#Cardinals with "bad" attitudes were needed to ignore #CardinalWay

I blogged late last week on this issue, of how John Mozeliak's trade of seeming "nice guys" Allen Craig and Joe Kelly for "surly," John Lackey, the previous waiver pick-up of the sometimes jackwagon A.J. Pierzynski, and the first pitcher trade, for Justin Masterson, all seemed to be about shaping up team attitudes as well as improving the playing roster. I was influenced in part by this Bernie Miklasz speculation about Mo's motives.

And now?

Bernie has a follow-up that shows both exactly why the trade was needed and that "nice guy" friends of Craig and Kelly don't get it.

A big issue, seemingly? Oscar Taveras, now the starting right fielder, apparently doesn't follow the Cardinal Way. Shocking that Bernie, who was seemingly such a touter of it just months ago, states this.

It's almost as if Taveras were ... Yasiel Puig!

Bernie deserves a good read:

(T)he deal apparently upset members of the good ol’ boys club in the Cardinals clubhouse. It was funny to hear Joe Buck on the Fox national telecast on Saturday, talking about how Cardinals players aren’t happy about Taveras being planted in right field — apparently over their objections. And according to Buck there's dissatisfaction among the boys over the way Taveras goes about his business. 

This is precious, no?

Let me see if I understand this correctly: A group of hitters who have spent most of the season in a trance, stroking ground ball after ground ball — with the Cardinals scoring fewer runs than all but one MLB team — don’t like the way a rookie goes about his craft? ...

You see, this is exactly why Cardinals GM John Mozeliak shook up a complacent, palsy-walsy team.

The whispering campaign against Taveras is disgraceful.

Exactly. I've Tweeted Bernie, asking him to name whisperers if he gets more information.

He goes on:

(T)he game is fun to him. A boisterous Taveras clapped his hands while running to first base after his go-ahead single Sunday.

Uh-oh, time for some of the veterans to start whispering about Taveras again.

I mean, who does this kid think he is, displaying unrestrained emotion and getting excited after coming through for his team that needed to win a big series?

Pierzynski did a similar thing Sunday, pointing and yelling at his own dugout after singling in the tying run. Later on, Taveras told reporters that he was fired up by Pierzynski's animated outburst.
  
I need a ruling here. Is the salty Pierzynski’s exuberance also a violation of “The Cardinal Way?”

It’s about damned time that this buttoned-down team popped a few buttons.

I've rarely seen Bernie this animated. I like it. And, maybe if Mo knows experienced Cardinal-watchers have his back, he'll push manager Mike Matheny not to let "nice guys" squash enthusiasm.

Theodore Roosevelt: Who was this "progressive" president?

I'm sure you're familiar with all of this:

1. Busted more trusts than any other president.
2. Conserved more lands for environmental needs, and with strong legal protections, than anybody before him, and more than his immediate successors.
3. Fought to lower the high tariff on imported goods, which was strongly supported by big-business Republicans.
4. Got Congress to pass the 16th amendment and send it to the states, which allowed the federal government to base income tax on individual incomes, not on state populations, which obviously favored the likes of New York.
5. Showed more commitment to racial tolerance than some previous members of his own party by inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House.
6. Addressed the nation's banking problems, after multiple predecessors had been held hostage during financial crises by J.P. Morgan.

That's our man! Teddy, the first progressive president! Only, he did none of those things.

If I had added "by creating the Federal Reserve System" to the end of No. 6, knowledgeable people would have guessed Woodrow Wilson on that, wondered if Wilson did the previous stuff, but then scratched their heads at No. 5.

The reality is that TR wasn't that enlightened on race relations, and William Howard Taft did 1-4.

Yes. On No. 2, not just counting efforts started by Roosevelt, but only on efforts on his own, Taft busted more trusts than TR. That's in part due to Teddy's philosophy, that big wasn't necessarily bad, but what TR said was bad, was bad. Hence the appropriate title of Edmund Morris' volume of biography, "Theodore Rex."

That, in turn, leads directly to No. 2.

Many historically knowledgeable people know that TR broke with Taft due to his firing of Gifford Pinchot as the country's direct of forests. They may not know why.

Pinchot got in a tussle with Taft's Interior secretary. Then, as today, the forests were under USDA (another non-fix of TR), so there was a turf war. The big issue at stake was how, late in his administration, TR and Pinchot set aside land within forest preserves for hydrological protection. Taft and Interior Secretary Richard Ballinger were convinced that the TR-Pinchot methodology wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny. After releasing some lands back to private control, they went through the process again, and wound up protecting even more land in the end than the TR-Pinchot work.

No. 3? TR explicitly said during his tenure that he had no plans on taking on the tariff and advised Taft to do the same. Sadly, Taft got excoriated by TR worshipers for doing exactly that and not getting as much as they wanted.

That's even though, as part of what he did get, he got No. 4, Congress passing the 16th Amendment and sending it to the states, something that "progressive" TR didn't even try.

No. 5? When Southerners protested in horror about the first non-servant black man in the White House since Frederick Douglass during Lincoln's presidency (I'm unaware of Grant inviting any, and know that nobody after him did), he recoiled, especially when they mentioned that his mother was a Southerner. He even started cutting back on hiring blacks for Post Office jobs in the south. And, those that know TR know that the 1906 Brownsville affair was one of the blackest blots on his record.

No. 6? TR had had a run-in with J.P. Morgan over his work to break up Morgan-controlled Northern Securities in 1904. This was when Morgan famously said (not exact to the letter, you can Google it): "Send your man to my man and they can fix things up." And, TR knew about Grover Cleveland having to go to Morgan during the Panic of 1893 and a run on the nation's gold supply and beg for help, including being forced to meet Morgan personally. Yet, TR was short-sighted enough, limited in sight enough, or simply not progressive enough to not do anything to fix the nation's banking apparatus.

Then, along came the Panic of 1907, and TR having to kowtow to Morgan. Wilson's Federal Reserve, at the level of the regional Feds, may have left too much power in bankers' hands, but it was a big improvement beyond what we had.

As the Ken Burns series on the Roosevelts -- TR, FDR, and Eleanor -- comes on this fall, keep all of this in mind.

It's arguable that TR is the nation's most overrated president before GOP hagiography of Ronald Reagan.

Business titles always cut in business' favor

Take WallyWorld, and the many other companies that have followed its lead. You're an "associate," not an employee.

Does that get you any more money? Or any more assistance on late-night stocking?

No and no, of course.

Or take an industry like advertising or public relations, where you get the title of "account executive" your first day on the job. You're really an executive of nothing; you can barely go to the bathroom without a supervisor say-so.

Or, take the inflation of titles in small and medium-small companies.

I've never been the vice president of anything, but, if there's an executive vice president over you, then being a vice president pretty much means jack shit, doesn't it?

For that matter, if you have to be called an executive vice president to distinguish you from a plain old jack shit vice president, it probably doesn't mean too much, either.

But, did you once, if not now, fall for it? It's OK to be honest.

That said, titles cut both ways.

I recently, in my Career Builder feed, saw a job for a semiweekly newspaper on the High Plains, owned by cut-rate king Digital First Media.

With no daily newspaper around for more than 100 miles, and no semiweekly, a cut above weeklies, around (I think) for at least 50, and no other DFM paper around for 200 or so, it's cheap on titles.

General manager instead of publisher. News editor instead of managing editor. And, the news editor, the job I saw, officially listed as having a 4.5 day work week.

That's how I know those titles are used to justify lesser pay.

So, to summarize?

High title is used to fob you off on prestige instead of pay raise.

Low title is designed to "slot" you into lower pay.

Simple enough? 

Little bit of pleasure for the start of your work week? 

No #RyderCup for you, #TigerWoods, at the possible end of an era

No, US captain Tom Watson has not officially announced his captain's picks for the American Ryder Cup team, but, Tiger Woods' medically-forced withdrawal from Bridgestone for some degree of aggravation of his back problems should make the choice not to select Woods obvious.

First, there's some simple math.

Tiger now mathematically cannot qualify for the FedEx Cup events. Even were he to play in the PGA Championship at Valhalla next week, he couldn't.

And secondly?

He's not going to play in the PGA Championship next week. (Correction, he is playing, but obviously just Thursday and Friday, so badly that Vijay Singh and Mrs. Doubtfire were ahead of him.)

So, between now and seven weeks from now, Woods has about zero chance to play competitive golf.

Plus, for Point No. 3? Watson can cite Tiger's re-aggravation of the back injury to say that he's not willing to take a medical risk.

Bob Harig, thinking on similar lines, wonders whether Tiger should not just shut it down for the year. It would also avoid the embarrassment of him groveling to Watson, a likely unsuccessful groveling that would then lead to further embarrassment.

That said, between Dustin Johnson not being eligible because of an alleged suspension for blowing coke that the PGA refuses to acknowledge, then breaks its policy by commenting about non-commenting, and Tiger's injury, Watson will have fun choices to make, with a top-nine automatic qualifiers who don't look impressive. Indeed, Watson's squad looks to be decided underdogs. And, with the lack of veteran talent, even though Philly Mick's track record in the Ryder Cup is no better than Woods', I can't see how Watson doesn't pick Phil Mickelson with Tiger down.

Beyond this, of course, the "end of an era" questions grow bigger.

Did Tiger come back too early? Was the surgery not effective enough? Is what's left of his career going to be permanently diminished? Even if he fully heals, can he get his stroke fully back?

On the last, I'll say no. He switched to an older driver this week but still had horrible control off the tee. Part of that may be rust, but part of it may be that his current swing stance, as many commenters have noted, has too many moving parts and leaves him open to wild drives. Dependent on how long he's on the shelf again, it may not be until the middle of 2015 that he has halfway controllable driver shots again.

As for question No. 1? Only Tiger and his doctors know that for sure, and his doctors will surely respect patient-client privilege, but the answer is a quite possible yes.

As for Nos. 2 and 3? We'll find out soon enough on 2, and by that middle of 2015 on 3. Stay tuned.

The closest point of comparison in my mind is Lee Trevino after he was struck by lightning. He managed to win one major after that, but never was quite the same player.

Obama: Yes we did #torture; what's that worth?

He's saying this, admitting this, in large part because it didn't happen on his watch, and he'll continue to oppose lawsuits against the USofA over this, but half a kudo to Dear Leader for using the word "tortured":

"We tortured some folks," Obama said at a televised news conference at the White House. "We did some things that were contrary to our values."

On the other hand, crimes against humanity do not have a statute of limitations in the International Court of Justice.

And, given that Obama expanded on his initial words with this:

Obama's remarks on Friday were more emphatic than his previous comments on the subject, including a May 2009 speech in which he trumpeted his ban of "so-called enhanced interrogation techniques," and "brutal methods," but did not flatly say the U.S. had engaged in torture.

At an April 2009 new conference, he said, "I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."

In addition to water boarding, the CIA used stress positions, sleep deprivation, nudity, humiliation, cold and other tactics that, taken together, were extremely brutal, the Senate report is expected to say. Obama on Friday did not mention a specific method, but he said the CIA used techniques that "any fair minded person would believe were torture."

"We crossed a line," he said. "That needs to be understood and accepted...We did some things that were wrong, and thats what that report reflects."

I suspect that we'll not see Dick Cheney travel abroad to Halliburton's shiny new global headquarters in Dubai.

But, the reality is that, Obama's casual use of "folks" is more indication that he will continue to look forward, not backward, per the Ted Rall cartoon.

Dirk Hayhurst, moral poseur

So, former short-time big leaguer Dirk Hayhurst, allegedly worried about his job, waits a full five years after the end of his MLB career, and three after the end of his minors career, but not too long after latching on to a writing gig at Sports on Earth, to write a piece accusing some of his teammates of gang-rape, and a bunch of them of sexual lowlife cretinism.
 
And gets NBC's Craig Calcaterra, probably a good neolib type on issues of social justice, to give him a big wet-kiss tout.

One commenter fawningly says of Hayhurst: 

Hayhurst is on his way to becoming the H. L. Mencken of sportswriting. 

Not hardly.

If he thinks that's true, it's a sad sign of the decline of literature, and the decline of literary style, and the decline of how high the bar is set. I prefer Sinclair Lewis. Author of “Elmer Gantry,” a story about a road-show revivalist taking advantage of some people’s naive religious beliefs.

Now, whether Hayhurst is Lewis, or is Gantry? I’d say the latter is a definite possibility. More than the former, or more than H.L. Mencken, who isn't all that some crack him up to be, anyway.

And, why would I say that?

• Waiting 3 years after fears of “losing your job” to write the story is interesting. 
• But, waiting not long at all until after joining a sports website to write the story is also interesting, especially when you've managed to write four books in that time and be a TBS broadcaster as well as joining Sports on Earth. 
• Hiding players’ identities without actually hiding their identities that much is also interesting. 

One can be a liberal, even a left-liberal of sorts, as I am, and still be skeptical about people and their motives. Especially when those possible motives involve moral apple-polishing, money-grubbing, or a mix of both.

That includes, as one commenter notes, the fact that if Hayhurst were really that concerned way back when, he could have at least warned women who were about to become trapped, exploited. or worse, about what was allegedly about to happen. So, per that particular comment, no, it makes him look worse. Or, as another commenter notes, that Eugene, Oregon, had a Crimestoppers program in 2003 and Hayhurst apparently never thought to call him.

Per the three bullet points above, it makes it look like he’s trying to burnish his sports-writing career. Add to that the fact that he talks favorably about ending his career with the Durham Bulls of semi-fictionalized "Bull Durham" fame, even as he writes a piece about minor-league players who, other than the rape allegations, don't sound that much different than those in "Bull Durham."

And, fact is, an actual sports mag, or sports section of a daily paper, wouldn’t have published that as written.

And, given that Hayhurst has done other things, like accusing Clay Buckholz of cheating, and what else I've gleaned about his character, am I surprised? Er, no!  Add to it the Jim Bouton-esque martyrdom that he affects, and the picture is complete.

Hell, for all we know, Hayhurst is the next Chad Curtis. 

Beyond that, to all of Hayhurst's defenders? (Not counting the first #mansplaining spouter who arrived on the scene.)

First, one can allow that he's broadly telling the truth while questioning his fiduciary, or limelight, reasons for doing so now, in the way he is.

Second, one can also, on the issue of women getting drunk with the possibility of having sex, then changing their minds, tell men to stop being Neanderthals while also telling women to stop getting themselves blotto. It, too, is not an either/or. 

Even more than SJW women, I "love" SJW males who seemingly have a compulsion to reject out of hand, without discussion any factual evidence that would challenge their compulsion to go along with SJW women in attacking ideas that might be considered mansplaining.

Cognitive dissonance: It ain't just for wingnuts.

Nor are attempts to stifle discourse, as Massimo Pigliucci discusses in detail.

Your mileage may vary, but do NOT attempt to tell me what my mileage may be.