boonville blog, by jeff egnaczyk - you are listening to me talk

Misuse of "Appeasement"

I've said before that the term "appeasement" is misused by foreign policy hawks. Here is the greatest verbal drubbing of a person who not only misuses the term, but doesn't really even know what it means. Just take a look.



My god, if that ever happened to me I don't think I would be able to go on with my radio show. It makes sense that this would happen. The "don't appease" crowd has turned into a caricature of itself. Displays of strength trump pragmatism at all costs. Romney's "Double Guantanamo" quote or McCain's "100 years" are perfect examples of this. Never back down. Don't show any weakness. Strike out at all costs. They have taken a simple lesson about the importance of a firm foreign policy and pumped it up until it looks nothing like it did at its inception. "Don't appease" now lives on its own, with little connection to the conflict that founded it as a doctrine.

Comments, (0)

Liberal American Theater

I've started grabbing some podcasts from NPR in the past couple of months. This American Life and Radio Lab are both pretty good when I have the time to listen to them. Both are very well put together and almost always make what would seem to be a mundane topic most interesting. It is funny to think about the shows as these things that artsy, intellectual type liberals just love. While I can appreciate the quality of these shows I do like to make fun of them for being so popular amongst thoughtful educated people.

Comments, (0)

Digging Out

I smell an analogy to the Bush administration. When it was finally announced that Isiah Thomas would no longer be the coach of the New York Knicks I didn't have the reaction I thought I would. I did not run outside and do a little dance a la Wesley Snipes as Willy Mays Hayes after he makes the final cut in Indians' spring training. The reason is that I realized that the Knicks still have a lot of pain in front of them. What Isiah Thomas has done to this team is criminal. As Chris Sheridan writes, the team is stuck until at least 2010 - and maybe 2011 - with players that will not win. This is not rebuilding the Knicks are facing. This is waiting at least two years until the last vestiges of the Thomas regime are off the books. Only then can rebuilding begin, either with youth or with free agents. Thomas has poisoned the organization with scorers who don't mesh, have bad attitudes and don't play defense much in the same way the Bush administration has littered government with political hacks hired for their loyalty rather than their ability. In both cases there will guys that will leave soon (Bush appointed bureaucrats, Stephon Marbury ), some will be around for a lifetime (two Supreme Court justices, Eddie Curry...hey, waiting until 2011 is a lifetime).

Nearly everything Thomas did screwed the Knicks. Just think, if he hadn't made the Randolph trade the Knicks might just have a chance come 2011. The acquisition though has left them in a tenuous position for the post-2010 free agent sweepstakes. I was debating whether I should title this entry "Climbing Out" or "Digging Out". Are the Knicks in a hole or piled under dirt? I think it's clear that they're stuck under a pile of bad contracts. My brother thinks the man is evil. I think he has a problem perceiving reality. We both agreed that his ego is cancer. Either way, his ability to smile through the bad times is creepy, reminiscent of "Mission Accomplished".


.... more ....


This was certainly a tough year to watch the NBA. I never thought I'd be one of those people. I love basketball. It's my favorite sport to play. I grew up on the 'Cuse and Patrick Ewing's Knicks. Now though, I'm one of those people who borderline hates the NBA. I always thought my love for basketball could paper over any flaws the NBA had. It's tough to say that now. It is entirely possible that this is all a result of what has happened to the Knicks. It's tough to love a sport when you're actively rooting against your favorite team - the first time I've ever done that. The Knicks have rarely been on TV in the last two years and when they were, it was tough to stomach. I think there's more though.

The NBA is predicated on the star. In particular, the NBA promotes offensive stars. Fine. Scoring is exciting. The way the NBA does this though is to absurdly stack the deck in favor of the offense. On top of that, the officiating is always an issue, whether it be for a certain player or the home team.

Offensive players are given every advantage against the defense. Touch fouls go their way. They can initiate contact with impunity. For the longest time there was no zone allowed. Now that there is zone there's the ridiculous "defensive 3 in the key" rule keeping defenders out of the middle of the floor and making sure that no one will ever have to make a jump shot. It's not that I want the hand-checking Knicks back. I'd just like it to not be so obviously skewed toward the stars. It cheapens what they do.

So what is a defender to do? You guessed it because you see it all the time. The defense flops. Last year's San Antonio Spurs were possibly one of the best teams in the last decade of NBA play. Yet they have some of the biggest floppers in the league. Ginobili and Oberto come to mind. Ginobili is particularly infuriating because also one of the better players in the league. I can remember half a dozen times during last year's playoffs watching a play unfold and thinking to myself that this play was going to end with someone flopping and that if it did I would not in good conscience be able to watch the NBA anymore. It happened every time. I kept watching anyway.

They've sucked the beauty out of the game. Last year the Cavs got to the NBA finals without a perceivable offense. Lebron dribbling and either driving, pulling up or kicking out does not count. How can that happen? It's because the league is designed around him and his type. David Stern would rather have 1 in 10 plays be spectacular and 9 in 10 be ugly than have 7 in 10 be well executed. So that's what we get. A game that has almost completely devolved into a one on one game of exploiting match up disparities. The foreign invasion has done a lot to stop this. Without the influx of foreign players the NBA would be unwatchable. Let's hope that trend will grow while my complaint subside.

Comments, (0)

Andy Honored

I was told a little while ago that Andy would be honored today in Walpole with a posthumous Bronze Star Medal with Valor. I didn't get all the information so I wasn't able to attend and I haven't even seen a news article on it to confirm that it happened.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what Andy did to deserve this. I'm not going to pretend I know he was heroic in battle. Just knowing him though, yeah, "with Valor" makes sense.

Comments, (0)

American Auto Makers

Always trailing. What if our corporate leaders lead? I guess they're just following the lead of the "MBA President".



Update: (5/13/2008 6:45:25 AM) Also, it's Bay State Bike Week, last Saturday was National Train Day and most of you still have legs. Hint, hint.

Comments, (0)

Mitchell Redux

I was looking through my archives today and realized I never said anything else about the Mitchell report. Things got in the way and I completely forgot about it. I know it's months later and nobody wants to have those arguments again, but I did want to write down what I thought. So here it goes.

Andy Pettitte was the only guy that it hurt to see on the list. I have been told that I have a man crush on Pettitte and I'd pretty much have to admit the truth in that. With Pettitte I had to do my best to stay objective. Sadly, I have to admit that he cheated. I stand by what I said about Brian Roberts. Even if he was guilty of using, what was in the report was irresponsible hearsay. Pettitte and Roberts did the right thing in admitting their guilt, but it was too late. Doing the right thing would have been never taking drugs that they knew gave them an unfair advantage in the first place - even if some of their actions weren't illegal during some of the times that they took them.

The fact that George Mitchell ran the investigation was Conflict of Interest 101. He worked for the Boston Red Sox. Do you think he took a hard look at his own team or do you think he looked an information that was already out there? Was he an investigator or a compiler? I think he got information from the Bay Area and New York, from guys like McNamee who were already in some trouble. It obviously annoys me that I have to live in Boston around the fans of a team that got off scot free. Those that think their team is free of guilt are delusional. Many of the people I've talked to aren't though. They have the right attitude. The problem is more widespread than even the Mitchell Report showed and this is a bad thing for everyone interested in baseball.

I keep thinking, $20 million for what? I believe that much of what the report lays out in the truth. It's what wasn't there that upsets me. It was supposed to be wide ranging and comprehensive, but it wasn't.

Comments, (50)

Prop 2.5 Override

I voted yes on the two override questions for Brookline last night mainly because there hasn't been an override since 1994 and the proposals seemed reasonable. Fourteen years of not having to go beyond the limits imposed by Proposition 2 1/2 strikes me as a decent record. Then I voted against all the incumbents just for the hell of it. When I'm not particularly informed in an election I vote against the incumbents as a general rule. I think that's my dad talking.

Comments, (2)

Corporation

David Weinberger links to a ranking of the 25 most democratic work places. These are probably good companies to work for since most, and maybe the vast majority, corporations are not close to being democratic. The defense of corporations by conservatives is, in my mind, a defense of unfettered capitalism rather than any egalitarian principles. More cynically, it's just a defense of the people who fund Republican re-election campaigns.

A corporation is essentially another government that operates underneath local, regional or national governments in this or any other country. It has a leader, it has regulations and ways to enforce them. Similar to most governments it is constrained by outside laws that it does not control directly or agreements with other entities. It can obey or ignore those laws at its own peril. There are some things a corporation can't do but there are plenty of things that government can't do either. I think the differences simply boil down to severity. A government can send you to jail or shoot you if you don't obey the law while a corporation can fire you if you break their regulations while working for them. The same basic concepts work for both, just on different levels of intensity.

In the best of companies, decisions at the lower levels are maybe put to a vote or decided on by merit. I'm betting though, that rarely does everyone at Fed Ex or Walmart go to a voting booth to vote on the next CEO or even the next floor manager. Corporations are dictatorships - benevolent maybe - or oligarchies. The decisions that can be considered democratic are small potatoes when compared to the major decisions a corporation makes. You could say this about any democracy though. We vote someone into office but they ultimately make the decision of what to implement. However, we get to choose the direction for the most part. In a corporation it is one person or a small group of people that guide the organization. I'm not saying this is evil. People create these corporations out of their own effort and should be able to control them. It should be noted though that democracy is not a concept that's only relevant in the 200 or so nation states around the world. Any group can be democratic, from China to the company I work at to a nuclear family. Some, like large land masses grouped into "countries" having millions of different interests, work well the more democracy they have. Others, like a family run by two older, obviously more qualified people, work well with a lot less. I'm guessing a corporation works better somewhere in the middle.

When I was reading Built to Last I read about Motorola founder Paul Galvin. Galvin, like the founders of the other corporations that Built To Last touches on, was a great leader who built a largely successful company. One of the things he did was groom his son Bob to take over the company. That's nepotism, not meritocracy. In worked out OK for Motorola but it certainly doesn't work out well for a lot of businesses (maybe you've worked at one of those). It's obvious to most countries around the world that that's a bad idea for them as well.

Comments, (18)

Airport Security

I've often complained about over reactions by security personnel. Much of what passes as an appropriate response is simply a "cover your ass" mentality. React way beyond what is necessary so no one can blame you for not trying. I took a flight down to Florida last weekend and I think I broke the record for most times rolling my eyes in the security line in Fort Lauderdale. Amanda Marcotte makes a similar point about that line being mostly for show.

I did actually get yelled at in the security line departing Logan. I emptied my pockets, put my carry-on in on the belt and walked up through the metal detector with my shoes and hoodie on. The woman on the other side said something like "Now what the hell do you think you're doing?" and then made me go back and take both off. Then I freaked out because I forgot she had taken my boarding pass so I thought I lost it. She gave me a "hey dummy" or something like that and directed me to walk through again. All in all I deserved every bit of the scorn heaped upon me. She was good about it though. There was more mocking in her tone than anger. I didn't mess up once on the way back.

Comments, (5)

Sportsmanship

From a softball game in Washington:

Western Oregon senior Sara Tucholsky had never hit a home run in her career.

...

"I just remember trying to block them out," Tucholsky said of the hecklers. "The first pitch I took, it was a strike. And then I really don't remember where the home run pitch was at all; [I] just remember hitting it, and I knew it was out."

...

But it was what happened after an overly excited Tucholsky missed first base on her home run trot and reversed direction to tag the bag that proved unforgettable.

...

While she was doubling back to tag first base, Tucholsky's right knee gave out. The two runners who had been on base already had crossed home plate, leaving her the only offensive player on the field of play, even as she lay crumpled in the dirt a few feet from first base and a long way from home plate. First-base coach Shannon Prochaska -- Tucholsky's teammate for three seasons and the only voice she later remembered hearing in the ensuing conversation -- checked to see whether she could crawl back to the base under her own power.

...

Umpires confirmed that the only option available under the rules was to replace Tucholsky at first base with a pinch runner and have the hit recorded as a two-run single instead of a three-run home run. Any assistance from coaches or trainers while she was an active runner would result in an out. So without any choice, Knox prepared to make the substitution, taking both the run and the memory from Tucholsky.

"And right then," Knox said, "I heard, 'Excuse me, would it be OK if we carried her around and she touched each bag?'"

So two players from the other team carried her around the bases. This immediately reminded me of Derek Redmond at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona.



That video always makes me tear up instantly.

Story via Jason Kottke.

Comments, (0)