While on the baseball beat, last weekend umpire Joe West came under fire from the Yankees and Red Sox after he told the Bergen, N.J. newspaper The Record that the Red Sox and Yankees took too long to play baseball. He said it was “pathetic and embarrassing” that the two teams evaded the measures put in play by Major League Baseball to shorten the game.
The West crew did the Boston-New York three-game series in the first week of the season, followed by the Toronto-Baltimore three-game series. SI.com’s Peter King (yes, the NFL writer) noted that the time of the three Red Sox-Yankees games: 3:46, 3:48, 3:21, and the times of the three Blue Jays-Orioles games: 2:54, 2:24, 2:22. In short, the Baltimore-Toronto games, on average, were 65 minutes shorter than the Boston-New York games.
Why does it take nearly 4 hours to play a nine inning game? Yes, there are more pitching changes, but in the American League, the designated hitter should shorten the game by not having as many pinch hitters for the pitcher. And, for the teams themselves to gripe about the umpire telling the truth shows that there may be fire where the smoke is showing. And where is Commissioner Bud Selig? Would he take action against the two highest earning and highest spending teams in the sport? Would he say something to ESPN and the other broadcasters who are also to blame for pumping the games full of commercials to take advantage of the snail-like pace? Silent, as usual. I know that the owners and some people are pushing Selig’s legacy as a good one for the sport, but I think that only the racist Kennesaw “Mountain” Landis was a more disasterous commissioner.

At an appearance at a game in San Francisco last weekend, under suspicion home run king Barry Bonds said he is “proud” of slugger Mark McGwire for returning to baseball as the St. Louis Cardinals’ hitting coach and for admitting his use of performance-enhancing drugs.
“I have a really good friendship with Mark McGwire. I’m proud of him,” Bonds said Sunday. “We’ve had a great relationship throughout our entire lives and throughout our career. I’m proud of what he did. I’m happy for him.” While Bonds didn’t rule out also going into coaching one day, his six-minute session with the media was stopped after the question about McGwire.
In January, McGwire ended more than a decade of denials and evasion and finally acknowledged he used steroids and human growth hormone during his career, including in 1998 when he hit 70 home runs and broke the single-season record.
Of course Bonds should be proud of McGwire; according to the book “Game of Shadows” that broke open charges against Bonds, it was extreme jealousy of McGwire and Sammy Sosa that made Bonds, already nearing 500 home runs and a certain Hall of Famer, take performance enhancing drugs in the first place. Of course, Bonds cannot come clean – he is under indictment on charges he lied in 2003 to a federal grand jury investigating BALCO, the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative, and obstructed justice. (When will that case ever reach trial?) McGwire did face charges that he lied to Congress, but Congressmen were unlikely to go after the slugger since there are lots of people who are fans of McGwire and many others who feel that Congress has no place in sports in the first place.
It is amazing to me that McGwire would want to be back in baseball as a hitting coach; it’s not like he was a great hitter – he hit prodigious home runs and struck out a lot. Not exactly the type of guy I would think of for a hitting coach, even without the steroids. Further, I wouldn’t think that egotistic babies like McGwire and Bonds would be able to relate to other players, or help players that may actually be better than they are. For McGwire, to see Albert Pujols, who, if clean, is twice the player McGwire was, I would think would appall the former slugger.
It all smells and until there is a blanket amnesty period, we are going to get big disclosures and we probably won’t ever know who was clean and who wasn’t. And baseball will never be able to put aside the steroid era.

And I don’t mean Joan of Ark on this one. Not being Catholic, I have been silent on the sexual abuse cases that have come out over the years, but as a father, if anyone touched The Indignant Children in an inappropriate manner, I would be making plans for them to meet their maker as soon as possible: cleric, teacher, or otherwise. However, the Catholic Church is not above the law.
CNN.com reported earlier this week that the Church is lobbying lay members to come out against a bill being considered in Connecticut’s legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases. Local bishops issued a letter to parishioners this past weekend imploring them to oppose the measure.
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations. The proposed change to the law would put “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut’s three Roman Catholic bishops. The letter asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.
The bishops (Anyone else think about Monty Python’s “The Bishop” sketch) fail to say that the bill was revised to address some of the church’s concerns about frivolous abuse claims against it. Any person older than 48 who files a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.
But that isn’t enough for the bishops. These men who treated the victims of sexual abuse so cavalierly as they moved priest pederasts around the world like pawns on a chessboard are getting what they deserve finally. How much more does the Roman Catholic Church have to hide?

However, I cannot join atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in trying to have Pope Benedict arrested for crimes against humanity when he arrives in England soon. Yes, it appears that the Pope, when he was archbishop, knew about child molesters in the priesthood and moved them to other parishes threatening other children. If these charges are true, it’s going to be an unprecedented and historic issue of church history and jurisprudence and it should be played out as necessary.
Unfortunately, Dawkins and Hitchens (the former of which’s book I read) seem to believe that this is the harbinger of the end of religion, or at least Roman Catholicism, which they feel is the great evil in the world. I can’t say that – I am somewhere between agnostic and limited believer depending on the day. While religion is “the opiate of the masses,” especially in this country where too many people attempt to hide their fear, hatred, racism and intolerance behind religion, it’s not going away. There was a scientific paper earlier this year that showed that religious feeling were innate or were genetic in nature.
The authors’ argument is that the Vatican is not a “state” as such, and the Pope is not a head of state (the Vatican’s statehood only goes back to Mussolini’s time), and as such should not be treated like that idiot from Qatar with diplomatic immunity who smoked on an airplane and joked about setting his shoes on fire.
Personally, arresting the Pope and pissing off 1 billion Catholics is not going to happen, certainly not in stoic Britain. But I do think that the Pope’s actions before becoming The Holy See require investigation, and, if found merited, consideration should be made for some type of prosecution.
At the very least, the Catholic Church can no longer allow pedophiles to run around protected by the cloth. Ending the celibacy edict; allowing priests and nuns to marry (points that I agree with) will not keep children safe. Those priests need to be “outted” and prosecuted, and if bishops and archbishops and even the Pope have obstructed justice, they need to face the law. As a legal issue – not a philosophical one.

If corporations are “people” as is the history in this country, isn’t murder a crime, and as such, should corporations be put to death (liquidated) and any people directly responsible for murder tried for the crime? In many states, people who show indifference to fatal injury that leads to death are prosecuted.
I bring up the point as family members and West Virginia communities mourn the deaths of mine workers who were working in unsafe conditions that the company knew about as trying to delay or avoid Federal safety laws. According to a newspaper report, inspectors cited the operation thousands of times for dangerous law violations, including buildup of explosive methane and coal dust, but the company that owns the mine avoided closure of the profitable mine by filing with endless legal appeals.
Stiffer federal fines were mandated after West Virginia’s Sago mine tragedy in 2006, but many coal firms disputed two-thirds of new fines, and Massey, the company that owned the mine of this week’s disaster exceeded the industry average by appealing three-fourths of them, stalling many safety improvements.
Now I know that it’s fashionable to look down on people that work in mines – they know it’s dangerous, and they still work there anyway, but this week Toyota apparently showed that the almighty dollar is more important than the buyers of high priced Lexus SUVs too.
Reeling from failure to address faulty accelerators and brakes on less expensive models, Consumer Reports has given a “Don’t Buy” warning to the new Lexus GX 460, saying the large SUV has handling problems that could cause it to roll over during sharp turns. This is the first time in nine years that Consumer Reports has given such a warning on a car and the organization says that the warning on the GX 460 will remain until Toyota addresses the handling issue with the seven-seat SUV. About 5,400 have been sold since the vehicle went on sale in late December, Consumer Reports said.
Remember the Toyota internal memo that bragged about saving the company hundreds of millions of dollars by insisting that the accelerator issue was a problem with floor mats? Now, people are staying away from Toyotas, and soon may be doing the same to Lexuses.
And why? I wonder if any company has really done a cost-benefit analysis on this type of thing? Is it really cheaper to hire expensive lawyers to help clean up your mess rather than to just make quality cars, or make a coal mine safer for your workers? I realize that corporations have a responsibility to one group of people – the shareholders. Despite what they say, corporations don’t give a good damn for their workers, and, it is apparent, often don’t give much of a damn about their customers either.
Does it cost less to bury the dead, settle the lawsuits, and quietly go about their shady business? Do you make more money in the long run when you add in the lawyers’ fees and employee time to fight allegations rather than to do the right thing from the start? A friend of mine who used to own a car dealership said that he wasn’t trying to sell you your current car – he was trying to sell you the next car, or the third car. This means that if he treats you well now, the greater the likelihood that you’ll come back for your next car, and the one after that. Well, at Toyota, you can’t have a second sale if you kill the people who buy the first car.
But we are shareholders folks. We own shares in these companies, either directly or in mutual funds and trusts and 401(k)s. When do we tell the Wall Street analysts (who seem to control the world) to take their fancy MBAs and shove them? When do we say to Mr. CEO that we would rather earn lower than analyst projections to make safe cars, or mine our coal safely? When are humans more important than corporations?
If that makes me a liberal, because I can empathize with and care about what happens to people who aren’t like me, then I’m it (the definition in my earlier blog about liberals having high IQs that conservatives). Maybe I’m a fool – a sucker – a bleeding heart. But I’d rather show compassion to other people and hope that someone else would have compassion for me as well if I was down, then to be a selfish, me-first-and-only conservative.

We knew that the Eagles wanted to rid themselves of quarterback Donovan McNabb: he’s old; he’s expensive; and while the Eagles have been consistent contenders and even made the Super Bowl once, McNabb has been unable to take them all the way. However, one wouldn’t think that they would trade him within the division unless they really think he’s finished.
The other day, the Eagles sent McNabb to the Redskins for three draft picks, which gives the Chicago native two games per year to circle on his calendar. Do you think McNabb will be motivated to win those two games, especially the one in Philadelphia? It is “conventional wisdom” (if that means anything), that you don’t trade a star player to a team in your own division. Look at how hard the Green Bay Packers tried to keep Brett Favre from the Bears or Vikings (and it didn’t work, of course). Favre led the Vikings to 2 wins over the Packers during the season and within one win from the Super Bowl. Fortunately, the Packers have Aaron Rodgers, who may be one of the best QBs around, and who has kept the Packer faithful from storming Lambeau Filed like the mob in a Frankenstein movie.
So, the baton passes to Kevin Kolb, who will be the centerpiece of the football team in one of the toughest fan and media sports markets in the country. And McNabb will likely push aside Jason Campbell, a young man with loads of potential, but he has been wildly inconsistent. And the Redskins new head coach Mike Shanahan has a reputation of being an offensive whiz, but he tends to take great quarterbacks and use them to their potential, not turn good QBs into great ones. Jason Campbell has been one of the most disrespected players in the league – trade rumors constantly swirl around him – now he’ll have Donovan McNabb to commiserate with.

I know that they apologized, but the Indianapolis paper that drew horns and a devil’s beard on Duke coach Mike Kryzewski was very accurate to many sports fans like myself. As I have written many times here, I don’t pay much attention to basketball in general, but when it comes to college basketball, I root for Northwestern and against Duke.
Who, outside of Duke Students and alums, couldn’t feel good about Butler, a good program finally making it to the NCAA Tournament final game? Unheralded by the casual fan, Butler has become a top program with several Sweet 16 appearances over the past few years. They are no Cinderella team; but last night, they went against mighty Duke – three previous NCAA titles, numerous Final four appearances. And good reasons to be hated.
Duke has high academic standards, and still recruits the best players in the nation. Which also means that the rest of the student body are geeks; the Cameron Crazies who come up with funny but obtuse put downs (and I should know – Northwestern fans are famous for the IQ busting put down). Worse are the egotistical players who have come out of the school: Danny Ferry, Christian Laattner, Johnny Dawkins, Bobby Hurley and so many others who were great in college and then were busts in the NBA. Arguably the best Duke alumni NBA players were the oft-injured Grant Hill, and Elton Brand.
And, with any team that wins much more than it loses, eventually there is backlash, and I’ve disliked Duke for years. It’s like the Yankees – who outside of New Yorkers and front-running fans really support them? I say that I dislike Duke despite having met Coach K in Las Vegas many years ago. He was very nice and approachable, but at the time, he was probably pretty happy, he had just won $5,000 on video poker and he was waiting with casino security to do the IRS paperwork and collect his money.
So, Duke won again. We’ll get over it – moving on to the baseball season. It’s time to hate the Yankees and Red Sox.