That Passed Quickly

50 years ago this week, Light My Fire by The Doors became the #1 single in the U.S.

Saw them play at Danbury High School around that same time.

Here's an excerpt from a NPR interview with keyboardist Ray Manzarek, originally broadcast in 1998, in which Ray explains how The Doors put the song together, how and why it was cut from the seven minute album version to 2:45 single, and why the instrumental break was inspired by The Sound of Music.  The link takes you to the transcript and audio.  Listening to the audio is much more fun.

And here's the original complete version:

Dunkirk Revisited

Further thoughts prompted by discussions I've been having about the movie.

Common themes between Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and Dunkirk are becoming more apparent to me.  In my prior post I referred to The Dark Knight as the finest superhero movie ever made.  My reasons?

It's a serious film (while being entertaining at the same time), unlike most of the DC and Marvel comic book movies which are more about plotting to get characters A, B, and C to points D, E and F, and thus ready for the next sequel.

It contains a monumental, and very disturbing, performance by Heath Ledger as The Joker.  We'd become used to The Joker in the TV series (played by Caesar Romero), or by Jack Nicholson in the early Batman films as an evil, but mostly comic character, and certainly not very frightening. The Dark Knight strips away the comic element and we are left only with an evil core which Ledger inhabits unnervingly well, making it hard to watch at times.  This Joker would leave Romero and Nicholson in an alley with their throats slit.  Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lechter in The Silence of the Lambs look like the junior varsity in comparison.

Most importantly, it is the best movie about the War on Terror.  It asks us, when faced with evil that seeks to destroy our society and knows no boundaries to its behavior, how is a civilized society to respond, what are our options, and what are the costs of each course of action in human terms and for the future?  It does so not by preaching about a specific answer, or by setting up straw men.  It does so by making us unflinchingly confront those actions, the consequences, and the costs; both for society and individuals.  It leaves it to the viewer to render their judgment.

And what about Dunkirk?

WARNING: If you are still planning to see the film don't read further as it contains plot spoilers.


In a more subtle way, Dunkirk also explores themes related to sacrifice and the costs of decisions that must be made.  It arises in the relationship between the actions of the Spitfire pilot and Tommy, the soldier, raising questions about the duty to obey orders/rules and the consequences of both obedience and disobedience. 

Both characters disobey orders, and exchange physical locations in the course of the film. The pilot disobeys for noble reasons, ending up on the beach that Tommy has spent the movie ignobly trying to escape, and is captured by the Germans, thus sacrificing himself. Tommy ends up back in England, where the pilot started his day, where he begins to understand the significance of what he has endured and we see the possibility he might act differently the next time.

Kenneth Branagh’s expository role lays out the dilemma Churchill and the War Cabinet faced and why the rules were in place. They needed to rescue as many soldiers as possible from Dunkirk, but also to minimize the loss of ships, planes and pilots so desperately needed for the Battle of Britain, which is why so little of the RAF was committed to air cover over the beaches, and why the Spitfire pilot is ordered to return to Britain after a set amount of flying time.  The Spitfire pilot disobeys in order to destroy a German bomber and is lost, though his very actions while disobeying, allow for Tommy, who has disobeyed the entire movie in his desperation to escape the beach, to ultimately return to Britain and fight on.

The Klein Variations

In our continuing search for unusual statistical accomplishments in baseball, I undertook to explore extreme performances for an individual during a season.  My focus was on the career of Chuck Klein, star of the Philadelphia Phillies in the late 1920 and early 1930s, who has appeared in a prior THC post, Baseball Scorecard 1939.
(Klein from Philly Sports History)

Klein posted phenomenal home/roads splits, hitting well over .400 from 1929 through 1933 in the comfy confines of the Baker Bowl while averaging more than .100 points less on the road.  His home/road splits became more extreme over time.  Below are the splits, home first, then road, including his 1928 partial rookie year.

1928:  .380/.330
1929:  .391/.321
1930:  .437/.332
1931:  .401/.269
1932:  .423/.266
1933:  .467/.280

Next step was to look at Klein's splits against left and right handed pitching.  Here I found a surprise.  Since Chuck hit left-handed, I expected him to be consistently better against right-handers, but he learned to hit southpaws better over time.  These are his splits, right handers listed first:

1928:  .374/.324
1929:  .391/.291
1930:  .405/.375
1931:  .370/.280
1932:  .362/.396
1933:  .367/.482  

Since his highest Baker Bowl average was .467 in 1933 and his best split was when he stroked .482 against lefties the same year, I decided to look at how Klein hit southpaws in his home park that year, when he won the Triple Crown, leading the National League in homers, RBIs, and average.  The next step was to go to Baseball-Reference and go through all boxscores and play by play accounts for the entire Phillies home schedule to determine how many left-handers Klein faced and how he performed against them.

The results?  Over 19 games and 47 at bats, Klein hit .532 with an on-base percentage of .560 and slugging .936.  Among his 25 hits, Chuck racked up eleven doubles, a triple, and two home runs. After going 1 for 5 in the Phillies home opener against lefty Watty Clark, Chuck hit .571 in his final 18 games against southpaws, going 18 for 24 at one point.  He also went 3 for 4 against future Hall of Famer Carl Hubbell.

Klein may have actually hit higher than .532 against lefties in 1933.  On September 23, the Boston Braves were in Philadelphia for a game in which Chuck went 3 for 4 with a double.  Braves lefty Tom Zachary pitched one inning in relief, giving up two hits.  This is the only game involving a lefty pitcher for which I cannot find play by play.  If one of Klein's hits was against Zachary (the pitcher who surrendered Babe Ruth's 60th home run in 1927) his average would be .542.

The 1933 Phillies were a bad team, finishing 60-92, landing them in 7th place in an eight team league.  Not surprisingly their attendance was awful, with an average of only 2,180 fans attending each home game.  The worst days may have been when the New York Giants came to town in early August and trampled the Phillies by identical 18-1 scores in consecutive games.

Dunkirk

Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is not a good movie; it is a great movie, which I became aware of only a few minutes into viewing.  That was unexpected for me.  I found it well told, intense, and very moving.  And you are on the edge of your seat for the entire film.  Go see it in a movie theater, preferably an IMAX.  Seeing it on the small screen will not do it justice.

Nolan is a talented film maker going back to his debut with Memento.  He's also made Inception, Interstellar, Insomnia and The Dark Knight trilogy (the second of which, The Dark Knight, is by far the best superhero movie ever made).  Like those films, Dunkirk looks amazing (there is apparently no, or very little CGI) and it also contains Nolan's trademark intertwined, time twisting plots (in this instance, three such) which ends up working in this context, though there were a few minutes late in the film where I thought it might end up too much.

What we see, for the first time, is Nolan bringing his touch to real events; The miraculous evacuation from May 26, 1940 through June 4, 1940, of 338,000 British and French troops surrounded by the German Army in (late May 1940, which at the same time was a military disaster for Britain.  This is not The Longest Day or A Bridge Too Far where we go back and forth between the battlefield and grand strategy discussions.  Nolan is focused on the soldiers, aviators and sailors (including the civilians who took their craft into danger at Dunkirk).   He utilizes Kenneth Branagh sparingly as a senior British naval officer for a few quick bursts of exposition scattered throughout, but that's it.  At one point we hear the famous conclusion of Churchill's "we shall fight them on the beaches" speech, but via a young soldier reading it aloud from a newspaper.  The exposition is enough to alert us to the terrible decisions Churchill and his War Cabinet made during those days, and the human costs of those decisions, specifically to withhold much of the Royal Navy and Air Force from support of the evacuation because of the need to conserve precious resources for Hitler's anticipated invasion of Britain.

Nolan has come in for some criticism for his approach.  We never see the Germans.  No one talks about Nazi horrors.  There is not much historical context. Not all of his British characters (and this is a very British film) are heroic or noble.  But it is a noble and patriotic film, filled with love of country, love of Britain.  By the end, even those characters who are confused about the meaning of what they've endured, at least glimpse its significance when they return home.

Dunkirk also captures another aspect of the war.  We know how WW2 ended.  In late May 1940 no one knew how it would end, nor what would happen next and the movie is true to that.  There is a contingent aspect to history, as their always is moving forward, though hard for us to grasp looking back.  Unbeknownst to most of Britain at the time, Churchill's War Cabinet debated from May 25 to May 28 whether to respond positively to Mussolini's offer to mediate between Britain and Germany.  Churchill, who only became Prime Minister on May 10, was adamantly opposed to negotiations (see Churchill Ascends).  He finally carried the day, telling a meeting of his full Cabinet on May 28:

If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.

The emotional heart of the movie are a Spitfire pilot played by Tom Hardy, who probably says fewer than 50 words during the movie, and Mark Rylance as a father who takes his small pleasure boat, along with his son and son's friend to Dunkirk.  Rylance's character (who I found from listening to my friend Titus's splendid podcast on the film, is based on Charles Lightoller, second officer of Titanic, who performed heroically during its sinking in 1912 and in 1940 set off on his yacht to rescue soldiers at Dunkirk) is laconic but he proves as eloquent as Churchill with his few words.  The  most interesting role choice by the director is Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), an unheroic soldier desperately seeking a way off the beach.  Nolan takes some risks with the audience here but pulls it off.

Excerpts from Winston Churchill speech in Parliament, June 4, 1940

When, a week ago today, I asked the House to fix this afternoon as the occasion for a statement, I feared it would be my hard lot to announce the greatest military disaster in our long history. I thought-and some good judges agreed with me-that perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 men might be re-embarked. But it certainly seemed that the whole of the French First Army and the whole of the British Expeditionary Force north of the Amiens-Abbeville gap would be broken up in the open field or else would have to capitulate for lack of food and ammunition. These were the hard and heavy tidings for which I called upon the House and the nation to prepare themselves a week ago.

Nevertheless, our thankfulness at the escape of our Army and so many men, whose loved ones have passed through an agonizing week, must not blind us to the fact that what has happened in France and Belgium is a colossal military disaster.

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

That New Breed Thing

He ain't no drag
Papa's got a brand new bag

Released in July 1965, Papa's Got A Brand New Bag was James Brown's first single to hit the Top Ten in Billboard's Hot 100.  It had a different sound than any Top Ten song to that date.  With its emphasis on the first beat ("The One"), Brown delivered a brand new bag of Funk.

Ten Years After: The Ottomans Come A'Knocking (Part 3)

The long awaited final installment of the three part series regarding six events which transformed the course of history between 1519 and 1529.

The first part covered the New World - the entrance of Cortes into the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, and the coming of smallpox to the American mainland.

The second discusses two turning points in the Reformation; the excommunication of Martin Luther (January 1521), and Henry VIII's decision to pursue marriage with Anne Boleyn (February 1526).

The last event is also entangled with continental politics, particularly the impact of the Sack of Rome in May 1527 by the forces of Charles V, the Hapsburg monarch who also became Holy Roman Emperor.  For our last installment we will backtrack a bit to 1525.

The Queen Mother Writes The Sultan

The early 16th century in Europe saw interminable warfare among the royalty of Europe with one of the fiercest rivalries between Francois I of France and the Hapsburg (and Holy Roman) Emperor Charles V.  In late 1524 Francois led an army into Italy, seizing Milan and laying siege to Pavia.  In February 1525 an army sent by Charles to relieve the siege completely smashed the French force and captured Francois.

Even before the Battle of Pavia, Francois sought seeking allies among the enemies of the Hapsburgs, entering into an alliance with Poland the very year he invaded Italy.  But with his defeat and capture the need became even more urgent.  Even while the King was in captivity, the Queen Mother, Louise of Savoy, dispatched an emissary to Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Sultan, carrying a letter imploring the Sultan:

“ I had left my son’s freedom to the fairness of Charles. But, he is insulting my son. I entreaty you to make my son free with your great world sovereignty, and grand power that the world recognised”.

(Louise of Savoy)

Suleiman responded:

“You! Francois, the King of French province! [Note the reference to France as an Ottoman province!] You have sent a letter to us with your ambassador and informed us about the enemy that entered to your country and imprisoned you. So, you asked our favour for your freedom. It is not bizarre for a sovereign to be defeated or to be imprisoned. Do not worry about it. We have taken our arms and have been riding our horses for days and nights. Every thing will be as the God wishes”.

Though the Ottoman probably did not need a solicitation to justify his next move, the Queen Mother's plea and the promise of an alliance provided a proper causus belli.  The history of Ottoman expansion in Europe was covered in The Song of Jan Sobieski, but to quickly recap; the Ottomans first ventured into Europe in 1354, smashed the Serbian state in 1389, defeated the Crusades mounted in 1396 and 1444, and captured Constantinople in 1453.  Nonetheless, until 1525 their depredations (excepting a brief excursion into southeastern Italy in 1480) had been restricted to the remote and barbarous Balkans.

Between the Balkans and the Hapsburgs in Vienna lay the Kingdom of Hungary.  Already under threat from the Ottomans who had seized Hungary's southernmost fortress at Belgrade in 1521, Louis II, King of Hungary and Bohemia had agreed to a marriage alliance, wedding Mary of Hapsburg in 1522.

Fulfilling his pledge, Suleiman set forth with his army from Istanbul in April 1526.  Four months later, on August 26, 1526, the Ottomans slaughtered the Hungarian army at Mohacs.  Among the dead was the Hungarian king.  The kingdom was shattered, most to fall under Ottoman rule while a sliver in the north and northwest came under Hapsburg sway. The path to Vienna was now clear and France and the Ottomans had established an alliance that was to last for almost three centuries.

Suleiman Retreats From Vienna

On October 15, 1529 the Sultan lifted the three week siege of Vienna and, amidst the autumn rains, began the long trek back to Istanbul.  He had set out that spring with great expectations but the gigantic force of infantry, cavalry and artillery, Muslim and Christian had been hampered in its advance by endless rains and flooding.  It was not until September 8 that Buda had been captured and Vienna not reached until late September.  Tunneling and mining failed to bring down the walls, as did direct assault.

If Vienna had fallen the way into central Europe for the Turks would have been open.  Even with this failure, the expectations of Christian Europe were that Suleiman would return, and return soon.  The threat remained.  The reality was it was an unrecognized turning point.  The Turks returned for a second siege, but not until 1683.  In the interim was a century and an half of back and forth.  In the Mediterranean, the Knights of Malta defeated the Turkish invasion of 1565 (read, The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of), and the Ottoman fleet was defeated at Lepanto in 1571.  Though the French alliance paid off, as during the 1540s the Turkish fleet wintered in Toulon, and dominated the sea, seizing tens of thousands of slaves in its ceaseless raiding.  But for the first time in almost two centuries, the Sultans were not constantly advancing.  Europe had a breathing space.

Conclusion

The ten years from 1519 to 1529 saw the European conquest of the Americas made inevitable by the ravages of disease, the Catholic Church challenged after twelve centuries as the ruling faith of Europe, new dynamic of faith and conflict within Christianity created, and the beginning of the end of the remorseless Ottoman threat, all of which set the stage for the era of European world dominance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Along with the six events profiled in this series, I researched another which, as it turned out, fell just outside this period but which had consequences that continue to ripple through history; the transport of sub-Saharan African slaves to the Americas.  The scale of this transfer was such that until the mid-19th century more Africans than Europeans had cumulatively come to the New World since 1492.

"Africans" had been present from the start as part of the initial Spanish and Portuguese expeditions to the New World.  However, they were either Moors; Arab or Berber captives from wars in North Africa or seized from ships, or in some instances, Moorish slaves from sub-Saharan Africa captured, in turn, by the Spanish or Portuguese.

Although there is reference to a 1502 slave transhipment from sub-Sahara Africa it appears the beginnings of the systematic trans-Atlantic trade was in 1517 or 1518.  Over the next 300 years, 10-11 million Africans were imported with more than one million others dying during transport.

Of these about 47% went to Brazil and 32% to the British and French sugar plantations in the Caribbean.  Another 17% were transported to Spanish possessions (two-thirds to Cuba).  The colonies (and later states) that were to constitute the United States account for about 389,000-407,000 (or 4%).

Sub-Sahara Africa also saw another large slave trade to the east and north with an estimated 10-20 million slaves transported to the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East over a period of one thousand years.  During those same years, an estimated one million Europeans were enslaved by corsairs sailing from the Barbary states of North Africa.  There was also a lively slave trade during the Dark Ages of European slaves taken from the pagan areas of Germany and the Baltics during the Crusades to bring those areas to Christianity, sold via France to Muslim traders in Spain, as well as a well-established trade by Vikings selling captive slaves to the Turkish and Abbasid caliphates.

I Want This

And Now, A Pause

A Dutchman In Rome

Born in Amerfoort, Holland in 1653, Caspar van Wittel left the Netherlands in 1674 for Italy, residing primarily in Rome, where he died in 1736.  He became well known for his urban landscape paintings, many of which juxtaposed the remnants of imperial Rome with the reality of the shrunken city at the beginning of the 18th century.

I've always been taken with this particular piece which shows the Arch of Titus with the Palatine Hill on the left.  It's a reminder both of durability and fragility.  The structure, though damaged remains, but the city and Forum surrounding it are mostly long gone, as well as those who built it.  The humbleness of the inhabitants we see is also a reminder of the transitory nature of things.  The Arch straddles the Sacred Way.  Triumphal processions would approach it up a slight incline having just passed by the Colosseum, 300 yards away.  Straight in front of them, down another slight incline was the Roman Forum, the heart of the empire.

To the left, the Palatine Hill was crowned by an enormous sprawling complex of Imperial Palaces clad in marble.  In 1700 we see the Palatine covered in trees, and scattered people walking through the ruins around the Arch, with a horse walking down the path from the Palatine.  The once carefully paved Sacred Way reduced to a rough dirt path.  The Arch itself is no longer maintained and is slowly eroding away.  The monumental buildings surrounding it long ago had their marble cladding stripped and their exposed cores left to crumble.  For more on the deterioration of Classical Rome over the centuries read Belisarius Enters Rome.

The inscription on the Arch reads:

The Senate
and the People of Rome
to the late revered Titus Vespasian Augustus
son of the late revered Vespasian

The monument was erected by the Emperor Domitian (81-96), the younger brother of the Emperor Titus (79-81), the sons of Emperor Vespasian (69-79), who constituted the Flavian Dynasty.  Vespasian, an experienced and stern soldier came to power in the wake of the overthrow and subsequent suicide of Nero (54-68) and amidst the turmoil of the Year of the Four Emperors when it was demonstrated that the legions far from Rome would be the decisive force in choosing the new emperor.

As a ruler, Vespasian was strict and personally austere, a complete contrast to the profligate,  undisciplined and disliked Nero.  Vespasian had his predecessor's hated palace, The Golden House, turn down, filled in its lake and on its former location had the Flavian Amphitheatre (better known to us as the Colosseum) built for the people of Rome.  Succeeding him, Titus was more charismatic and popular and his early death due to illness was a shock.  The Arch was built shortly after Domitian's accession to the throne.  Domitian was also initially popular but sank into paranoia and more and more irrational acts unlike he was assassinated in a conspiracy led by his own wife who feared for her life.

Much of the decorative aspect of the Arch commemorates the accomplishment for which he was most honored by Romans; his crushing of the Jewish Revolt in 67-70 and the sacking and complete destruction of the great temple in Jerusalem.  In the photo below the picture you can see a depiction of the great menorah being removed from the temple as a trophy of Rome's victory.  When I first saw the Arch in person it created quite a mixture of emotions for me.  Thousands of Jews were enslaved by the end of the rebellion and many of them brought to Rome where they worked as part of the labor force constructing the Colosseum.  Some may still have been around to work on the Arch of Titus.

Much of the exterior of the Arch a tourist sees today is not the same as that painted by Wittel three hundred years ago.  By the early 19th century there had been so much further degradation of the structure that in 1822, at the direction of the Pope, it was completely rebuilt in travertine.  The inscription, however, is the original.


The menorah being carried away.


As it looks today:
By Rabax63 (Diskussion) - Own work (Original text: Eigene Aufnahme), CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31309658

Risky Business: The Alternative Ending

I don't think anyone who saw Risky Business when it was released in 1983 has forgotten it, and I don't know of anyone that dislikes it.  It's probably the same for the 90% of current American adults who've seen the film.  An unusual storyline mixing teenage male angst, comedy, reflections on materialism, sex, catch phrases, classic scenes, charismatic young stars appealing to both the boys (Rebecca de Mornay, and boy, was she appealing) and girls (Tom Cruise), perfect music in the right setting (remember the train ride with Phil Collins' In The Air Tonight and the hypnotic music of Tangerine Dream?), all of which kept the viewer off-balance.  Was the movie a comedy, a romantic comedy, a black comedy, a drama with comic touches, a teen fantasy film, a serious social commentary?  It depends how you view Joel (Cruise) and Lana's (De Mornay) characters, particularly the ambiguity surrounding Lana.  Was it all a setup or was it real?  Or both at the same time?  Yes, no, maybe.

Risky Business was the first film directed by Paul Brickman.  Despite it's huge commercial and critical success, it was also his last directorial venture; a choice made by Brickman after he lost an argument with the studio over the ending of the film.

The theatrical version of the film ends with two scenes; the first a dinner between Joel and Lana in a swank Chicago restaurant, where Joel inquires about their future and whether it was all a set up, interspersed with cuts to Joel's fellow business club members making their presentations.  It then closes with a second scene of Joel and Lana walking through the park exchanging casual repartee with a humorous turn on the dialogue from their very first encounter, leaving open the possibility that their relationship may not be over.

Brickman hated that second scene which was added at the studio's insistence after the original shooting ended.  For Brickman, Risky Business was ultimately a tragic story and the walk through the park, with its light heartedness, shattered the feeling he wanted the viewer left with.

Below is the original ending, as intended by Brickman.  To me, it makes clear that Joel now has the upper hand in the relationship - he's going to Princeton after all, since "Princeton can use a guy like Joel" (which only happened because he followed Lana's advice) and it is much clearer that both Joel and Lana know their relationship is doomed and she will not have a good ending.

Some things I noticed:

In the first scene below in which Joel finds out he's going to Princeton and embraces his Dad, the embrace and the position and look on his face is identical to Lana's embrace and look when, earlier in the film, Joel comes to her after being expelled from high school, and Joel's Dad has his head bowed in the same way as Joel does in his embrace with Lana.  Joel is now as cynical as Lana.  You can do your own comparison; watch below and then watch the earlier scene. (This scene is the same in both the Brickman cut and the theatrical release, I just hadn't noticed the parallels with the earlier scene before).

There is a continuity problem with the original scene in the restaurant.  When it starts, it is full day outside but when Joel and Lana embrace it suddenly looks like early evening.

While I think the original ending is actually better, the final line "Isn't life grand?" is not as effective as the last in the theatrical release, "The time of your life, huh, kid?"

What do you think?

Something Must Be Done

This is something.
Therefore, we must do it.

I came across an article raising the possibility that outlawing texting while driving might have some unexpected adverse consequence in situations where the driver is prone towards road rage.  According to the author, the distraction of texting lessens the chance that these drivers would be provoked by others on the road, and asks whether that effect outweighs the risk of texting by other drivers.
 
Upon reflection, I think this calls for Congressional action to ensure we have the best outcome for all. My modest proposal, embodied in the Maximizing Attention to Driving (MAD) Act would entail:

Detailed psychological profiling (DPP) of all drivers

Characterizing all drivers ((using a Predictive Algorithm Device (MADPAD) to be promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)) as either Road Rage Susceptible (RRS), or Calm And Normal Driver Overall (CANDO).

CANDO classified drivers would be forbidden to text.

RRS classified drivers would not only be allowed to text, but would be encouraged to do so, under a new Federal communication initiative to be called the Maximizing Attention to Driving Assistance for Susceptible Sensibilities (MADASS) program.

I believe my proposal would provide maximum flexibility, utility and benefit to our nation as a whole.

I yield the floor to my esteemed colleague.

Things Have Changed

"This Is The West, Sir!"

Photo taken at entrance to our local library.

Quote from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

The Pursuit Of Happiness

From Moscow On The Hudson . . .

Ballpark Roadtrip 2017

Larry and I recently completed our sixth annual roadtrip, visiting Atlanta, Tampa Bay and Miami.  Only three parks left - Colorado, Seattle and San Francisco, which we'll do in 2018.  You can read about our prior adventures here.

Ballparks Visited

CITY	BALLPARK	SEATING CAPACITY	OPENED
Atlanta	SunTrust Park	41,149	2017
St Petersburg	Tropicana Field	31,042	1990
Miami	Marlins Park	36,742	2012

Game Results

DATE	SCORE	ATTENDANCE	TIME
June 22	Atlanta Brave 12 San Francisco Giants 11	25,521	3:37
June 24	Baltimore Orioles 8 Tampa Bay Rays 3	23,902	3:10
June 25	Miami Marlins 4 Chicago Cub 2	25,110	2:51

The Parks

SunTrust Park in Atlanta opened in April.  It's a nice, new ballpark in the typical Camden Yards style but there is nothing distinctive about it.  We stayed at a hotel that was a 15 minute walk but unless you do that access is pretty bad, even for locals.  They did build a nice entertainment district right outside the park where you can catch a bite or a drink before or after the game.

We few, we happy few

Tropicana Field is quite odd.  It looks terrible from the outside and inside your first impression is that it is more than a minor league park but not quite a major league park.  It's like being in a circus tent with the offwhite roof and metal catwalks.  However, there are some positive aspects.  If it wasn't so hot and humid it would be an easy walk from downtown. Tropicana is so small it creates a certain intimacy.  We had seats on the 200 level where the luxury boxes (such as they are) are located.  It's a small and quiet area and the views from the seats are excellent.  Would recommend purchasing seats in that area if you go.

Domed like Tropicana, Marlins Park was my favorite of the three, except for the atrocious Marlins insignia dominating left center field.  Please remove it. 

Wide concourses.  Good sight lines.  Excellent field.  The view of downtown Miami through the window in left and center is terrific.  If you get seats behind home or on right field side of park you'll have the view.  The outside of the park reminds me of Tomorrowland at Disneyworld.

Annual Ballpark Roadtrip Awards

Biggest Rain Delay
Atlanta.  Longest rain delay in our 27 games - 86 minutes.  Humidity was also 173% so it felt like we were underwater even when not raining.  Since the game took more than 3 1/2 hours to play it was also the latest finish of any game we've seen - 1245am. 

Most Runs Scored
Atlanta - San Francisco.  23 runs (and 31 hits!) in a 12-11 game.  The previous high was a 2014 game in which the Tigers pummeled a hapless Royals squad 16-4.  The Braves-Giants contest was much more entertaining.  Atlanta jumped out to a 2-0 lead in the first.  The Giants came back and were leading 6-4 going into the bottom of the 5th.  The Braves started off their half of the inning like this: Home run, single, single, single, single, single.  They added another three hits and a walk, resulting in eight runs, before the inning ended.   It looked like they had a comfortable lead but the Giants came storming back scoring three in the 8th and adding two more in the 9th before they made the last out with a runner on second.

Best Throwing Arm
Austin Slater.  Didn't even know who he was before the game.  He's a 24 year old rookie, playing his 17th game for the Giants.  Started in left field and was moved to center later in the game.  Made three outstanding throws to the plate during the game.  Has a rifle for an arm.  The first throw actually went over the catcher's head on which he was charged with an error; the amazing thing was I didn't think he had any chance on the runner until he unleashed what looked like an Aroldis Chapman fastball.  He also went 2 for 4 in the game with a double. As of today, he is hitting .318 with an OPS of .846.

Most Home Runs Hit On Consecutive Pitches
Two.  Corey Dickerson and Evan Longoria hit back to back first pitch homers off of the Orioles' Dylan Bundy.  Both were monster shots.  Bundy kept his composure and held the Rays off the scoreboard for his remaining 4 2/3 innings.

Biggest Difference Between Announced and Actual Attendance
Atlanta.  We thought the announced attendance at all the parks was substantially larger than actual,  but it was ridiculous at SunTrust.  Reported attendance was 25,521 but we'd be surprised if there were 12,000 at most.  By the seventh there were no more than 250 in the entire bleachers and by the ninth less than 1,500 in the entire park.

Jumbo Diaz Fielding Award
Jumbo Diaz of course!
As you can see, Jumbo is quite large and, as we found out, does not move well.  He's 33 and listed at 6'4" and 278 pounds (that may be just a bit on the low side).   With the game between the Rays and Orioles tied 3-3 in the 7th, Jumbo came in on in relief for Tampa with a runner on first.  Over the next two innings, Jumbo gave up five hits and five runs of which three were bunt singles which he could not handle (to be fair the last one was more the fault of the Rays muffing coverage at first base).  After the third bunt (and second in a row) we wondered if Buck Showalter was going to continue to do so until the Rays reacted.  I guess he decided to have mercy on Jumbo.

Best Food
The Mojo pork sandwich at the Latin Cafe in Marlins Park.  Deliciously seasoned and textured thin-sliced pork with cilantro and onions.

Nicest Downtown
St Petersburg.  Hadn't been there before and thought it'd just be a bunch of old people (like us) and old buildings, but the small downtown has a lot of new businesses and restaurants with a lively mix of folks.  Would definitely visit again.

Quickest Home Run
Giancarlo Stanton hit a home run against the Cubs that reached the left field seats before we realized what had happened.

The Health Insurance Debacle

Chris Murphy, the junior Senator (and callow youth) from my former home state of Connecticut just posted a Facebook question "for my Republican colleagues":

Why on earth would any Senator vote for a bill that causes 22 million people to lose their health care, drives up premiums, and reduces the quality of care people receive?

To which my response is:

Why on earth did you support Obamacare, a bill that caused several million Americans to lose their health insurance, that President Obama's own Department of Health & Human Services estimated could eventually cause up to 93 million Americans to lose their health insurance, that drove up premiums and deductibles, all the while repeatedly promising the American people they could keep the insurance plans and doctors they liked and that they would save thousands of dollars?