunday night, when after hearing the news I sat down and composed a brief statement, that I actually, and briefly, cried. A few tears came to me, possibly the result of never completely acknowledging how profoundly the events of that otherwise beautiful September morning had affected me. It's an emotional thing for us New Yorkers, in a way that few other will ever understand. But I can't even attempt to imagine what the news of this monster's death must mean to those whose lives were tangibly and irrevocably changed by this despicable event. I want to think about them right now and it is my sincerest hope that his death brings them at least a modicum of peace and even a bit of consolation.
I was blessed by virtue of not losing any of my loved ones in the Sept 11th attacks. But I was here in NYC and along with my fellow New Yorkers felt the overwhelming sadness that befell my city. I remember every detail of that fateful day as if it just happened a few months ago. Among the many instances I can still recall was the burning smell coming thru my bedroom window; the parked cars on my street, covered in ashes; seeing a small army of Brooklynites walking home from Manhattan, in a daze, as if returning from a war zone; hearing of how the news cast a pall around the world, particularly in the Dominican Republic--NYC looming so large in the collective Dominican experience.
Incredibly, it wasn't until Sunday night, when after hearing the news I sat down and composed a brief statement, that I actually, and briefly, cried. A few tears came to me, possibly the result of never completely acknowledging how profoundly the events of that otherwise beautiful September morning had affected me. It's an emotional thing for us New Yorkers, in a way that few other will ever understand. But I can't even attempt to imagine what the news of this monster's death must mean to those whose lives were tangibly and irrevocably changed by this despicable event. I want to think about them right now and it is my sincerest hope that his death brings them at least a modicum of peace and even a bit of consolation.
Friday, April 22, 2011
MLB Takes Over Dodgers (and that's a good thing)
This week, baseball commissioner Bud Selig took the extraordinary step of wresting control of the Los Angeles Dodgers from owner Frank McCourt. In an April 20th press release Selig issued the following statement:
McCourt is in the midst of a fierce divorce battle which has put a spotlight on his financial woes and threatens the stability of the Dodgers. He recently turned to Fox Sports for a $200m loan which Selig vetoed. Last week he managed to borrow $30m from Fox to cover payroll and other expenses. Personally, I think this prompted Selig to act against the Dodgers owner, who unlike the Wilpon family who own the New York Mets--and whose own financial mess led them to borrow $25m from MLB this past November in order to meet payroll--McCourt went outside baseball to obtain that money and Selig may have feared the Dodgers could end up in the hands personas non gratas to MLB. Imagine, if you will, McCourt missing a couple of payments on a loan obtained from shady characters and losing the team to them; Selig and the other owners would have a conniption to say the least.
I have my issues with Selig, but at first glance I agree with his decision regarding the Dodgers. (And I am not alone: in L.A. he's been hailed a hero for doing so, believe it or not.) Granted, there is more info to surface concerning this mess to be sure. I also think this is a wake up call for the Wilpons. As my Dad used to say, "When you see your neighbor being shaved, it's time to lather up." We'll see how this one pans out, but at least for now Selig has taken a solid step towards correcting a screwup he helped initiate by ushering McCourt into MLB ownership and turning a blind eye to his subsequent financial shenanigans.
This is a huge deal."Pursuant to my authority as Commissioner, I informed Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt today that I will appoint a representative to oversee all aspects of the business and the day-to-day operations of the Club. I have taken this action because of my deep concerns regarding the finances and operations of the Dodgers and to protect the best interests of the Club, its great fans and all of Major League Baseball. My office will continue its thorough investigation into the operations and finances of the Dodgers and related entities during the period of Mr. McCourt's ownership. I will announce the name of my representative in the next several days.
"The Dodgers have been one of the most prestigious franchises in all of sports, and we owe it to their legion of loyal fans to ensure that this club is being operated properly now and will be guided appropriately in the future."
McCourt is in the midst of a fierce divorce battle which has put a spotlight on his financial woes and threatens the stability of the Dodgers. He recently turned to Fox Sports for a $200m loan which Selig vetoed. Last week he managed to borrow $30m from Fox to cover payroll and other expenses. Personally, I think this prompted Selig to act against the Dodgers owner, who unlike the Wilpon family who own the New York Mets--and whose own financial mess led them to borrow $25m from MLB this past November in order to meet payroll--McCourt went outside baseball to obtain that money and Selig may have feared the Dodgers could end up in the hands personas non gratas to MLB. Imagine, if you will, McCourt missing a couple of payments on a loan obtained from shady characters and losing the team to them; Selig and the other owners would have a conniption to say the least.
I have my issues with Selig, but at first glance I agree with his decision regarding the Dodgers. (And I am not alone: in L.A. he's been hailed a hero for doing so, believe it or not.) Granted, there is more info to surface concerning this mess to be sure. I also think this is a wake up call for the Wilpons. As my Dad used to say, "When you see your neighbor being shaved, it's time to lather up." We'll see how this one pans out, but at least for now Selig has taken a solid step towards correcting a screwup he helped initiate by ushering McCourt into MLB ownership and turning a blind eye to his subsequent financial shenanigans.
Monday, April 11, 2011
MLB Realignment: Could it Happen?
This is a suggestion proposed by anonymous baseball insiders and published a few months ago in an article by the NY Daily News' Bill Madden, not an idea actually approved by Major League Baseball:
Not feelin' it.
As you can see, this scenario would eliminate the Oakland A's and the Tampa Bay Rays, both of which are in dire straits in terms of operating in their current locations. The A's want to move to San Jose but the San Francisco Giants have some sort of territorial rights that MLB has not wanted to address. Meanwhile, the Rays want to move from St. Petersburg to Tampa and build a domed stadium there but, allegedly, St. Pete bureaucracy and a bad Florida economy stand in their way.
Another option, and one which both A's and Rays ownership are said to be partial, is a buyout. The other 28 teams would have to cough up aprox. $25 million each to cover the aprox. $700 million both teams are worth. Not only do I not want to see both of these teams disappear--especially a storied franchise like the A's--I hardly see revenue sharing beneficiaries like the Florida Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates each coming up w/$25m. No dice.
Obviously both teams need to move: The A's situation in Oakland has become untenable and bringing big league baseball to a state that only cares about football was a huge mistake to begin with, despite the Marlins' two World Series championships (1997, 2003) and the Rays' pennant in '08 and winning their division last year. But getting rid of them would be stupid. So is eliminating geographical rivalries and the identities of each league.
And as for that other rumored development--the disappearance of the DH--on a personal level, I'm quite opposed. When I watch a National League game and witness the uncomfortable awkwardness and even downright clumsiness in the vast majority of pitcher at-bats and their occasional, subsequent base running, it makes me give thanks for the DH in the AL and lament that Connie Mack--who first came up with the concept--did not live to see it implemented.
Let's hope the A's and Rays' respective situations are resolved in a way that benefits each team and their fans. If not, the best case scenario would be a variation of the Montreal Expos mess all over again. The worst? Well, you see that monstrosity above, you tell me.
Not feelin' it.
As you can see, this scenario would eliminate the Oakland A's and the Tampa Bay Rays, both of which are in dire straits in terms of operating in their current locations. The A's want to move to San Jose but the San Francisco Giants have some sort of territorial rights that MLB has not wanted to address. Meanwhile, the Rays want to move from St. Petersburg to Tampa and build a domed stadium there but, allegedly, St. Pete bureaucracy and a bad Florida economy stand in their way.
Another option, and one which both A's and Rays ownership are said to be partial, is a buyout. The other 28 teams would have to cough up aprox. $25 million each to cover the aprox. $700 million both teams are worth. Not only do I not want to see both of these teams disappear--especially a storied franchise like the A's--I hardly see revenue sharing beneficiaries like the Florida Marlins and Pittsburgh Pirates each coming up w/$25m. No dice.
Obviously both teams need to move: The A's situation in Oakland has become untenable and bringing big league baseball to a state that only cares about football was a huge mistake to begin with, despite the Marlins' two World Series championships (1997, 2003) and the Rays' pennant in '08 and winning their division last year. But getting rid of them would be stupid. So is eliminating geographical rivalries and the identities of each league.
And as for that other rumored development--the disappearance of the DH--on a personal level, I'm quite opposed. When I watch a National League game and witness the uncomfortable awkwardness and even downright clumsiness in the vast majority of pitcher at-bats and their occasional, subsequent base running, it makes me give thanks for the DH in the AL and lament that Connie Mack--who first came up with the concept--did not live to see it implemented.
Let's hope the A's and Rays' respective situations are resolved in a way that benefits each team and their fans. If not, the best case scenario would be a variation of the Montreal Expos mess all over again. The worst? Well, you see that monstrosity above, you tell me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)