That would seem to be the one thing that everyone agrees, that what happens in Egypt does matter--to them, and to the rest of us. Egypt is the most populous Arab state, and historically a pivotal one; its role in the recent political movement toward replacing dictatorships in the region, the Arab Spring, is pre-eminent. It is extremely important to Israel that the peace with Egypt established in the 1970's remain in place, and Egypt's role would be central in helping to guarantee any kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace (now that negotiations have begun again).
The way I see it, there has been a triangle of power relationships since deposed dictator Mubarak's crisis in the Arab Spring two years ago. There is the military, there is the Muslim Brotherhood, and there is People Power--the fractionalized, disorganized mass of civil society not working with the military or M.B.
Two of those groups were well-organized and prepared to act as the smoke cleared from the chaos surrounding Mubarak's fall: the military and the Muslim Brotherhood. They found a way to cooperate, or at least tolerate working with each other, to conduct elections for a Constituent Assembly and for the Presidency. Mohammed Morsi was not a choice the military liked, but they accepted it. There are parties, political forces, among the third force--in fact, too many--but not much evidence of ability to act with a single purpose on a consistent basis, and that allowed Morsi to win the Presidency over a candidate who represented the military's interests.
Morsi, though, upset the power-sharing arrangement through overreach. The third force rose up, and the military switched over. The coup--and it was most assuredly a coup--was somewhat accepted by the masses, pending new arrangements.
The Muslim Brotherhood refused to accept the revised power alignment and insisted on Morsi's release (he has been arrested, pending charges) and reinstatement. After some weeks of mobilizing its members in massive demonstrations, the military made a decision, reminiscent of the Chinese in the days of Tienanmen Square, that the insubordinate behavior should not be allowed to continue.
In fairness, some of the demonstrators have been armed and violent, and some of the demonstrations threatened government installations, but the military's overreaction in the past few days has been spectacular. It seems that the military made a calculation: we have driven them underground before (for much of Mubarak's reign), we can do it again. In this, though, I think they have made a miscalculation--conditions have changed.
The views of the third force, as usual, lack clarity: I hear a call for new elections, but it is unclear the results would be much different (the Brotherhood may only have 30-40% support among Egyptian adults, but its unity can allow it to defeat a fractured opposition). Not many, if any, call for reinstating Morsi, and that would seem to be out of the question at this point for the military.
The military's statements now suggest that they would like to lower tensions. I think they will have to back away from threats to prosecute Morsi for allowing civil disorder. Making a martyr of him by imprisoning or executing him would be a disastrous move. I would see the most favorable outcome being some sort of promise that he would be released if the Brotherhood accepts the coup's outcome and agrees to some sort of new elections with a new power alignment. I don't know that they will accept that, though; this is a group that has a maximalist, long-term agenda, and they will find it difficult to back down.
Our Many Ineffectual Options
There was a lot of internal debate in the US policy-making community (inside and outside of the government) after the latest massacre of civilians by the military, which occurred when they decided to stop tolerating daily demonstrations for Morsi and occupation of a major Cairo mosque by the M.B. Over a hundred were killed, and many more injured.
The initial response from the Obama Administration was the classic "strongly worded message". The obvious leverage we had was the $billion-plus foreign aid we have given to Egypt every year since the Camp David accords. In fact, our law requires that the aid be cut off in the case of a military coup. The problem with that step (either suspending, or cancelling it) is that it might not make any difference in the military's behavior--it might make it worse--and then the leverage, such as it was, would be gone. That was the problem with the aid during the Mubarak reign, and it has surfaced again. Beyond that, our ally Israel (which feels a lot more comfortable with the military than it did with Morsi) would like us to keep the aid, and then there are the US arms manufacturers, who end up getting back a lot of the money in arms spending.
Finally, this week the US has announced it is suspending aid. I think this is the right move; it can be reinstated if there are positive political developments. I have to say I really don't care about any screams and moans from the US defense contractors. They've been profiting for too long from the indirect largesse of our taxpayers, and if jobs are at stake, then this is a very good example of the kind of non-productive employment which will be eliminated, and should be eliminated, over time (there are ever less countries willing to engage in the arms purchase game). Meanwhile, we should be looking at political aid to the third force, in the form of money to organize those forces . If there's one area of great progress that Obama's movement has produced, it is the demonstrated ability to translate money into political power.
And Then There's Syria
Wednesday morning, rocket attacks on suburbs under rebel control near Damascus killed hundreds of civilians. Many reported that victims appeared to have symptoms like those associated with sarin gas. Everyone has put together 2+2 and concluded that Syria's government forces have conducted a chemical weapons attack; there have been such allegations before, even proven cases of sarin gas being used, but this was on a larger scale, and the signs of authorship are not ambiguous. It seems like an arrogant and outrageous violation of international law.
Nevertheless, it is unclear what the response of the international community, and of the US, will end up to be. In the U.N., Russia has cooperated only to the point of agreeing that there should be an investigation of the incident. Syria has offered cooperation, then pulled back, then offered again--reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's gamesmanship on a similar topic back in the day: it's called stalling for time. Evidence of chemical weapons would tend to fade, and victims will be buried quickly, in accordance with Muslim requirements. I am certain the Syrian regime will have developed some sort of alternate interpretation of the incident which would seek to distract or diffuse blame away from themselves.
The tricks will be figuring out how to act in spite of these obstacles, and what exactly to do. NATO could be one means of rallying support, as I imagine countries like the U.K., France, and Turkey will be supportive of taking action. Again, though, what type of action would be effective? Personally, I would advocate the following sequence: 1) Establish a no-fly zone for military flights over Damascus; 2) Keep an eye on the Presidential palace and the other haunts of President Bashar al-Assad; and 3) Put a cruise missile through his office window when he's in there. Nothing else would be sufficient, and I think that would do the trick in ensuring no one else orders the use of such weapons in the civil war, which is certain to continue regardless of anything else that happens.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Rand Paul Ryan Rick Perry Chris Christie, etc.
Has anyone noticed how there's only one real last name among the whole series above, and it's one of their first names? Of course, it's in honor of Ayn Rand, I presume.
This appears to be the field for 2016 for the Republicans. At least they are the ones who seem already to be running for the nomination, and it looks as though, once again, it will be a proper bloodbath.
The one 2016 Republican candidate of significance not included above is Marco Rubio (I'm not including Ted Cruz, if you don't mind--he could not possibly be a serious candidate, even if he is a first-term Senator). Rubio is the exception to the crew, I guess. He could be successful, both with the party and nationally, but I hasten to add the word "eventually"--I can not believe the Republicans would break with pattern so much, so quickly, as to nominate such a young Hispanic (OK, Cuban, not the same as a Mexican, but still....). He will need to wait a few years so this sacrilege of suggesting amnesty for illegal Mexicans can be forgotten.
Then there is Jeb Bush. If he were to run, I would consider him a serious threat, for the nomination and then in a general election, because unlike most of those mentioned above in the title, he has the political talent required. The key would be the ability to forget and forgive him for the family name; personally I think it is very strong among many of us Americans (big brother Dubya's reputation already seems to have improved among the populace). Jeb is reluctant to run until his last name no longer produces guffaws--I think he is wise to feel that way.
I guess Rick Santorum might run, under the mistaken belief that, because he finished second last time, it will be his turn in 2016. He is an extraordinarily weak candidate.
It is way early, but I offer a prediction: Chris Christie as the nominee, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico as the VP candidate. I think Christie will start out with some baggage (not physical, but political) because of his relatively moderate positions on social issues and relatively tolerant view of President Obama, but when he shows his hard-hitting side, he will not be confused for anything but a partisan, while anything resembling a foreign policy question for any of the others would yield Sarah Palin-type ignorance. I think Martinez will be the choice to provide a soggy bone to Hispanics and women; she is a team player and could fit with anyone not too obviously a Tea Party extremist. She's basically a Texan, too, and a superior choice for running mate over Cruz.
With regard to the Democrats, I have nothing novel to say: I do believe it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, and I presume she will, circumstances permitting. I think she would choose a loyalist running mate who's a solid policy wonk, someone like Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. She wouldn't want anyone too charismatic on his own (and she probably would want a male running mate).
Virginia is to 2016 as the Spanish Civil War was to WWII
There are two significant statewide races this off-year. One is the expected easy win for Chris Christie over Barbara Buono for governor of New Jersey (and an expected easy win for Cory Booker to win Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat there); the other will be the governor's race in Virginia.
The Republicans have a right-winger, Attorney General Cuccinelli, he who originated the concept of the transvaginal sonic probe for pregnant women seeking an abortion. He should be easy meat, but this is an off, off-year, and turnout may be abysmal. The Democratic candidate is Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign manager. He is acceptably middle-of-the-road for Virginia and should have a decent chance to win; polls show the race to be very close.
There are two notable facts about the Virginia race. One is the huge money being raised on both sides; partially this is because the big money has nowhere else to go this year, and there is a lot of effort both behind the fundraising, and which will be needed to move a politics-weary public. This may be especially true in northern Virginia, a key political battleground in 2012, and home to many families of public servants getting beaten up in various ways this fall by the partisan games. McAuliffe should come out hard against Tea-bagging, sequestering government by repeal and default, and I believe his campaign will indeed be highly negative. As for Cuccinelli, he is the mouthpiece for right-wing Republicans to try out their latest anti-Hillary taunts; that's the other key fact. If the Republicans find that Cuccinelli's tactics work, they will apply them more broadly, and continuously, for the next three years.
This is not to ignore the fact that 2014 will be an expensive Boer War itself. A subject for later posts, but I'm just not that keen on the whole thing right now.
This appears to be the field for 2016 for the Republicans. At least they are the ones who seem already to be running for the nomination, and it looks as though, once again, it will be a proper bloodbath.
The one 2016 Republican candidate of significance not included above is Marco Rubio (I'm not including Ted Cruz, if you don't mind--he could not possibly be a serious candidate, even if he is a first-term Senator). Rubio is the exception to the crew, I guess. He could be successful, both with the party and nationally, but I hasten to add the word "eventually"--I can not believe the Republicans would break with pattern so much, so quickly, as to nominate such a young Hispanic (OK, Cuban, not the same as a Mexican, but still....). He will need to wait a few years so this sacrilege of suggesting amnesty for illegal Mexicans can be forgotten.
Then there is Jeb Bush. If he were to run, I would consider him a serious threat, for the nomination and then in a general election, because unlike most of those mentioned above in the title, he has the political talent required. The key would be the ability to forget and forgive him for the family name; personally I think it is very strong among many of us Americans (big brother Dubya's reputation already seems to have improved among the populace). Jeb is reluctant to run until his last name no longer produces guffaws--I think he is wise to feel that way.
I guess Rick Santorum might run, under the mistaken belief that, because he finished second last time, it will be his turn in 2016. He is an extraordinarily weak candidate.
It is way early, but I offer a prediction: Chris Christie as the nominee, Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico as the VP candidate. I think Christie will start out with some baggage (not physical, but political) because of his relatively moderate positions on social issues and relatively tolerant view of President Obama, but when he shows his hard-hitting side, he will not be confused for anything but a partisan, while anything resembling a foreign policy question for any of the others would yield Sarah Palin-type ignorance. I think Martinez will be the choice to provide a soggy bone to Hispanics and women; she is a team player and could fit with anyone not too obviously a Tea Party extremist. She's basically a Texan, too, and a superior choice for running mate over Cruz.
With regard to the Democrats, I have nothing novel to say: I do believe it's Hillary's nomination if she wants it, and I presume she will, circumstances permitting. I think she would choose a loyalist running mate who's a solid policy wonk, someone like Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia. She wouldn't want anyone too charismatic on his own (and she probably would want a male running mate).
Virginia is to 2016 as the Spanish Civil War was to WWII
There are two significant statewide races this off-year. One is the expected easy win for Chris Christie over Barbara Buono for governor of New Jersey (and an expected easy win for Cory Booker to win Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat there); the other will be the governor's race in Virginia.
The Republicans have a right-winger, Attorney General Cuccinelli, he who originated the concept of the transvaginal sonic probe for pregnant women seeking an abortion. He should be easy meat, but this is an off, off-year, and turnout may be abysmal. The Democratic candidate is Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign manager. He is acceptably middle-of-the-road for Virginia and should have a decent chance to win; polls show the race to be very close.
There are two notable facts about the Virginia race. One is the huge money being raised on both sides; partially this is because the big money has nowhere else to go this year, and there is a lot of effort both behind the fundraising, and which will be needed to move a politics-weary public. This may be especially true in northern Virginia, a key political battleground in 2012, and home to many families of public servants getting beaten up in various ways this fall by the partisan games. McAuliffe should come out hard against Tea-bagging, sequestering government by repeal and default, and I believe his campaign will indeed be highly negative. As for Cuccinelli, he is the mouthpiece for right-wing Republicans to try out their latest anti-Hillary taunts; that's the other key fact. If the Republicans find that Cuccinelli's tactics work, they will apply them more broadly, and continuously, for the next three years.
This is not to ignore the fact that 2014 will be an expensive Boer War itself. A subject for later posts, but I'm just not that keen on the whole thing right now.
Sunday, August 04, 2013
Steely Dan Setlist, August 2
Saw S.D. at Ravinia Music Festival, Highland Park, Illinois, on Friday. It was the third time I'd seen the Dan--once in Albuquerque about five years ago, once at Saratoga--about 1995, I'd say. This time, they weren't promoting a new album, so it was almost all just the old favorites, which was appropriate given the crowd was almost all just old fans. They called this the "Mood Swings Tour"; there was, as always, a lot of jazz influence, new arrangements--some dramatically different, and they had a blues band to open for them.
Their band was excellent, as one would expect ('that standard of mine', as Fagen said, in "Deacon Blues"--possibly referring to something else?) Four horns, one a local trombonist of some note, three backup singers, lead guitar, bass and drums. Becker played mostly rhythm guitar and a few lead parts (not the harder ones, I'd say), Fagen various keyboards, including the melodica. The real revelation was the lead guitarist, who I found out is named Jon Herington. They credited him with the new arrangements, and his performance of the lead guitar parts (some of the classics performed note for note, some new stuff, all brilliantly fluid) was what amazed me the most about the performance. Becker seemed to be taking it very lightly, while Fagen was...well, a hipster. Which is what he is, always has been--it's good there's now a word for it.
For my money, they played a little too much from "Aja", their most popular album. A couple more songs--in particular, I would've liked to hear "West of Hollywood"--from their albums from the 2000's would've been just fine with me. Here's the list: the numbers after the titles are from the rankings of my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, which I posted in April, 2011, to celebrate "the Royal Scam" of the wedding of British royals William and Kate (oh yeah, congratulations on the baby--"George" probably not the best choice of names from the American point of view, but, what the heck, it's your choice).
Blueport - Gerry Mulligan cover -- (the band, without Becker and Fagen, called the "Bipolar Allstars")
Your gold teeth (#10)
Aja (#1)
Hey nineteen
Show biz kids (very different arrangement) (#9)
Green Earrings
Black Cow
Time Out of Mind (somehow didn't make my list)
Godwhacker (in case it's unfamiliar, from "Everything Must Go", their most recent album)
Monkey in Your Soul (Becker singer)
Bodhisattva (#3)
Razor Boy (sung by the backup singers, called "The Borderline Brats")
Deacon Blues
Intro the band song
Josie
Peg
My Old School (#14)
Reelin in the Years (#17)
Encore: Kid Charlemagne (#4)
setlist.fm provided the name for the opening song, thanks. I checked some of the other setlists from the tour there; 12 or so of the 17 have been the same for every concert, but they've cycled in "Babylon Sisters", "King of the World", "I Got the News", and "Black Friday" for "Deacon Blues", "Black Cow", and "Green Earrings". It's all good.
Their band was excellent, as one would expect ('that standard of mine', as Fagen said, in "Deacon Blues"--possibly referring to something else?) Four horns, one a local trombonist of some note, three backup singers, lead guitar, bass and drums. Becker played mostly rhythm guitar and a few lead parts (not the harder ones, I'd say), Fagen various keyboards, including the melodica. The real revelation was the lead guitarist, who I found out is named Jon Herington. They credited him with the new arrangements, and his performance of the lead guitar parts (some of the classics performed note for note, some new stuff, all brilliantly fluid) was what amazed me the most about the performance. Becker seemed to be taking it very lightly, while Fagen was...well, a hipster. Which is what he is, always has been--it's good there's now a word for it.
For my money, they played a little too much from "Aja", their most popular album. A couple more songs--in particular, I would've liked to hear "West of Hollywood"--from their albums from the 2000's would've been just fine with me. Here's the list: the numbers after the titles are from the rankings of my favorite 25 Steely Dan songs, which I posted in April, 2011, to celebrate "the Royal Scam" of the wedding of British royals William and Kate (oh yeah, congratulations on the baby--"George" probably not the best choice of names from the American point of view, but, what the heck, it's your choice).
Blueport - Gerry Mulligan cover -- (the band, without Becker and Fagen, called the "Bipolar Allstars")
Your gold teeth (#10)
Aja (#1)
Hey nineteen
Show biz kids (very different arrangement) (#9)
Green Earrings
Black Cow
Time Out of Mind (somehow didn't make my list)
Godwhacker (in case it's unfamiliar, from "Everything Must Go", their most recent album)
Monkey in Your Soul (Becker singer)
Bodhisattva (#3)
Razor Boy (sung by the backup singers, called "The Borderline Brats")
Deacon Blues
Intro the band song
Josie
Peg
My Old School (#14)
Reelin in the Years (#17)
Encore: Kid Charlemagne (#4)
setlist.fm provided the name for the opening song, thanks. I checked some of the other setlists from the tour there; 12 or so of the 17 have been the same for every concert, but they've cycled in "Babylon Sisters", "King of the World", "I Got the News", and "Black Friday" for "Deacon Blues", "Black Cow", and "Green Earrings". It's all good.
Baseball Tightens Up
Arc of ARod: Straight Down
Tomorrow, the news reports promise, will be the long-awaited announcement of suspensions for baseball players implicated in the Biogenesis scandal. Thirteen players, including three whose names have not yet been circulated, are expected to receive suspensions. Several of them are minor leaguers. One, maybe two, maybe more, will decide to appeal their suspensions--which will allow them to continue playing until the appeals are decided--while the others will accept what is expected to be 50-game suspensions, the current standard for first-time offenses. With one exception....
The advantage of accepting the suspension now is that the majors' regular season has almost exactly 50 games left, so if their teams are not in the running, it's a good time to take a hike. That was the thinking of the 14th man, Ryan Braun, when he accepted a sixty-some-odd game suspension for getting caught the first time, but with some aggravating circumstances, one would assume. (There was no disclosure of the evidence.) Braun bailed on a bad season, personally and for his team, and avoided the harsher penalty which is believed to be coming down on The Big Name. Two other major leaguers of note who may be suspended are Jhonny Peralta (spelling correct) of the Tigers, whose imminent loss led their pennant-contending team to trade with their hated rivals in Boston and Chicago to get a shortstop; and Nelson Cruz of Texas (a division and wild-card contender), who the rumors made his team, the Texas Rangers, desperate to find a hitter--so desperate, perhaps, that the price went beyond what they would pay.
Some of those accused, who have had regular testing and never failed, may be tempted to challenge the word of the Biogenesis snitch, who is the main source of the evidence against the players. (One asks: if this guy is so knowledgeable and trustworthy, is he telling Major League Baseball the chemical composition of their secret sauce and how to detect it?)
Alex Rodriguez is the big fish that MLB is trying to bring in. There were ominous threats of a lifetime suspension for him, and there is still some possibility that MLB could announce his suspension for other than mere drug abuse, for conduct damaging to the game, which would prevent him from going on the field. He could, and surely would, appeal that, too. He has admitted previous steroid use, and the Biogenesis snitch has reportedly deposed himself to the effect that he personally administered performance-enhancing drugs (PED's) to ARod. By that measure, it could qualify has a second offense (100 games, I think), plus he is accused of recruiting others (some of those lesser names may have fingered him), and generally of not cooperating with MLB's drug investigations.
Coincidentally, or not, Rodriguez is scheduled to come off an injury to his hip that has sidelined him from the beginning of the season. Monday, his Yankees come to Chicago to play the White Sox. On the one hand, the team could use him: After a strong start despite numerous injuries, they have faded and are, at best, a longshot to make the playoffs now. Derek Jeter came back at short after a similarly long injury and immediately got hurt again. Similar stories for Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson, though Granderson is now back in action. It would be a great turnaround for ARod if he were able to come back, play well, and help rally the Yanks, but that would be hoping for a lot. There are too many problems, and his presence potentially only creates more.
I would expect the White Sox fans to be hostile to Rodriguez, all the way up to throwing things on the field at him. On the other hand, the White Sox come home after a disastrous road trip in which they lost their last seven games. Even weakened, the Yanks are more likely than not to win tomorrow, ARod or no.
Supposedly, ARod, while maintaining his innocence or whatever, was also indicating through his people that he would accept a deal if it were not too severe. The story now is that he will be suspended through the end of the 2014 season, a total of 214 regular-season games, and if he does not accept the suspension, it will be imposed in full once his appeals are denied. Rodriguez is 37 years old, with five years and a lot of money still guaranteed on his contract (though he would not be paid during his suspension), so there is a lot at stake for him and for the Yankees. Voiding his contract would be too favorable to the Yankees, who protest their innocence but were probably not too averse to ARod's making "special efforts" to try to recover sooner from his injuries, in this year and past years. His 647 homers make him fifth all-time, behind Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Willie Mays. At one time he seemed a cinch to pass all of them; now, I'd bet, it's only Mays that he will catch, and the Hall of Fame--also at one time a certainty--seems now an impossibility.
I think the tide has gone out on the question of whether PED's can or will be tolerated in baseball, by the leagues, the teams, the players. The next step will be at the next players' contract negotiation, or even sooner, to make all guaranteed contracts forfeitable for second offenses on them (probably not first offenses, as there is too much chance for a false positive or accidental or incidental offense). There will be more chapters in the saga of human sports drama and the attempt to achieve superhuman results, but, baseball hopes, it will come with other sports from now on.
After listening to the old farts in the health club talk about how they can't stand baseball anymore, I just have one question: what about football? Don't tell me that the sport is clean--the evidence is apparent, and to the contrary. It just doesn't have the clean reputation that baseball seems to have lost, but for some reason people hold it to a different standard.
Tomorrow, the news reports promise, will be the long-awaited announcement of suspensions for baseball players implicated in the Biogenesis scandal. Thirteen players, including three whose names have not yet been circulated, are expected to receive suspensions. Several of them are minor leaguers. One, maybe two, maybe more, will decide to appeal their suspensions--which will allow them to continue playing until the appeals are decided--while the others will accept what is expected to be 50-game suspensions, the current standard for first-time offenses. With one exception....
The advantage of accepting the suspension now is that the majors' regular season has almost exactly 50 games left, so if their teams are not in the running, it's a good time to take a hike. That was the thinking of the 14th man, Ryan Braun, when he accepted a sixty-some-odd game suspension for getting caught the first time, but with some aggravating circumstances, one would assume. (There was no disclosure of the evidence.) Braun bailed on a bad season, personally and for his team, and avoided the harsher penalty which is believed to be coming down on The Big Name. Two other major leaguers of note who may be suspended are Jhonny Peralta (spelling correct) of the Tigers, whose imminent loss led their pennant-contending team to trade with their hated rivals in Boston and Chicago to get a shortstop; and Nelson Cruz of Texas (a division and wild-card contender), who the rumors made his team, the Texas Rangers, desperate to find a hitter--so desperate, perhaps, that the price went beyond what they would pay.
Some of those accused, who have had regular testing and never failed, may be tempted to challenge the word of the Biogenesis snitch, who is the main source of the evidence against the players. (One asks: if this guy is so knowledgeable and trustworthy, is he telling Major League Baseball the chemical composition of their secret sauce and how to detect it?)
Alex Rodriguez is the big fish that MLB is trying to bring in. There were ominous threats of a lifetime suspension for him, and there is still some possibility that MLB could announce his suspension for other than mere drug abuse, for conduct damaging to the game, which would prevent him from going on the field. He could, and surely would, appeal that, too. He has admitted previous steroid use, and the Biogenesis snitch has reportedly deposed himself to the effect that he personally administered performance-enhancing drugs (PED's) to ARod. By that measure, it could qualify has a second offense (100 games, I think), plus he is accused of recruiting others (some of those lesser names may have fingered him), and generally of not cooperating with MLB's drug investigations.
Coincidentally, or not, Rodriguez is scheduled to come off an injury to his hip that has sidelined him from the beginning of the season. Monday, his Yankees come to Chicago to play the White Sox. On the one hand, the team could use him: After a strong start despite numerous injuries, they have faded and are, at best, a longshot to make the playoffs now. Derek Jeter came back at short after a similarly long injury and immediately got hurt again. Similar stories for Mark Teixeira and Curtis Granderson, though Granderson is now back in action. It would be a great turnaround for ARod if he were able to come back, play well, and help rally the Yanks, but that would be hoping for a lot. There are too many problems, and his presence potentially only creates more.
I would expect the White Sox fans to be hostile to Rodriguez, all the way up to throwing things on the field at him. On the other hand, the White Sox come home after a disastrous road trip in which they lost their last seven games. Even weakened, the Yanks are more likely than not to win tomorrow, ARod or no.
Supposedly, ARod, while maintaining his innocence or whatever, was also indicating through his people that he would accept a deal if it were not too severe. The story now is that he will be suspended through the end of the 2014 season, a total of 214 regular-season games, and if he does not accept the suspension, it will be imposed in full once his appeals are denied. Rodriguez is 37 years old, with five years and a lot of money still guaranteed on his contract (though he would not be paid during his suspension), so there is a lot at stake for him and for the Yankees. Voiding his contract would be too favorable to the Yankees, who protest their innocence but were probably not too averse to ARod's making "special efforts" to try to recover sooner from his injuries, in this year and past years. His 647 homers make him fifth all-time, behind Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, and Willie Mays. At one time he seemed a cinch to pass all of them; now, I'd bet, it's only Mays that he will catch, and the Hall of Fame--also at one time a certainty--seems now an impossibility.
I think the tide has gone out on the question of whether PED's can or will be tolerated in baseball, by the leagues, the teams, the players. The next step will be at the next players' contract negotiation, or even sooner, to make all guaranteed contracts forfeitable for second offenses on them (probably not first offenses, as there is too much chance for a false positive or accidental or incidental offense). There will be more chapters in the saga of human sports drama and the attempt to achieve superhuman results, but, baseball hopes, it will come with other sports from now on.
After listening to the old farts in the health club talk about how they can't stand baseball anymore, I just have one question: what about football? Don't tell me that the sport is clean--the evidence is apparent, and to the contrary. It just doesn't have the clean reputation that baseball seems to have lost, but for some reason people hold it to a different standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
