New Yorker, New Yorker

I stopped in mid-concept with this title. I was originally going to rant about the overreaction to and misunderstanding of the satirical New Yorker Obama cover, and how it reflects the obtuseness of the American public, but that can come next time. It's All Star Break in Baseball Land, and this latest event occurred in the capital of Baseball Land, Yankee Stadium. And for me, once a New Yorker, always a New Yorker, to wedge in the title.

Some of my greatest childhood memories rested in that venue, from the first moment in 1955 when I saw the Yanks play the Tigers (and lose) in a doubleheader. Three of those players were at pre-Game tribute, Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford, and Al Kaline, and that was over fifty years ago, oh fucking my. I shed a few tears at the nostalgia blast that the festivities provided, but mostly because they were salutes to a Yankee team that has continued to deteriorate despite its financial success.

Although the Yanks have a better record this year than they did last, when a surge brought them into the play-offs, those same elements don't exist this season. Two major starters are injured, Joba Chamberlain is already part of their scotch-taped staff, and there is no new blood to invigorate the team. Only Arod and Giambi are providing power; Matsui is pretty much gone, and Damon is game but lame. With talented teams maturing like Tampa Bay, it's a good bet that this will be the first year since 1993 that hasn't made it to the post-season (I include strike-shortened '94 because the Yanks were a top team that year).

I find it interesting how the Yankees have followed the same career path of the Atlanta Braves, who also had a post-season string of 14 years before they yielded to younger teams. Atlanta began in 1991, three years earlier than the Yankees skein. Both teams had steady managers, powerful owners, choice pitching and solid veterans. The Braves won four pennants in their streak, one World Series, and then started fading out in the divisional series. The Yanks won six pennants, had four championships, and now have lost the three divisional series since their horrific 2004 collapse against Boston. The Braves have stuck too long with their veteran pitchers and are struggling in a division of stronger teams. The Yanks rely mostly on Mussina and Pettitte now, and aging veterans like Jeter and Abreu who have seen better days. Neither is likely to be playing in October.

Other than Tampa's rise and the Tigers' sputtering start, the season has not been terribly surprising. Boston's adroit pitching and young line-up has proved they can win with Manny and Ortiz in questionable shape. The Angels continue to be the best-managed and least appreciated team in the game. The goofy A.L. Central will go to whoever is hot in September, and that could be any of three teams; I still go with Detroit, as Verlander rights himself and Jones is deemphasized as a closer.

The National League has two great races and one that's close but a yawner. The Mets have stepped it up after poor Willie Randolph's departure, finally getting help from their young starters along with Santana and a usually competent Oliver Perez. Florida is surprising but not the Phillies, whose offense is very impressive. Ultimately I think they will win the division, with the Mets perhaps snagging the wild card. That's because the three-way battle in the Central division will probably cost two of those teams enough wins to beat the Mets. It should be down to the wire between the Brewers with Sabathia and Sheets, and the Cubs with that wonderful line-up. Cue the Cubs for the pennant this year. Just a hopeful thought. And there has to be the NL West, but unlike last year, they are not going to send two of their teams to the championship series. It's Dodgers youth vs. Arizona pitching, and the latter should prevail because of Saito's injury, robbing the Dodgers of necessary bullpen strength.

Secrets and Lies and Horseshit

Now that I've become a full-fledged political addict I am discovering the downside of my infatuation with the three-hour MSNBC evening bloc (late afternoon in L.A.) of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams. Each afternoon these hosts and their assorted correspondents (a few of whom are even Republicans, though never on "Countdown") parse and analyze to death every line and every gesture made by the major candidates and their "surrogates."

My first revelation was realizing that the issues which are trumped up in these shows are comparatively trivial and pretty meaningless to the general public. The political commentators fling around a lot of "Inside Baseball" knowledge and while their insights are interesting, they are also repetitious and not especially helpful in projecting how the general population will react. Also, since most of the Talking Heads have a distinct Obama preference, that bias colors much of their conversation. Hey, I love Rachel Maddow, and think she's brilliant, but try to get her to concede anything nice at all about John McCain. "Countdown" never pretends to be "fair and balanced" like Fox Noise (a Keith appellation), but a little more objectivity would strengthen its case, methinks.

The larger problem I am having is in accepting the really noxious nature of politics itself. My world view is dark enough without having my cynicism underscored by the insidious tone of political discourse. I'm not talking of the grotesque smear tactics such as the Swift Boating that created the second Bush administration, or the subtle attacks on "patriotism" or "senioritis" that the two campaigns bandy back and forth. When McCain calls his campaign the "Straight Talk Express" it is Orwellian in its irony, for straight talk is the element that will get both candidates immediately into hot water, with the media stoking the fires under the cauldron.

Obama says that angry Pennsylvanians become bitter with their frustrations and retreat into their private concerns. Hillary says that she has scored higher among white voters. McCain admits that he is not very well-versed in economic theory. All of these statements were true, frank admissions whose honesty only backfired in their speakers' faces. But let's hear Obama's plan to end the Iraq War, or McCain's to balance the budget by 2013, and their supporters hoot and holler and whistle, even though it's all obvious total horseshit.

If truth and frankness are then anathema to the process, it becomes very disorienting to try to figure out what is worth heeding in all the rhetoric. It seems that politics is simply the interplay of innuendo, obfuscation and misleading promises intended to induce fear in or appeal to the basic stupidity of the general population. That's not a pretty definition. But as Cronkite says, "That's the way it is."

So let's put aside briefly the lapel pins, the jowls, the Obama children, the Stepford McCain wife, the terrorist fist bumps, and all the other idiotic distractions, and simplify the issues.

Here's why I think people should vote for Obama: 1) his image will help us immeasurably abroad, and 2) he will not put conservatives on the Supreme Court when Souter, Stevens and Ginsberg leave. Here's why people should not vote for McCain: 1) it would tell the world that America is still a hopelessly racist country to the extent that we would accept a third Bush term, and 2) McCain would put more conservatives on the Court and it would become a bastion of Reactionary rulings for decades. Do I think they're both honorable men? More or less. Do I think they are each arrogant and slimy politicians? Absolutely. But that's the choice, and it would have been the same if it were Hillary vs. Romney or Edwards vs. Huckabee, etc.

Now excuse me, it's nearly 4 P.M. and "Hardball" is coming on soon. I will still partake, but don't ever expect me to segue to Fox News, because that's when I will be throwing my andiron into the TV screen.