F’dJM: Joe Morgan out from Sunday Night Baseball

Well, the guys at FJM can now officially retire:

Jon Miller and Joe Morgan’s 21-year run on ESPN’s “Sunday Night Baseball” is over. Morgan’s contract is expiring and he will not be renewed.

I happen to be among the few who actually likes Jon Miller (just not that too-often worn yellow shirt/white collar combo) but it seems he’ll still do radio. Adios, pelota!

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Baseball Players Are NOT Role Models

So how does this work with ballplayers? First, we need the motivation to model their behavior. This isn’t difficult to figure out. They get to play a game, make tons of money doing it, and get all sorts of attention for doing it (and other things), and therefore, we’re motivated to model their behavior because we would love that life. Kids are especially impressionable because they haven’t developed the ability to critically analyze the actions of other people on their own. So, when kids see this guy they admire do something stupid, the idea is that they will do the same thing because that thing helps the athlete be what he is. This is, of course, where the line “correlation does not equal causation” comes into play, but children have a hard time seeing that distinction (most adults do for that matter). This is a problem, but one that can be overcome by realizing that athletes are not role models.

Role models are people that you look up to and admire (models, on the other hand, are just people with a skill you try to copy), and you want to be just like them. The thing is that no one is perfect, and there are always things you would do differently. For instance, I am student-teaching. I like the teacher I am with, and I think he does an excellent job. But there are still things that he does that I would not do within my own classroom. Now, I can make that distinction. I can critically judge what I take from him and what I won’t. Children have not fully developed this ability, and they need someone to help them make those judgments on who they want to be and how they need to act. But that responsibility does not lie with athletes.

First of all, we all have different notions of what we should be and how we should act. Those notions are somewhat arbitrary, and they are more opinion than fact. So, how can you tell an athlete what they should be when we can’t even agree on what they should be? Second, you can’t expect athletes to be perfect because we are not perfect. Expecting them to be angels is pretty much just ridiculous. Expecting them to follow the law isn’t ridiculous, but A) the law isn’t always an absolute moral truth and B) whether or not the athlete follows the law has nothing to do with anyone else. Third, high-profile incidents are excellent teaching points because, fourth, your children are YOUR responsibility, not theirs.

I understand that kids and teenagers look up to, admire, and respond to athletes, and I understand the idea of observational learning. BUT IT ISN’T A FATALISTIC PROCESS. Though they’ve learned, they can unlearn, or put in another way, they can learn that what the athlete did was wrong. Put in terms of Bandura’s theory, you need to show them the negative consequences that follow the player’s crime, but because the usual punishment (jail, fines, etc.) occurs so long after the incident which causes the punishment (because of the drawn-out trial system), the kids usually have trouble making the appropriate cause-effect connection on their own. What they see is Player A doing B (the crime) and still being able to play the sport for money. So, as their parents and/or family, it’s up to you to show them that what the athlete does is wrong and, most importantly, why it’s wrong. Don’t deflect the responsibility onto an athlete that has absolutely no connection to you. Explaining the transgression and its consequences is an excellent opportunity for children to learn “acceptable” behavior. Too often, we are afraid or unwilling to talk to children and teenagers about difficult topics, but they will never learn if you never talk to them.

Athletes do not have a responsibility to your children. You do. Athletes have responsibilities to their team, so when they do screw up, the only apology needs to be directed toward the organization. They don’t need to issue public apologies. The only apologies that need to be made are those to the people affected by the incident, and this is applicable to all those situations in which today’s athletes seem to throw out public apologies for whatever they do. Yes, you can criticize them for making a mistake, but you cannot criticize them because they let your children down. Because if you fail to make your children understand why what the athlete did was wrong, it is YOU that is letting your children down.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Perspectives on Baseball

It’s Competition

Sports pit people against other people, and one person wins while the other loses. They compete against each other, and the competition of the game makes it fun. It creates excitement, suspense, disappointment, and euphoria all while doing something ultimately pointless. Some people, however, make the game about beating the other person, and they do everything to beat them. But at its foundation, sport is about one person going against another in an attempt to show dominance. It’s a base emotion inherited from our evolution to survive. We need to be better than the others to have better mates, better stature, and to survive, which is oddly the goal of most players (though the survive part isn’t quite as dire). When people go too far, it’s called machismo, egotism, and hot-headedness, but the line between “competitive” and those other adjectives is subjective, arbitrary, and fickle. Regardless, competition is what makes baseball so much fun, and without it, it ceases to be much of a game.

It’s Entertainment

This is where baseball (any sport, really) starts to get tricky. It’s where we start demanding something from the game. In the above sections we only play the game, asking little from it but learning everything, but here, baseball transforms from a game into an event. Establishing baseball as an event instantly divides those present into separate groups—those expecting to be entertained and those expected to entertain. Money isn’t necessarily present, yet, but the situation becomes complicated.

What does it mean to be entertained? Do you want to see a good, clean game, and what does that mean? Do you want to see some acrobatics, some “hot-dogging”, or some personality? Do you want to see home runs or bunts? Or do you just want to see your team win, no matter how that happens? We all have an idea of what we want, but all of our thoughts are rarely a consensus. When this does become an industry, you can understand how this gets really complicated, but for now, let’s stick to baseball in general. If you come to a game expecting to be entertained, you have now added a new element—expectations—and with expectations come both elation and disappointment. Judgment has now arrived, and judgment is subjective. Subjective opinions cause conflict. If it was “just a game”, we would be able to let the game run its course and be happy with it (which is, admittedly, very difficult to accomplish), but adding the element of entertainment ends that possibility. Now, we start to care.

It’s About the Money

Baseball is a business, for better or worse. Because it’s a business (and a profitable one), it spread, and we get to see the game as it currently is. Most of the time, we lament the business side of it. The griping between players and owners, commercials lengthening the game, advertisements splashed across everywhere, and $10 hot dogs and beer gets in the way of the game sometimes, and in a way it tarnishes the “purity” of the game. But that’s the price of having Major League Baseball and getting to see the best (most of them, anyway) baseball players in the world over the summer. It’s a give-and-take relationship, and without that relationship the only baseball you would see is Little League (and there’s money involved there, isn’t it?).

Because it is such a profitable business, it’s no surprise that there are people in it for just the money. Sure, there are owners such as the Steinbrenners that will pay out of their own pocket to field a winning team (though they’ve made a lot off of their investment as well), but for every one of that type of owner, there are more like Liberty Media who own a team to bolster their portfolio. And I don’t know that it’s a bad thing. We promote the idea of being individually wealthy, but then we arbitrarily decide when it is and isn’t appropriate, which is a little ridiculous. And as I mentioned before, there are benefits to the game being about the money. It’s brought the game around the country and the globe, and we get to watch any MLB game we would want to see. Seeing those games brings us joy (and sorrow if you’re a Pirates fan). This sounds a bit Machiavellian, but there’s a reason Machiavelli gained such attention from his theory. It’s not romantic, and it isn’t poetry. But it’s real life, and money is important.

It’s a Means of Control

So we’ve escalated a little, haven’t we? Ever wonder why soccer spread all across the world? Some will tell you it’s because it’s so fun, but I doubt it’s more fun than most other games or sports. No, the British brought the game with them when they began colonizing the world in their “Empire in which the sun never sets”. Games are effective tools. Games seem innocent. How can anyone “control” someone with soccer or baseball? It’s actually fairly simple. You enter (or invade, whichever term you choose) the area, and as a goodwill gesture, you show them how to play a game. They learn to play and come to enjoy because … well, it’s a game. Now, you pit their best against your best, and their frustration, anger, and/or annoyance with your existence in their land is released on the field. Because the best players are usually males in their physical prime who would also be excellent candidates, the people have lost some of their “fight”, and if you lose to them, then they don’t feel so oppressed. This, of course, won’t work if the people you are invading are pissed off enough to militarily oppose you, but what if they’re somewhat indifferent or grateful for your existence? The US “saved” the Caribbean from the Spanish in the late 1800s, and the marines who were left to “maintain order” promoted the game. At a similar time on the other part of the globe, the US was “helping” modernize (really Westernize) Japan, and helping ensure that this Westernized and industrialized economy continued a close relationship with the US, the marines again helped promote baseball in Japan. Baseball was certainly not the most important factor in either of these two areas, but it was an aspect.

But does this continue today? Well, let’s think. Why promote the game globally? The most important reason is money, and because money is increasingly becoming a measure of power, any further link between the US and foreign countries is good for our welfare. It should also be mentioned that a significant investment has begun in Africa, and while the point probably isn’t military or political control, economic control is as good as any. Let’s also remember that the vast majority of the money always comes back to the US. Money spent on players in other countries results in money made by the teams when those players pan out, and even though some MLB teams invest in the communities as well, it probably doesn’t come close to equaling the return (or else, why would they do it?) and is usually a one-time gift to allay any fears or hesitance from the community. The lopsided trade reveals the true interest of the organizations.

Organized sport even has control mechanisms domestically. Sure, sports promote teamwork, sportsmanship, etc., but it also spends incredible amounts of time wearing out adolescent and young adult males, who are usually the most rebellious and in the best condition to make that rebelliousness count. Sometimes the greatest threat comes from within.

I realize some of this sounds exceptionally pessimistic and even part conspiracy theory, but I don’t think the US government is actively aiding the MLB in promoting the game globally as part of some devious plan to control the world. I think the government allows it to happen, may even encourage it, knowing that it can’t do anything but help. My point is to simply illustrate a point of view, not promote it.

If you’re still tuned in after this incredibly long post, thank you, and we’ll be arriving at the point shortly. One thing you’ve probably noticed is that most of these perspectives aren’t exactly optimistic (which is probably a reflection of my philosophy that humans are neither inherently good or evil, but inherently self-serving), and I realize that this is hard to take. But we are not one perspective or another. I think most of us have learned that the world isn’t black or white and that are shades of gray, and the same applies here as most of us are a mixture of perspectives. I, for instance, am a large part “It’s Just a Game” (with some “Entertainment” mixed in) and just like to watch baseball, and while I also fit under the “Competition” perspective, I’ll get pissed when the Braves lose but will move on a few minutes later. I’m not in a position to make money from it (I don’t make anything from doing this, either), and I can’t control anyone with it (though I imagine that I’ll use it to wear out, and thus control, my children in later years). But other people have different mixtures. So why does this matter?

It matters because, with the addition of the perspectives outside of “It’s Just a Game”, it causes conflict. Fans, for example, want their teams to win at all costs, but owners are only willing to spend so much in order to make a profit. Some owners are more willing to lose money (I would put the Steinbrenners here) than others. Fans will then criticize the owner for not spending money, but can you really? From what I understand, the USA was established to protect freedom and promote prosperity, and the owners are simply pursuing happiness, which is money to them. Can you really fault them for that? You’re allowed to be frustrated, but you also have to realize that their perspective is different. And they are allowed to have that perspective. Yes, it causes some problems, but because of those problems, you get to enjoy Major League Baseball. Otherwise, it’s just little kids playing in a park. When we chose to establish professional sports, there was a lot of unread fine print involved, whether we like it or not.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that everything is just relative in which there can be no judgment of anyone, but you can’t just yell at someone because their philosophy is different than yours. If Jeff Loria really does make huge profits, then … well, it’s okay because that’s his goal. His perspective is that he should make as much money as he can, and while it may not gel with your perspective on what he should do, he’s allowed to do it. However, there are rules that govern even him. The MLBPA cracked down on him because he was not playing within the rules set up with the revenue sharing agreement, and he had to make changes. Now, he may not have made enough changes for your liking, but “your liking” is arbitrary. Until “your liking” becomes “universally liked” (or at least like enough to really change minds and to do something about it), he doesn’t have to change. If it really bothers you and the fanbase, you can do something. If it really matters, be creative and don’t just dissociate yourself from responsibility. You may not be the most powerful person (or mob) in the room, but you aren’t powerless. And if “your liking” isn’t strong enough to create a change, maybe it’s not that great of an idea, it’s just part of living in a democratic republic (and baseball is more totalitarian than that), or maybe you just aren’t that upset.

I’m not sure how I got onto that rant, but I think you get the idea. We all have different ideas on what baseball is and should be, and the differences create conflict. Conflict creates misunderstanding and turmoil. In order to resolve said misunderstanding and turmoil, we have to go back and try to understand where people are coming from, and only then can we truly solve a problem. This applies to owners vs. fans, sabermetricians vs. traditionalists, fans vs. players, players vs. owners, etc. Heck, it even applies to society. We often find that baseball is a reflection of the society it exists in, and this is no different. In baseball and other parts of life, understanding where other people are coming from is the key to understanding them, coexisting with them, and even benefitting from them. Just remember this when it comes time for award voting and free-agent signing.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here

Washington Extra - deserve to Obama, Stewart, Palin and baseball

Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request
Translate Request has too much data
Parameter name: request

It is unclear to me if appearing on “The Daily Show” will have done much for President Barack Obama’s ratings. But it doesn’t seem to have helped Jon Stewart’s much. Nielsen data just in shows last night’s episode attracted 2.8 million viewers (minus TiVo data), compared to the show’s average of roughly 3.6 million an episode. Not sure if it says much about the president, except that people probably watch the Daily Show for Jon Stewart, not for his guests. Or maybe they were just watching the World Series.

That said, I suspect Sarah Palin would draw higher ratings if she ever graced Stewart’s studio. Instead, the former vice presidential candidate will be on air on Entertainment Tonight this evening. Asked bluntly if she planned to run for president, Palin said she would take a look at the lay of the land, to see if there was anyone else with the “common sense, conservative, pro-Constitution passion” she believes in.

If so, they would get her wholehearted support. If not: “if there’s nobody else to do it, then of course I would believe that?we should do this.” As our blogger Toby Zakaria observed, it may come down to a definition of “nobody”, because there is of course likely to be a healthy Republican field, many of whom may indeed share that passion.

Finally, an interesting poll from long-time Democratic pollster Doug Schoen via US News and World Report. The highlights: more voters think George W. Bush was a better president than Obama than the other way around. And a majority think the president does not deserve a second term.

Ironically, of course, he might still get one. Half of the voters surveyed wanted a third party in American politics, and, even now, in the depth of his midterm blues, Obama might still win a three-way race. In a contest between Obama, Republican Mitt Romney and Palin, for example, Obama would sneak through with 40 percent of voters, ahead of Romney with 32 percent and Palin with 17.

Here are our top stories from Washington today…

US election ads turn personal — and brutal

It’s nasty out there, with U.S. political candidates and outside groups flooding the airwaves with brutal and increasingly personal attacks calling their opponents cheats, liars and kooks — or worse.

For more on this story by John Whitesides,? read here.

Republican win could revive U.S. trade deals

Three long-delayed trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia could jump to the top of the U.S. congressional agenda if Republicans win control of the House of Representatives next week.

For more on this story by Doug Palmer, read here.

‘Bringing home bacon’ may not work this election

The Obama administration is sending more than $3 billion in infrastructure grants to U.S. states this month and announced most of the awards just days before the mid-terms. But the bipartisan tradition of “bringing home the bacon” to boost incumbents’ popularity may not have the same impact as voters profess antipathy toward government spending.

For more of this story by Lisa Lambert and John Crawley, read here.

Tea Party groundswell signals challenges to Fed

Tea Party members have lambasted the Fed for its unprecedented and aggressive steps to bolster the economy in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, saying the moves have exposed a lack of accountability and raise the risk of damaging inflation down the road. Efforts to submit the Fed’s monetary policy decisions to congressional review or to give Congress say in appointing officials at regional Fed banks could gain fresh momentum if Republicans win big.

For more of this story by Mark Felsenthal, read here.

BP, Halliburton ignored Macondo cement flaws-panel

BP and Halliburton, the contractor who cemented the blown-out Macondo well, ignored cement design flaws weeks before the disaster that sparked the worst U.S. offshore oil spill, a White House panel said. Both Halliburton and BP were aware of flaws in the cement slurry, similar to the one used to seal the well, as early as March 8. Shares in Halliburton fell sharply after the report’s release.

For more of this story by Chris Baltimore, read here.

Regulators, watchdogs second guess ratings reform

Banks and regulators are urging Congress to scale back a ban on the use of widely criticized credit raters to assess the risk of securities and investments on bank’s books, at least until a better alternative is developed. In a rare moment of agreement over the new U.S. financial reform law, some consumer advocates say banks have a point.

For more of this analysis story by Dave Clarke, read here.

Republicans may revamp US energy policy

After raising a ruckus on the campaign trail about the “Cap and Tax” energy policies of the Obama Administration, Republicans will want to move away from renewable energy and boost traditional energy sources if they win big next week. But they won’t be able to push too hard.

For some scenarios on how a Republican win could affect energy policy read here.

Obama to push trade, currency issues in India visit

The stakes on trade are high for President Obama’s trip to India in November as the United States and India need each other to meet ambitious export targets amid a sluggish U.S. economic recovery, yawning trade deficits with China and fears of global imbalances sparking a standoff. On the issue of global economic imbalances that have raised fears of currency wars, India and the United States often differ.

For more of this analysis by Matthias Williams and Doug Palmer, read here.

U.S. jobless claims fall to three-month low

New claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly fell last week to a three-month low but the underlying trend still points to labor market stagnation. The data, however, will likely carry little weight at the Federal Reserve’s policy meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday, where further monetary stimulus for the sluggish economy is expected.

For more of this story by Lucia Mutikani, read here.

US Senate leader Reid faces possible historic loss

Harry Reid, a key ally to President Barack Obama, is in danger in Tuesday’s election of becoming the first U.S. Senate majority leader in 58 years to be booted out of office by home-state voters. A Reid defeat — to a favorite of the anti-establishment Tea Party movement — would be a repudiation of President Obama, who made several trips to Nevada to try to bail out his fellow Democrat.

For more of this story by Thomas Ferraro, read here.

Britain urges U.S. to take down extremist websites

Britain has called on the United States to take down websites used by extremists and urged more concerted action to thwart militant threats before resorting to war. Britain’s security minister, in remarks delivered in Washington, voiced concern about permitting websites used by extremists such as the preacher Anwar al Awlaqi to recruit anti-Western forces. “The websites in which feature his terrorist message would categorically not be allowed in the UK,” she said. “If they were hosted in the UK they would be taken down.”

For more of this story by Jim Wolf, read here.

What we are blogging…

Schwarzenegger sours on politics; eyes memoirs, movies?

Memoirs, maybe movies, but no political office. That’s what the immediate future holds for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who’s leaving office in January. “Politics destroys everybody,” he said in an “ABC World News” interview on Wednesday.

For JoAnne Allen’s full post, read here.

Palin for President? Someone’s gotta do it

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has been stirring the pot this year with her backing for Tea Party candidates for the midterm elections, has been?hard to pin down on whether she plans to run for president in 2012. Until now. If no one else wants to do it, Sarah Palin says she would step in.

For Tabassum Zakaria’s full post, read here.

From elsewhere…

Nepal firm takes high speed Internet to Mt Everest

A private telecom firm took high speed Internet facilities to the top of the world on Thursday when it launched Nepal’s first 3G services at the base camp of Mount Everest.

The installation could help the tens of thousands of mountain climbers and trekkers who visit the Mount Everest region every year.

For more of this story, read here.

For more stories from our Washington correspondents visit www.reuters.com and stay informed.

Photo Credit: REUTERS/Jim Young (Obama with Stewart on the Daily Show)

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.

View the original article here