Video of Shea Stadium falling down
As a Mets fan, I have very mixed feelings to see Shea Stadium, the team’s old home field, fall to the ground today. Plenty of bad memories crumbled to the ground with the stadium’s facade, but there were a lot of good times as well. Here’s the video of the final piece of destruction:
Steroids’ Big Loophole
Bill Maddon writes in this morning’s New York Daily News about the biggest loophole in baseball’s steroids witch hunt: Latin America.
Alex Rodriguez’s admission yesterday of being injected with steroids acquired over the counter in the Dominican Republic highlights the ease of acquiring such a substance out of the country. This is, without a doubt, the biggest source of the steroids problem in baseball. Sure, Major League Baseball can test players once they arrive in the United States, but nothing prevents young, emerging stars from gaining a competative advantage by juicing up.
In countries like the D.R., where baseball is seen as a way out, young players will do anything to gain that advantage. So while I don’t want to implicate every Dominican player, it’s highly likely that a large percentage of Latino players have taken steroids in their home countries. Of course, American players also seek that competative advantage, and with no current test for HGH in baseball, there’s no way of knowing how widespread that problem is.
Maddon suggests that MLB academies in Latin America mandate tests for banned substances for every participant. I think that’s a good starting point. It won’t completely solve the problem, but it would send a message to young baseball players that taking steroids is not acceptable in baseball at any level.
Why A-Rod’s Press Conference Failed
Alex Rodriguez and the New York Yankees had an opportunity to start to heal the wounds caused by A-Rod’s illegal use of steroids today as he addressed the media. They failed miserably.
First of all, the Yankees didn’t allow reporters follow-ups. That was their first mistake. Not allowing follow-ups is a surefire admission that your organization is on the defensive. What the Yankees needed to do was put controversy to rest by putting everything on the table, not by severely limiting the depth of questions asked. Which brings me to my second point, the fact that the Yankees a) started almost a half hour late and b) cut questions off after a half hour. Again, these are highly scripted, defensive moves that only served to further the lack of legitimacy surrounding this media event.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not an Alex Rodriguez fan. I think that he is a whiny, overrated baby who spends too much time on Page 6. But I have a hard time believing that even the most ardent A-Rod fan was pleased by what just happened. A-Rod began the press conference, attended by over 100 members of the media, by reading a statement. Now Alex is a baseball player, not a politician, but someone should have told him to at least try and take his eyes off of the piece of paper in his hands. It almost seemed like amateur hour until, when he started “and to my teammates,” he slumped in his chair, looked up, wistfully, and stopped speaking. I almost thought he was going to cry until it became apparent that this was all an act, a disgusting, manufactured act to try and elicit some sort of sympathy from America. It didn’t work.
After what seemed like a minute of awkward silence, the Yankees’ media relations director ordered cameramen out of the aisles, ostensibly to reduce the stress on A-Rod. Nice act. Alex then started to take questions with a total lack of emotion, which is normal for him. So much for the emotional breakdown. Now to the meat of the press conference. Everyone expected the media to come out swinging, and for the most part they did not disappoint. The questions were direct and to the point, and at times seemed more than blunt. Here’s what we learned:
-A-Rod took a banned substance for three years while on the Texas Rangers.
-His “cousin” (more on that later) helped him acquire and use this substance.
-The substance was available over the counter in the Dominican Republic.
-Alex called himself “immature” and “childish” many times even though he was 24 when he used the substance.
-His “cousin” injected the substance into him.
-Alex said that he had no idea what he was doing with this substance.
-But he also spoke about knowing, in the back of his mind, that he was violating some kind of trust.
-Rodriguez also confessed to taking an amphetamine that was later banned by MLB.
-He bought that substance at GNC, which later removed it from its inventory.
-When asked why he would blame taking the substance on pressure from his huge contract in Texas but stop taking it after getting to New York of all places, where he still made a ridiculous amount of money, A-Rod had no answer.
-A-Rod did say that he has never taken HGH. Then again, he lied to Katie Couric about taking steroids years ago.
This whole “cousin” business is troubling, to say the least. First of all, by finding someone else on whom to dump this, A-Rod continues to deflect blame, something which he has done all along. I don’t care how many times he says “I screwed up,” until Alex Rodriguez stops blaming other people for the mess he has caused for himself, I’m not taking his apology with any amount of sincerity. None. He might as well have said “screw you” to the entire world of baseball fans as far as I’m concerned.
Now does this “cousin” exist? It’s possible, sure. But it really doesn’t matter, because A-Rod is already getting lampooned as a result (Mike Francesa is already referring to the cousin as “My Cousin Vinny”). What bothers me is that A-Rod talked about “how we used” and “when we injected” and “how we didn’t know what we were doing.” There is no “we.” This is my ultimate problem with Alex Rodriguez. Take the blame yourself, I don’t care who helped you find the substance, inject it, whatever. Take it like a man, own up to your mistake, be sincere, and stop acting like a baby.
I’ll take a step back for a moment. Do I feel bad for Alex Rodriguez? Sure, sort of. It’s hard to watch a [supposedly] grown man endure the kind of internal and external abuse that he clearly did today. I feel badly that A-Rod has become a scapegoat for the steroid-era of baseball, and I think a lot of baseball fans would agree. But the problem is that instead of finally putting this matter to rest, which is what today was designed to do, A-Rod and the Yankees Media Relations staff simply perpetuated–if not amplified–the controversy by turning this into a staged media event instead of allowing for a fair, honest interaction. Now I’m not sure if that would even be possible at this point, given the huge amount of bias against Alex that exists and is perpetuated by the media. But there would have been a better way to handle today’s press conference.
So where do we go from here? As much as A-Rod is probably praying that he can report to camp tomorrow and just play baseball with no cloud hanging over his head, that’s simply not possible. Until anything of substance happens in the Yankees’ season, A-Rod will be in the spotlight. That could be an injury to a star, that could be a winning or losing streak, that could be an incredible performance by a Yankee player, but it’s not going to be anything that Alex does on the field. If he’s good, then it’s because of the steroids that he used to take. If he stinks, it’s because of the steroids that he used to take. Eventually, it won’t be this bad for him, and maybe, just maybe, Hall of Fame voters will look past his tainted record someday. Probably not, but you never know what happens from here on out.
It’s pretty unbelievable that, in the midst of all of this, there’s a season to prepare for. Times like this really remind me why I root for the team across the river.
More coverage of the press conference:
A postscript: I’m very pleased that so many journalists are pissed off at how today transpired. A-Rod and the Yankees insulted the intelligence of everyone who watched that press conference, but especially of the journalists, who were not given a fair chance to get the answers that we all deserve.
TNR on Politico
The New Republic profiles Politico in its current issue, calling the venture “the brave new world of post-print journalism.”
Politico has a great model, and really emerged at exactly the right time. By maintaining a small, niche paper edition while focusing most of its efforts on its website, as well as providing multimedia content to other news media, Politico commands ownership of its target demographic, the political wonk.
Online, the organization’s greatest asset is in its writers. Having been founded by Jim VandeHei and John Harris, two veteran Washington journalists, Politico was immediately given credibility inside the beltway. Backing them up are renowned bloggers, including Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin, who carry a large following in the online political realm.
Certainly, we are moving towards a post-paper format for news organizations, and Politico serves as a good model for such. But news organizations still must figure out a way to make money from online content. Could Politico become to politics what the Wall Street Journal online is to the financial sector, a must-read source of content for which people in that industry are willing to pay? At this point, there are too many free competitors for that method to be considered viable, but I wouldn’t be shocked if we see such a move in the future.
Thoughts on Twitter
“Twitter? What the heck is the point of Twitter?”
That’s the question I asked myself until yesterday, when I decided that the social networking application’s immense popularity probably means that there was a point.
Here are my initial observations on the richest venture that makes no money. For starters, it’s addicting. Whereas Facebook status is sort of annoying, because most people (my Facebook friends, at least) use their status to post inside jokes, hip-hop lyrics, or something obnoxious. Twitter is just the status, nothing more, so its users are much less likely to use it to post something that makes no sense. Now, of course, people do seem to post things that no one would seem to care about. But like I said, it’s addicting. Suddenly, I find that my friends actually respond to tweets (that’s what we Twitterers call our messages to each other, sort of lame, I know) about commuting into the city. Brilliant!
Now then, Twitter is a nice social networking device. It allows friends to stay in touch and pass along useful news, blog posts, advice, etc. But, in my view, Twitter’s true potential is in two areas, marketing and politics. Upon joining Twitter, I found myself subscribing to the JetBlue Twitter feed for no other reason than a) it was recommended to me on Twitter’s home page and b) I’m a huge fan of JetBlue. In my few days of Twittering, I’ve found out about a wide array of promotions that the airline is running, some of which are tied directly to Twitter. The marketing upside of Twitter is that the service’s average user constitutes a demographic category valuable to advertisers–yuppies who are cost conscious, but who probably have some extra money to spend. So while not every company might find potential in Twitter, there is a wide array that might.
Politics is another area in which Twitter can provide a valuable service. Both campaigns as well as legislators have taken to the social network, for much the same reason. Politicians can seem distant to followers and constituents, both on campaigns as well as while in office. Twitter offers them the opportunity to connect to individuals. Campaigns can leverage Twitter to keep supporters engaged and to raise money. Politicians can use Twitter to provide real-time updates of what they actually do all day, something that keeps constituents engaged while presenting the politician in a manner of transparency. This is particularly valuable to House and Senate Members, whose approval ratings are usually rather low due to a lack of public knowledge about what a legislator actually does all day.
I was particularly intrigued by Senator Claire McCaskill’s Twitter feed. The junior Senator from Missouri stays connected with her constituents not only by providing them with updates on her legislative activity, but on tweeting about her daily life. Last night, for example, Senator McCaskill tweeted “Brought work home. My sister is here who is a huge dog person. That means one thing tonight. Westminister Dog Show on TV.” While slightly creeped out at first about the voyeristic potential of Twitter, I soon came to realize how valuable a device this is for Senator McCaskill, and how valuable it can be for politicians. So often, political figures are accused of isolation, of not being “real.” Giving a window of insight on one’s “real life” allows a politician to present a softer side instead of just talking about bills, hearings, and earmarks.
Now, then, to Twitter’s most important criticism. The service needs to make money. It costs nothing to use Twitter. There are no ads on Twitter. But the service is exploding in popularity. Twitter needs to start charging corporations and politicians, or its bubble will burst, and fast. Some might be scared away by a nominal charge, but I believe that anyone serious about doing business on Twitter will realize its potential, realize its significant differences from Facebook and MySpace, and bite the bullet.
Now please excuse me, I’m going to go send out a tweet about this post.
Newsflash: The President is Human
The Washington Post has two contrasting op/eds today on the state of the Obama Presidency. One, written by Kathleen Parker, argues that Obama “is who we thought he was,” a talented orator whose lack of experience has led to significant missteps in recent days. The other, penned by Ruth Marcus, implores the President’s critics to “settle down,” and realize that, already, President Obama has accomplished more in his first days than “any president in recent memory.”
Both writers have valid points, but the reality lays in the middle. Has Barack Obama done as good of a job as he could have in his first few weeks at the helm? Of course not. There have been missteps. President Obama should have taken a stronger role in the debate over the economic stimulus package, keeping the message on his own terms. His administration should have vetted Tom Daschle and other cabinet nominees more closely. He should probably learn to answer questions from reporters in less than ten minutes.
But there have also been significant accomplishments. The tone of the White House has changed radically from the days of the Bush Presidency, which now seems strangely distant. The symbollic acts–the wearing of shirt sleeves in the Oval Office, the inclusion of bloggers in press conferences, bipartisan happy hours and Super Bowl parties–are augmented by significant policy accomplishments–S-CHIP and Lilly Ledbetter to start, with the [albeit-flawed] stimulus bill to follow. Say what you want about the Obama Presidency thus far, but quiet it has not been.
Now while any President receives his fair share of media scrutiny, it is no surprise that the fishbowl is especially large for President Obama. With his soaring rhetoric and powerful themes of hope and change, combined with a lack of executive experience, it is no wonder that the halo around Obama’s head seems smaller. But what “Obama-maniacs” must realize is that the man is human, and he is now the President of the United States, not the next coming of the messiah. As Parker writes, “Obama wants too much to be liked. But there’s a price one pays in becoming President. Giving up being liked.”
Once the dust settles, and that could take a while, I have no doubt that America will be mostly pleased with the early days of Barack Obama’s Presidency. And if anyone still questions his leadership, maybe they should reminice about the past eight years.
Newsweek wants to become The Economist
About a year ago, as reported by Huffington Post, Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek, called The Economist the “most talked about and least read magazine.” His point was to say that reading The Economist was considered trendy, while admitting to reading an American news magazine was, well, not.
Now, Meacham has apparently joined the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” camp, and looks to preside over a remake of the weekly magazine aimed at capturing an Economist-type audience. Per the New York Times today:
Newsweek is about to begin a major change in its identity, with a new design, a much smaller and, it hopes, more affluent readership, and some shifts in content. The venerable newsweekly’s ingrained role of obligatory coverage of the week’s big events will be abandoned once and for all, executives say.
It’s the necessary move, but the question is, will Meacham have success in pulling in a demographic that views Newsweek as little more than toilet paper? Remaking its image will take more than raising the subscription price, changing the content, and increasing the paper stock. Meacham will have to convince people that Newsweek can function as an Economist-type publication, full of content worth paying for in this world where no one wants to pay to read something that they can find elsewhere for free.
Newsweek does have one big advantage in this transition, and that is in its writers. Names like Fareed Zakaria, Christopher Hitchens, and George Will should certainly help ease the transition, and lend credibility to the new operation. But the question is, how much are people willing to pay for quality writing? The New York Times might be a good comparison in the fact that the quality of reporting by big names is its strength. And while the Times is fairing better than most of its fellow papers, it is certainly not immune to the print media’s severe economic crisis.
What Newsweek must realize (as must all print publications) is that its future will be defined based on its web presence. I visited their website for the first time in a long, long time (I honestly don’t remember the last time I read their publication) and didn’t know where to look first. The disorganization on the site, which is an MSNBC affiliate, is more 2000 than 2009, and pales in comparison to the Web 2.0-influenced sites of its competators. It almost reminds me of ESPN’s old site, which, thankfully, has now been replaced by a much more streamlined, quieter version.
It will be interesting to watch this transformation and see if Newsweek can successfully remake itself. The question now is whether Time will follow suit, since it will become the only “traditional” news weekly left on newsstands.
A-Rod’s Apology
Courtesy of Awful Announcing, here is a clip of Peter Gammons’ interview with baseball star Alex Rodriguez’s apology for taking steroids, the full version of which will air tonight on SportsCenter. Rodriguez does admit to taking the banned substances, but places an enormous amount of blame on “the loosey-goosey era” in which he did so. While I believe that the apology was the right PR move by A-Rod, as a baseball fan I am insulted that Rodriguez would try and deflect the blame instead of fully biting the bullet. Obviously Alex is a phenomenal player, with or without the steroids, but his reputation has certainly been tarnished forever. Unfortunately for him, based on the clip above, I don’t think this half-hearted apology was enough to remedy the situation.
Spector on Stimulus
Senator Arlen Spector writes in today’s Washington Post that the Senate must pass the revised Economic Stimulus bill, or submit the nation to an even deeper fiscal crisis. Spector is part of the bipartisan coalition that pared down the bill to its “thinner” version, which still numbers more than 700 pages in length.
“In politics,” John Kennedy used to say, “nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing and everybody gets something.” My colleagues and I have tried to balance the concerns of both left and right with the need to act quickly for the sake of our country. The moderates’ compromise, which faces a cloture vote today, is the only bill with a reasonable chance of passage in the Senate.
Spector is right; this bill must pass in an expeditious manner. Despite the bill’s flaws, the health of the economy is paramount, and further political wrangling will serve no purpose other than to politicize what should be a non-partisan issue. The time to act is certainly now, and my hope is that Spector’s message resonates throughout his party.
How the Stimulus Bill became a partisan issue
As I write this, I’m hoping and praying that whatever the Senate is doing to come to an agreement on the Stimulus Bill is working. Over the last few days, we’ve heard a whole lot of partisan rhetoric about the bill, with some nasty diatribes thrown in of late, and any bipartisan spirit left in the halls of Congress has been expelled.
How did this happen? How did we go from working together on such an unbelievably important bill to wrangling over pork?
The answer, in short, is Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi is a popular scapegoat for the right, deservedly so. But as a Democrat, I’m even more insulted by the lack of leadership that the Speaker has shown over the past few weeks. Pelosi was given a gift on November 4. Her party received an unbelievable mandate, and the trust of the American people to fix the nation’s problems. With such a majority, Pelosi was blessed with the knowledge that the Democratic Party would be able to pass its agenda with almost no obstacle for at least the next two years.
So the question is, why did the Speaker and the rest of the Democratic leadership feel the need to load the Stimulus Bill with an unbelievable amount of pork? Why now? And the more pressing question, why waste an opportunity not only to do what is right for the country but also to show that Democrats are committed to an expedient passage of the Stimulus Bill, a phenomenal PR opportunity?
The answer is that Nancy Pelosi is not truly willing to work with the other side, not willing to uphold the bipartisan spirit of President Obama’s first weeks in office, not willing to forget the “D” next to her name for the sake of doing what is right. Our nation is in turmoil, and we’re focusing on funding contraception programs? Really?
To be truthful, on this matter, I’m ashamed of my party affiliation. Now, of course, this is not only Speaker Pelosi’s fault. I have no doubt that many other House and Senate Democrats have no problem with the politicization of the Stimulus Bill. In fact, the Senate added $100 billion to the package (much of which was in tax cuts, to be fair). But despite vowing to pull out the pork, much of the Senate prefers to point fingers, accusing the other side of “theatrics,” failing to remedy the mistakes made on the other side of the rotunda.
In today’s Washington Post, Dana Millbank divides the Senate into two camps, the Showhorses and the Workhorses.
The workhorses — an ad hoc group of 18 moderates and dealmakers from both parties — holed up in a committee room on the third floor of the Dirksen Building, tossed out their staff and got to work on a compromise plan that could get bipartisan support.
The show horses — including the leadership of both parties — gave speeches on the Senate floor and news conferences either to trade blame for partisan deadlock or to denounce the Group of 18’s dealmaking efforts.
The so-called “workhorses” are admirably rolling up their sleeves and actually trying to hammer out a compromise rather than point fingers at each other, which is precisely what the entire legislative branch should be doing. Senators like Susan Collins and Ben Nelson should be lauded for their efforts. But in Washington, everyone has an ego, and this group, unfortunately, is a small minority.
It’s too bad that this sentiment of compromise couldn’t have been more pervasive in Congress. Not only have Nancy Pelosi and her intensely partisan followers (not to mention the Republicans who acted like babies and agreed to universally vote “no” on the House bill) transformed this seemingly bipartisan effort into a ideologically-charged shitshow, but they have placed an unfair amount of pressure and criticism on the White House and President Obama, whose image has been unfairly tarnished as a result.
If Speaker Pelosi is incapable of leading her party through a civil compromise with the GOP on a bill of this importance, she is incapable of serving her role as Speaker of the House. It’s time to grow up in Washington.
