The main concern that I had when President Obama was elected was what would happen when the President was criticized or be viewed in a negative way. I feared that anyone who criticized the President would be unfairly called a racist by liberals.
In the last week my fear has become a reality. Not only has Donald Trump been labeled a racist but a man I had growing respect for, Tavis Smiley, has said that the 2112 election will be (if I heard him right)"a referendum on bigotry."
WHAT?
Has anyone else ever been so shocked by something you heard that everything sounds like gibberish for a minute or two? I had that experience yesterday.
I know that racism and bigotry are major problems in this country but didn't an African American get elected as President two years ago?
Has all the bickering between Democrats and Republicans gotten us to the point where anything said against the President will be labeled as racist?
I hope not because that will greatly hinder progress towards solving the problems this country faces.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The overblown reaction
First things, first.
Donald Trump's questioning of President Obama's place of birth was a publicity stunt that was a way for Mr Trump to test the political waters. I think it was a silly , stupid, unprofessional thing to do. But it did/does not surprise me. If there is anyone who thinks Donald Trump is a real political threat I would be very surprised. He is essentially a showman and not much else.
What does surprise me is the reaction the situation is getting.
Can someone please explain to me how this has anything to do with race? And why is it that so far I have I only heard white people calling Mr Trump a racist are white people.
Oh, I know we will be hearing from the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton soon because they always show up when cries of racism are heard. I know there are dumb racist people still out there but I personally think we have heard the racism word so often that it is begging to loose its effect.
And this time the word never should have been uttered.
But my personal award for the most over-the-top reaction goes to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. At a little past eight edt last night the camera got a closeup, Mr O'Donnell looked straight into the camera, (looking like he was shaking and teary eyed) and challenged the people in charge of NBC programming not to continue Mr Trump's program. Mr O'Donnell then proceeded to call Mr Trump a racist and talked about how he disrespected the President.
Yes, The Donald probably did the wrong thing. But I really don't get the massive over reaction.
Donald Trump's questioning of President Obama's place of birth was a publicity stunt that was a way for Mr Trump to test the political waters. I think it was a silly , stupid, unprofessional thing to do. But it did/does not surprise me. If there is anyone who thinks Donald Trump is a real political threat I would be very surprised. He is essentially a showman and not much else.
What does surprise me is the reaction the situation is getting.
Can someone please explain to me how this has anything to do with race? And why is it that so far I have I only heard white people calling Mr Trump a racist are white people.
Oh, I know we will be hearing from the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton soon because they always show up when cries of racism are heard. I know there are dumb racist people still out there but I personally think we have heard the racism word so often that it is begging to loose its effect.
And this time the word never should have been uttered.
But my personal award for the most over-the-top reaction goes to Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. At a little past eight edt last night the camera got a closeup, Mr O'Donnell looked straight into the camera, (looking like he was shaking and teary eyed) and challenged the people in charge of NBC programming not to continue Mr Trump's program. Mr O'Donnell then proceeded to call Mr Trump a racist and talked about how he disrespected the President.
Yes, The Donald probably did the wrong thing. But I really don't get the massive over reaction.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Media needs help
I can not defend some of the actions reportedly attributed to some participants of the Tea party movement; if they are proven to be true.
I do want to write about how the liberal media deals with people with conservative thinking. And I will use what I saw in interviews with conservative commentator and blogger Andrew Breibart.
But first I want to make it understood that I know all the vitriol does not just go from the left to the right.
The worst and most offensive of the cable TV news pundits is FOX's Glenn Beck I have personally heard him pretty much do everything but call President Obama a monkey. And Mr Beck continually makes George Soros seem like a James Bond villain who wants take over America. Personally, I think Mr Beck is looney tunes and I hope he gets professional help. Seriously.
Now back to Mr Breibart. Before I wrote my post yesterday I did a little research. It was during that I found out that several slurs and other off color remarks were made by Tea Party supporters. It was during this research when I also learned that Mr Breibart doesn't think the slurs happened and has, in fact, has offered to donate $1000 to the NAACP if someone comes forward with audio or video evidence that the incidents happened.
When I saw the interviews with Mr Breibart last week I had heard a little about the incidents but did not know as much about it as I do now. I understand the reasoning for the questions that were asked but I don't understand why the interviewers couldn't except his answers.
What specifically am I writing about? I saw two different interviews with Mr Breibart last week. One was on CNN Headline News with Joy Behar and a guest inquisitor whose name I don't remember; the other was with someone on MSNBC. Unfortunately, both went about the same way.
In both interviews he was asked about the racist and sexual incidents. Mr Breiart's response was that he had heard reports about what was said but had no personal knowledge about what had happened. In both interviews he was asked if the Tea Party was racist. Again he said not to his knowledge. In both interviews he was repeatedly asked those types of questions in various ways. And he gave consistent answers.
From what I know now I understand why the liberal interviewers were trying to paint the whole Tea Party as racist.
What I don't like and don't understand is that during both interviews Mr Breitart said, "I have said everything I can about the racial incidents. Are there other relevant issues we can discuss?" The response was best from Joy who became glassy eyed and went to break.
When will the name calling stop and honest discussion about the issues begin?
I do want to write about how the liberal media deals with people with conservative thinking. And I will use what I saw in interviews with conservative commentator and blogger Andrew Breibart.
But first I want to make it understood that I know all the vitriol does not just go from the left to the right.
The worst and most offensive of the cable TV news pundits is FOX's Glenn Beck I have personally heard him pretty much do everything but call President Obama a monkey. And Mr Beck continually makes George Soros seem like a James Bond villain who wants take over America. Personally, I think Mr Beck is looney tunes and I hope he gets professional help. Seriously.
Now back to Mr Breibart. Before I wrote my post yesterday I did a little research. It was during that I found out that several slurs and other off color remarks were made by Tea Party supporters. It was during this research when I also learned that Mr Breibart doesn't think the slurs happened and has, in fact, has offered to donate $1000 to the NAACP if someone comes forward with audio or video evidence that the incidents happened.
When I saw the interviews with Mr Breibart last week I had heard a little about the incidents but did not know as much about it as I do now. I understand the reasoning for the questions that were asked but I don't understand why the interviewers couldn't except his answers.
What specifically am I writing about? I saw two different interviews with Mr Breibart last week. One was on CNN Headline News with Joy Behar and a guest inquisitor whose name I don't remember; the other was with someone on MSNBC. Unfortunately, both went about the same way.
In both interviews he was asked about the racist and sexual incidents. Mr Breiart's response was that he had heard reports about what was said but had no personal knowledge about what had happened. In both interviews he was asked if the Tea Party was racist. Again he said not to his knowledge. In both interviews he was repeatedly asked those types of questions in various ways. And he gave consistent answers.
From what I know now I understand why the liberal interviewers were trying to paint the whole Tea Party as racist.
What I don't like and don't understand is that during both interviews Mr Breitart said, "I have said everything I can about the racial incidents. Are there other relevant issues we can discuss?" The response was best from Joy who became glassy eyed and went to break.
When will the name calling stop and honest discussion about the issues begin?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Back again
Since I began this blog a couple months go I have been using the on screen keyboard to write. My keyboard hasn't worked since I spilled water on it awhile back. A little more than a week ago a friend told me that she had an extra keyboard and that I could have it. Well, I was hoping I would get it way before now and so I stopped writing in hopes that I could type normally. Life happens. No keyboard yet, but I think writing helps me mentally and emotionally so here I am.
I had been hoping that the "Tea Party" movement would turn out to be a good thing, and maybe it still will be. But there have been too many implications of racist and sexual orientation related slurs and actions to be ignored.
Originally, I was gong to write about my irritation with the liberal media's handling of conservative commentator and blogger Andrew Breitbart; until I did a little research. I still don't like how he was handled, more on that next post, but my perspective has changed a bit.
I am not going to get into the specific allegations that I read about because there are a number of them, I don't want to type that much and, frankly, I don't think the specifics are too pertinent to the point I want to make. Let's just say the N and F words were used waay to much. In my opinion, using those words even once is wrong and should be beneath responsible adults.
I guess you could say I have a "if it quacks like a duck its a duck policy" If I hear something bad about a person one time I tend to ignore it. But if I hear the same thing about a person from a couple more sources I believe it.
From what I have read there seems to be at least a portion of people in the Tea Party who are intolerant. And if they want to be taken seriously as a movement they need to remove that element from their midst.
I do believe that as a country we need to move on from the two party system. There are some major changes that need to be made but will ever really happen as the system is now. Honestly, I think that Republicans and Democrats are too busy blaming each other and name calling to really find solutions to problems.
It was my hope that the Tea Party would really become a credible movement.But with the hatred towards Sara Palin, the insanity that is Glenn Beck, and the intolerant faction I don't see credibility.
I almost miss Ross Perot.... almost.
I had been hoping that the "Tea Party" movement would turn out to be a good thing, and maybe it still will be. But there have been too many implications of racist and sexual orientation related slurs and actions to be ignored.
Originally, I was gong to write about my irritation with the liberal media's handling of conservative commentator and blogger Andrew Breitbart; until I did a little research. I still don't like how he was handled, more on that next post, but my perspective has changed a bit.
I am not going to get into the specific allegations that I read about because there are a number of them, I don't want to type that much and, frankly, I don't think the specifics are too pertinent to the point I want to make. Let's just say the N and F words were used waay to much. In my opinion, using those words even once is wrong and should be beneath responsible adults.
I guess you could say I have a "if it quacks like a duck its a duck policy" If I hear something bad about a person one time I tend to ignore it. But if I hear the same thing about a person from a couple more sources I believe it.
From what I have read there seems to be at least a portion of people in the Tea Party who are intolerant. And if they want to be taken seriously as a movement they need to remove that element from their midst.
I do believe that as a country we need to move on from the two party system. There are some major changes that need to be made but will ever really happen as the system is now. Honestly, I think that Republicans and Democrats are too busy blaming each other and name calling to really find solutions to problems.
It was my hope that the Tea Party would really become a credible movement.But with the hatred towards Sara Palin, the insanity that is Glenn Beck, and the intolerant faction I don't see credibility.
I almost miss Ross Perot.... almost.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Sometimes you have to stand for something
I have often wondered over the years if people who are against wars or any military actions to solve problems have a point at which they would condone such actions.
I wonder this because our country became what it is partially because people where fed up with the way things were to the point where the felt the need to pick up arms to force changes.
Our founding fathers never would have been able to break away from England without military actions. And I think one of the major lessons of our founding fathers fight for freedom is not only to stand up for what you believe in but some times you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.
I don't think the Civil War was necessarily about slavery. I think it was more about the growing economic and social disparity between the North and South. And people on both sides held beliefs so strongly that they were willing to die for the life they wanted.
I think one of the lasting benefits of that war was a respect for the toll that wars take on humanity.
I can't honestly say that I have read up on the history of WW I or Korea. But I do believe our country was fighting for what it thought was right.
I have studied the Civil War and WWII.(sorry I feel a little lazy) If Japan hadn't attacked us I highly doubt we would have entered WWII. Honestly, it scares me to think how different the world would be now if we hadn't entered that War. I don't think Hitler would have been satisfied with stopping with Europe. But I digress.
But I think it shows that this country needs real concrete reasons to take real military actions.
And I may be in the minority but I believe we had those reasons with Iraq and now with Libya.
For the record, if I had been physically able I would have considered, at least, enlisting in the military.
I wonder this because our country became what it is partially because people where fed up with the way things were to the point where the felt the need to pick up arms to force changes.
Our founding fathers never would have been able to break away from England without military actions. And I think one of the major lessons of our founding fathers fight for freedom is not only to stand up for what you believe in but some times you have to be willing to do whatever it takes to achieve it.
I don't think the Civil War was necessarily about slavery. I think it was more about the growing economic and social disparity between the North and South. And people on both sides held beliefs so strongly that they were willing to die for the life they wanted.
I think one of the lasting benefits of that war was a respect for the toll that wars take on humanity.
I can't honestly say that I have read up on the history of WW I or Korea. But I do believe our country was fighting for what it thought was right.
I have studied the Civil War and WWII.(sorry I feel a little lazy) If Japan hadn't attacked us I highly doubt we would have entered WWII. Honestly, it scares me to think how different the world would be now if we hadn't entered that War. I don't think Hitler would have been satisfied with stopping with Europe. But I digress.
But I think it shows that this country needs real concrete reasons to take real military actions.
And I may be in the minority but I believe we had those reasons with Iraq and now with Libya.
For the record, if I had been physically able I would have considered, at least, enlisting in the military.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Is it our business?
Recently I have heard some celebrities that are known to be liberals like Micheal Moore and Matt Damon criticize President Obama for his actions in regards to Libya.
And the general message I heard was that we shouldn't be sticking our noses into other countries businesses. Fine. In a "perfect world" scenario I would totally agree with that. Except, it's far from a perfect world.
I would like to ask the question that first came to my mind first after hearing the criticism. If you don't want us to help other countries, do you donate money to UNICEF or Save the Children? (if I got the names wrong, I apologize)
I know the first reaction to my question will be that there is a big difference between military actions and donating money. To which I say, take the weapons out of the equation. What's the difference then?
There are organizations that receive the money so that they can send food and supplies to countries that for whatever reason have people who are starving. Why is that our business? Shouldn't those countries be solely responsible for the welfare of their people?
The answer is no. Because as a moral and humane country we should do whatever we can to make sure that no children or adult goes hungry.
Ten years ago, Iraq had a leader that was killing his people and basically making life in his country terrible for his people. Now Libya has a leader who may be even more murderous and oppressive. And I have yet to hear much discussion about dealing with North Korea's Kim Jong-il who may be the worst of them.
I will readily admit there were more reasons for taking actions against Iraq and Libya other than humanitarian ones. And if actions are ever taken against North Korea the same thing will apply there.
But if lives can be saved and if the will of the people of those countries can be attained why shouldn't we take appropriate actions? Yes, we should because it is the moral and humane thing to do.
If the moral and humanitarian goals are met; why should it matter whether money or military means are used for the right outcome?
And the general message I heard was that we shouldn't be sticking our noses into other countries businesses. Fine. In a "perfect world" scenario I would totally agree with that. Except, it's far from a perfect world.
I would like to ask the question that first came to my mind first after hearing the criticism. If you don't want us to help other countries, do you donate money to UNICEF or Save the Children? (if I got the names wrong, I apologize)
I know the first reaction to my question will be that there is a big difference between military actions and donating money. To which I say, take the weapons out of the equation. What's the difference then?
There are organizations that receive the money so that they can send food and supplies to countries that for whatever reason have people who are starving. Why is that our business? Shouldn't those countries be solely responsible for the welfare of their people?
The answer is no. Because as a moral and humane country we should do whatever we can to make sure that no children or adult goes hungry.
Ten years ago, Iraq had a leader that was killing his people and basically making life in his country terrible for his people. Now Libya has a leader who may be even more murderous and oppressive. And I have yet to hear much discussion about dealing with North Korea's Kim Jong-il who may be the worst of them.
I will readily admit there were more reasons for taking actions against Iraq and Libya other than humanitarian ones. And if actions are ever taken against North Korea the same thing will apply there.
But if lives can be saved and if the will of the people of those countries can be attained why shouldn't we take appropriate actions? Yes, we should because it is the moral and humane thing to do.
If the moral and humanitarian goals are met; why should it matter whether money or military means are used for the right outcome?
Monday, April 11, 2011
Manny, baseball and steroids
I knew that something would happen this season to put steroids back in the headlines. I just didn't think it would be so soon.
Once again there are articles being written and talking head debating about who should and shouldn't be voted into the Hall of Fame. I, myself, will give my take on that issue in the next few days.
But I want to talk about one part of the steroids issue that is rarely talked about; the players actual health issues in regards to taking steroids.
Before his death in May, 1992 was quoted in a Sports Illustrated article in regards to steroids, "I started taking anabolic steroids in 1969 and never stopped. It was addicting, mentally addicting. Now I'm sick, and I'm scared. Ninety percent of the athletes I know are on the stuff. We're not born to be 300 lb (140 kg) or jump 30 ft (9.1 m). But all the time I was taking steroids, I knew they were making me play better. I became very violent on the field and off it. I did things only crazy people do. Once a guy sideswiped my car and I beat the hell out of him. Now look at me. My hair's gone, I wobble when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support, and I have trouble remembering things. My last wish? That no one else ever dies this way.[11]" (source: Wikipeda)
There have been numerous professional wrestlers whose lives have been shortened due to usage of steroids and pain killers. High school kids have died because of steroids.
But what is the topic when a player is about to be suspended for steroids? The main talk is about how that player is a cheater. If that player was one of the best players ever (and Manny Ramirez was) the talk is about the record books and the Hall of Fame.
I can not remember ever reading a column or hearing a cable TV talking head expressing concern over what using steroids may be doing to that athlete's body and life.
And that bothers me-- a lot.
Reality is most players careers last for a relatively short period of time. And the attitude has been that they will do whatever it takes to be in the best shape in the hopes of getting a big money contract. But what good is the big money if the athlete is too physically messed up to enjoy time with his family? Or even worse he dies at a young age? Lyle Alzado was 43 when he died. How much life did he get to enjoy?
Sports is entertainment and helps keep a guy like me occupied. Records and statistics are cool when viewed in the proper context. But nothing is more important than someone living a good, healthy quality of life.
And the real, truthful, harmful effects of steroids needs to be the main focus over career statistics and Hall of Fame voting.
Once again there are articles being written and talking head debating about who should and shouldn't be voted into the Hall of Fame. I, myself, will give my take on that issue in the next few days.
But I want to talk about one part of the steroids issue that is rarely talked about; the players actual health issues in regards to taking steroids.
Before his death in May, 1992 was quoted in a Sports Illustrated article in regards to steroids, "I started taking anabolic steroids in 1969 and never stopped. It was addicting, mentally addicting. Now I'm sick, and I'm scared. Ninety percent of the athletes I know are on the stuff. We're not born to be 300 lb (140 kg) or jump 30 ft (9.1 m). But all the time I was taking steroids, I knew they were making me play better. I became very violent on the field and off it. I did things only crazy people do. Once a guy sideswiped my car and I beat the hell out of him. Now look at me. My hair's gone, I wobble when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support, and I have trouble remembering things. My last wish? That no one else ever dies this way.[11]" (source: Wikipeda)
There have been numerous professional wrestlers whose lives have been shortened due to usage of steroids and pain killers. High school kids have died because of steroids.
But what is the topic when a player is about to be suspended for steroids? The main talk is about how that player is a cheater. If that player was one of the best players ever (and Manny Ramirez was) the talk is about the record books and the Hall of Fame.
I can not remember ever reading a column or hearing a cable TV talking head expressing concern over what using steroids may be doing to that athlete's body and life.
And that bothers me-- a lot.
Reality is most players careers last for a relatively short period of time. And the attitude has been that they will do whatever it takes to be in the best shape in the hopes of getting a big money contract. But what good is the big money if the athlete is too physically messed up to enjoy time with his family? Or even worse he dies at a young age? Lyle Alzado was 43 when he died. How much life did he get to enjoy?
Sports is entertainment and helps keep a guy like me occupied. Records and statistics are cool when viewed in the proper context. But nothing is more important than someone living a good, healthy quality of life.
And the real, truthful, harmful effects of steroids needs to be the main focus over career statistics and Hall of Fame voting.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
MLB National League Predictions
Like with most things in my life, I'm slow but I get there...
N.L. EAST
1.) Philadelphia Phillies-- I read a prediction in which columnist Scott Miller (cbssports.com) wrote "Can a killer rotation including Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee,Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt overcome a lineup that appears to have aged more quickly than tired Rocky jokes?" Mr Miller is actually my favorite online baseball columnist, but I disagree with him on this. I think that the lineup that still includes 1ST Ryan Howard, SS Jimmy Rollins, CF Shane Victorino and after his DL stay 2ND Chase Utley is still very formidable. And the rotation is the best in baseball and the best since the '90s Braves.
2. Atlanta Braves-- This is a team that will be very dominant starting next season. I think they will be in contention this season, and they may win the wildcard this season. But the Phillies are just too good and the Braves are still a little too young. I don't normally like to predict Rookies of the Year but that is how good I think 1ST Freddie Freeman will be.
3.) Washington Nationals-- 1ST Adam LaRoche, RF Jason Werth, CF Rick Ankiel and 3RD Ryan Zimmerman are better than what the Marlins and Mets have. The young pitching staff will only get better.
4.) Florida Marlins-- SS Hanley Ramirez and a decent rotation are the only interesting things about this team. How are they going to get fans to come to the new stadium next year?
5.) New York Mets-- The best thing for baseball and New Yorkers would be for the Wilpons to sell this team. This is the biggest mess in all of sports right now.
NL CENTRAL
1.) Milwaukee Brewers-- Was it Elvis who sang, "It's now or never?" It's pretty much guaranteed that big 1ST Prince Fielder will leave as a free agent after this season. This season the Brewers offense is pretty good. Once ace P Zack Greinke comes off the disabled list for being silly enough to play a 3 on 3 basketball game and getting hurt; this rotation could be the second best in the NL.
2.) Cincinnati Reds-- 1ST Joey Votto is THE man right now. I apologize to Mr Pujols and his fans but I personally think Mr Votto is on his way to becoming the bet player in the game. The offense after him is good Votto makes it really good.
After P Homer Bailey comes of the DL the Reds will have one of the best starting rotations.
3.) St Louis Cardinals-- A good but aging team. They will contend but I just don't see much more than that.
4.) Chicago Cubs-- A team that had so much potential 3-4 years ago but never reached it. I don't really see improvements. New 1ST Carlos Pena is probably a defensive improvement but he is not the offensive threat he once was. The starting pitching is good but it's not enough to contend. The Rickett family needs to fire GM Jim Hendry and start all over again. At this point its looking like another 100 years before they win the World Series.
5.) Pittsburgh Pirates-- There is a little bit of young talent. And if 1ST Lyle Overbay can have a decent season he may provide needed veteran leadership.
6.)Houston Astros-- I don't see a lot of talent on this team. I don't think this organization planned for life after the Killer B's (Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio). I believe I heard that owner Drayton McLane is trying to sell the team and that may be for the best.
NL WEST
1.) Colorado Rockies-- I don't see real bad weaknesses. Good offense with 1ST Todd Helton, SS Troy Tulowitzki, RF Carlos Gonzalez and CF Dexter Fowler. Good defense. Decent pitching. Rockies might run away with the division.
2.) I have seen them play a couple of times this spring. I like the young talent. 2ND Orlando Hudson is a good veteran to add to this team. I don't know a lot about their pitching but I have heard some positives about them. If the pitching is decent or better the Padres will contend.
3.)San Francisco Giants-- This one hurts. Last year I thought they would finish last. I still don't like their offense. But their pitching is awesome. If the Phillies hadn't gotten Cliff Lee back I would say SF has the best pitching in the NL..
4.) Los Angeles Dodgers-- This one hurts even worse. I have been a Dodger fan since Rick Monday was traded from the Cubs to the Dodgers in 1976. This team is in bad shape. From the owners messy divorce to the young core players (1ST James Loney, CF Matt Kemp, RF Andre Ethier) not living up to expectations and a closer (Jonathan Broxton) who sees to be losing his stuff; this team is a mess. The starting rotation is really good but it won't be enough. Please sell the team Mr McCourt. I feel bad for first time Manager Don Mattingly.
5.) Arizona Diamondbacks-- Basically a young rebuilding team. I hope Kirk Gibson gets plenty of time to prove he can Manage a team.
NL WILDCARD: Cincinnati Reds
NL CHAMPIONS: Philadelphia Phillies
WORLD SERIES: Boston vs. Philadelphia
MLB CHAMPIONS: Boston RED SOX
I will brave enough to review how I did in the fall.
N.L. EAST
1.) Philadelphia Phillies-- I read a prediction in which columnist Scott Miller (cbssports.com) wrote "Can a killer rotation including Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee,Cole Hamels and Roy Oswalt overcome a lineup that appears to have aged more quickly than tired Rocky jokes?" Mr Miller is actually my favorite online baseball columnist, but I disagree with him on this. I think that the lineup that still includes 1ST Ryan Howard, SS Jimmy Rollins, CF Shane Victorino and after his DL stay 2ND Chase Utley is still very formidable. And the rotation is the best in baseball and the best since the '90s Braves.
2. Atlanta Braves-- This is a team that will be very dominant starting next season. I think they will be in contention this season, and they may win the wildcard this season. But the Phillies are just too good and the Braves are still a little too young. I don't normally like to predict Rookies of the Year but that is how good I think 1ST Freddie Freeman will be.
3.) Washington Nationals-- 1ST Adam LaRoche, RF Jason Werth, CF Rick Ankiel and 3RD Ryan Zimmerman are better than what the Marlins and Mets have. The young pitching staff will only get better.
4.) Florida Marlins-- SS Hanley Ramirez and a decent rotation are the only interesting things about this team. How are they going to get fans to come to the new stadium next year?
5.) New York Mets-- The best thing for baseball and New Yorkers would be for the Wilpons to sell this team. This is the biggest mess in all of sports right now.
NL CENTRAL
1.) Milwaukee Brewers-- Was it Elvis who sang, "It's now or never?" It's pretty much guaranteed that big 1ST Prince Fielder will leave as a free agent after this season. This season the Brewers offense is pretty good. Once ace P Zack Greinke comes off the disabled list for being silly enough to play a 3 on 3 basketball game and getting hurt; this rotation could be the second best in the NL.
2.) Cincinnati Reds-- 1ST Joey Votto is THE man right now. I apologize to Mr Pujols and his fans but I personally think Mr Votto is on his way to becoming the bet player in the game. The offense after him is good Votto makes it really good.
After P Homer Bailey comes of the DL the Reds will have one of the best starting rotations.
3.) St Louis Cardinals-- A good but aging team. They will contend but I just don't see much more than that.
4.) Chicago Cubs-- A team that had so much potential 3-4 years ago but never reached it. I don't really see improvements. New 1ST Carlos Pena is probably a defensive improvement but he is not the offensive threat he once was. The starting pitching is good but it's not enough to contend. The Rickett family needs to fire GM Jim Hendry and start all over again. At this point its looking like another 100 years before they win the World Series.
5.) Pittsburgh Pirates-- There is a little bit of young talent. And if 1ST Lyle Overbay can have a decent season he may provide needed veteran leadership.
6.)Houston Astros-- I don't see a lot of talent on this team. I don't think this organization planned for life after the Killer B's (Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio). I believe I heard that owner Drayton McLane is trying to sell the team and that may be for the best.
NL WEST
1.) Colorado Rockies-- I don't see real bad weaknesses. Good offense with 1ST Todd Helton, SS Troy Tulowitzki, RF Carlos Gonzalez and CF Dexter Fowler. Good defense. Decent pitching. Rockies might run away with the division.
2.) I have seen them play a couple of times this spring. I like the young talent. 2ND Orlando Hudson is a good veteran to add to this team. I don't know a lot about their pitching but I have heard some positives about them. If the pitching is decent or better the Padres will contend.
3.)San Francisco Giants-- This one hurts. Last year I thought they would finish last. I still don't like their offense. But their pitching is awesome. If the Phillies hadn't gotten Cliff Lee back I would say SF has the best pitching in the NL..
4.) Los Angeles Dodgers-- This one hurts even worse. I have been a Dodger fan since Rick Monday was traded from the Cubs to the Dodgers in 1976. This team is in bad shape. From the owners messy divorce to the young core players (1ST James Loney, CF Matt Kemp, RF Andre Ethier) not living up to expectations and a closer (Jonathan Broxton) who sees to be losing his stuff; this team is a mess. The starting rotation is really good but it won't be enough. Please sell the team Mr McCourt. I feel bad for first time Manager Don Mattingly.
5.) Arizona Diamondbacks-- Basically a young rebuilding team. I hope Kirk Gibson gets plenty of time to prove he can Manage a team.
NL WILDCARD: Cincinnati Reds
NL CHAMPIONS: Philadelphia Phillies
WORLD SERIES: Boston vs. Philadelphia
MLB CHAMPIONS: Boston RED SOX
I will brave enough to review how I did in the fall.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Off my chest
When I wrote my last post I intended to write a NL preview the next day. I didn't think ESPN would do all day baseball Thursday AND Friday. I am glad they did but I totally forgot about writing.
I will do the NL post tomorrow.
Today,I have been dealing with the frustration of trying to get my birth certificate so I can get my ID for some assistance I am getting.
Since when do you need a birth certificate to get an ID? And do most people have a copy of their's? I used to have mine but I can't find it. And getting a new one is turning into a real pain in the butt.
And to tell the truth I have some fear of not being able to prove who I am. I know that my not be rational but its true.
Things will probably work out in the end but between then and now its not fun.
End of rant. Thank you
I will do the NL post tomorrow.
Today,I have been dealing with the frustration of trying to get my birth certificate so I can get my ID for some assistance I am getting.
Since when do you need a birth certificate to get an ID? And do most people have a copy of their's? I used to have mine but I can't find it. And getting a new one is turning into a real pain in the butt.
And to tell the truth I have some fear of not being able to prove who I am. I know that my not be rational but its true.
Things will probably work out in the end but between then and now its not fun.
End of rant. Thank you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)