Welcome back to "Ask Alex", where I answer all of your stupid questions with even dumber answers. Have a question you need answered? Tweet it, email it or submit it here and I will get to it (maybe) next week.
-------------------------------- Welcome to our Cinco de Mayo edition of #AskAlex, where Alex takes on Jimmy’s many, many issues and talks some baseball in a question from Rex that she missed a while ago. She also covers more pressing food questions and tackles this week’s revelations from James Comey. And who doesn’t want some history of Vermont? Submitted by: Space Ghost Jimmy (4 Questions) Q1) It is common to hear “The Middle East has always been a problem” as if it’s the US’s biggest problem. I would submit that Europe, and European nations, have been the United States biggest problem historically. Let’s review.
Holy shit, Jimmy...four questions? You’re worse than my kids! And this one is half a chapter long... Europe is a problem because we need them. They have stuff we want, and they buy stuff that we make. We have grown culturally out of Europe more than any other place, and it remains the place that most closely aligns with our value system. It was the source of the renaissance, the enlightenment, reformation and industrial revolution. The world today is better for Europe’s influence on it. Sure, they are raging racists that love soccer and are way too comfortable with both hairy-arm pitted women and sex with underaged boys and girls, but nobody is perfect. Mostly, I just think that your assessment that Europe has contributed very little is way off base. I’m not even going to bother covering Michelangelo, DaVinci or Dante, Dickens or Shakespeare, Tchaikovsky, Dostoevsky, Chekov or Tolstoy, Monet or Descartes, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Wagner or Beethoven or Mozart. I will just simply ask you to think of a perfect bowl of garlicky Belgian Mussels and a crisp Alsatian Riesling, or a Chateaubriand steak with a 1982 Petrus (2000 if you are impatient), or a perfect Veal Osso Buco with a tart, fruity Chianti, or...okay, I think you get the point. And I am starting to get really hungry. Good history around World War I, although I would actually offer another, alternative history of Europe that is really quite Germany-centric. But I think it covers both World Wars and most of the current dynamic of Germany as the shot-caller of the EU. Ready? Basically it goes like this, you are an industrious, frugal, hardworking country. You are surrounded by the rest of Europe.Are you suggesting that every few decades you won't lose your mind and go on a rampage? Q2) It is known among people who think critically and can read that ESPN is going tits-up due to a failure to adapt their previously great subscriber model to realities in the 2010’s (not “wokeness”) coupled with radically overspending on content (NBA/MLB/NFL contracts). As ancillary causes, do you see the relative sedentary lifestyle of Millennials as a factor? Participation in youth sports declining amongst the obese, couch-bound youth of today playing Madden on video as opposed to actually throwing a football outside – that kind of thing. Oh, quit trying to blame Millennials for everything. I would take issue with the assertion that they radically overspent on content and ask where would they be had they NOT won those contracts? Live sports remain the pinnacle of TV content, both because it is irreplaceable and because it is about the only programming left during which advertisers can reasonably expect their content to be seen. For a long time, ESPN had a monopoly on national sports news and analysis, a position that is now threatened by several national networks (FS1 and NBCSports that I know of) and a plethora of regional networks. And for all of the talk about the decline in “must watchness” of ESPN’s non-live content, it isn’t like those other networks are totally killing it. Really, that stuff - highlights with funny quips, retired players reciting cliched analysis - is not a differentiator. FOX’s is no better or worse than ESPN’s. Even their truly original content - think 30 For 30 - is barely moving the needle, despite being miles ahead of their competitors. I’d argue that there is very little that has been produced on any network over the last five years that was markedly better than The Two Escobars, Once Brothers, or Hillsborough, but there don’t seem to be many people who think that is driving subscriptions (or, more accurately, unsubscriptions) or subscriber fees significantly. You’ve hit on the problem...it is a dying business model. With Hulu, Prime, Netflix and myriad other streaming options, cable is no longer the irreplaceable source of entertainment that it was only 10 or 15 years ago. As much as observers seem to be crediting ESPN with making cable necessary (and therefore, blaming cord-cutting on either the decline in quality or social lecturing at ESPN), the truth is that ESPN benefited from cable at least as much as the opposite. I read all sorts of analysis that claimed ESPN was the reason that people signed up for cable, but if that was really true, I have a very hard time believing that they were only getting about $4 per subscriber out of the $30-$40 in fees that cable companies paid for content in a normal basic cable package. Either they are really terrible negotiators, or the breadth of programming is more important than any specific network. What I find most interesting is ESPN’s inability to transfer their key asset - live sporting event rights - into a direct-to-consumer product with any success. I had someone suggest that it related to their “contracts”, but I couldn’t get a good answer as to whether that dealt with their contracts with the content providers (MLB, NFL, NBA and colleges) or with the cable carriers. In both cases, it seems like ESPN should have plenty of clout to resolve those issues (either by including streaming in their deals with the leagues or by allowing non-exclusivity in their deals with cable.) It has a little bit of a Compaq/Dell mid-90’s distribution channel war, but it should be a lot easier for ESPN to navigate than it was for Compaq. Anyway, this is already more about the cable business than anyone wants to read, but no "lazy millennials" are not the problem... Q3) Do you think I can get the Nordstrom $495 jeans that look dirty in my size? If so, will it make me irresistible to females? If I can find old jeans that I wore working outside in South Texas in the summers of my youth, do you think I can sell them for maybe $250 at a vintage store – they look like the Nordstrom kind but also would have a petrochemical smell mixed with various solvents and such – much “works outside” prestige with them. No, you can’t, for several reasons. First, because now they only cost $425. Second, because Nordstrom insists on making men’s clothes like they do women’s...with a single length for each waist size. While this is a great leap forward for gender equality, it is, in fact, absurdly stupid. And third, the smallest waist they make is 29 inches, so there is nothing for your weird pencil-shaped body. But you have definitely hit on a fantastic new fashion idea...scented clothing. Surely, dresses with perfumed fabrics or menswear with extra pheromones would be a big hit. And you’ve identified an obvious one...if well-heeled metrosexuals want to look like they have been doing something in the dirt, perhaps they would like to smell like oil, tar or various industrial chemicals! Faux fur coats would be more compelling if they smelled like the animals they are emulating, right? “Wow, Emma, what is that smell? It’s positively enchanting!” “Why thank you, Brooke, it’s a raccoon that’s been eating garbage.” And what superfan wouldn’t want to smell exactly like the actual post-game jersey of the guy whose shirt he is wearing? The possibilities are endless! Concert T-shirts that already smell like they’ve had beer dumped on them? Carrying on an affair and want to convince your spouse that you were gambling at a casino all night and not banging the director of HR? How about a sweater that reeks of stale cigarettes! Or gym clothes that let you smell like you have been working out without all of the annoying sweat? Maybe you bought brownies at the store but you want to pretend you baked them, wouldn’t a shirt that smells like a bakery be a nice touch? It seems so obvious to me, it’s just the next wave of fashion...and it all started with Nordstrom’s fake mud. I’d mock your idea of the $250 for old jeans at a vintage store, but I fear that you aren’t really all that far off, to be honest... Q4) Do you want to join my new political party? It simply consists of “If you’re not Calvin Coolidge we hate you and won’t vote for you”. True story, I have a neighbor who is not terribly distantly related to Cal (Grandson of a cousin, maybe?), so I may be able to connect you with some well-heeled old Yankees who are interested in funding this party out of some sense of nostalgia for old J. C. Coolidge, Plymouth Notch, VT. That’s right, while Coolidge’s Presidential bios note him as being from Massachusetts, he was a Vermonter until he was a teenager. That, apparently, is when he developed his legendary good sense and decided to pick up, move to Massachusetts and be Governor (there may have been a few steps in between, but I am not that interested.) Vermont used to be cool, I guess. It was part of France until the Seven Year’s War, and there are still plenty of cheese-eating Quebecophiles floating around up there. After that, it became a part of Great Britain, although the British were a little vague in their instructions as to which colony Vermont was actually going to be a part of. That led to one big fight between New Hampshire and New York, each claiming ownership of the territory. Ultimately, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys won out in defense of their New Hampshire Grants, but they declared themselves independent of New Hampshire anyway and formed The Vermont Republic, which eventually became the State of Vermont. (Trivia...only four States were previously sovereign states before becoming US States: Vermont, Hawaii, California and Texas. Medium-sized states need not apply). So, it all started out fine, but somewhere along the line it turned into a sleepy, empty backwater of Subaru-driving Socialists and French-speaking loggers drunk on maple syrup and sharp cheddar cheese. Outside of providing some nice places for people in Massachusetts to go skiing and serving as a buffer against Canada, it is really hard to see what purpose Vermont is still serving. It’s capital city has a little over 7,000 people. The largest city in Vermont is Burlington, population 42,000. That would not make it one of the thirty largest cities or towns in neighboring Massachusetts. There are ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY ONE (191!) places in California that are larger than the largest city in Vermont. I had this discussion with some random on Twitter a while ago about States that punch above their weight in Presidential politics, and given the subject here and Vermont’s two legitimate candidates in the last 12 years, it seems apropos. Really, the argument was over California, which I would argue has produced a surprisingly small number of legitimate Presidential candidates (meaning they won at least a primary or two) given its size and influence. Obviously, we elected two of them (Reagan and Nixon) twice, but beyond that, there isn’t a whole lot in the way of serious contenders from a State that includes about one out of every eight Americans. Jerry Brown ‘92? That is about it. Meanwhile, Vermont produced two. Arkansas has produced two. Massachusetts (which is the state whose influence is probably most disproportionate to its size) seems to produce them regularly...Romney, Kerry, Dukakis, Tsongas three Kennedys, and the quickly mounting Warren ‘20 candidacy. And yet California hasn’t had a real candidate in 25 years… Wait...what was I talking about? Oh, right. No, I will not join a political party that worships someone from Vermont, even if he did have the sense to move to a real state. Submitted by: Timothy E. Miller Revisiting the subject of the Comey letter thing what is your reaction to the new information? I don’t really have much of a reaction, to be honest. I’ve been stuck well between the “ZOMG treason!” people and the “Meh, Colin Powell used AOL in 2001” people all along on this. My personal feeling is that, most likely, Hillary Clinton did what she has done her entire adult life and intentionally ignored the spirit and intent of a law for her own personal convenience (in this case to control potential discovery) by remaining just defensibly enough within the letter of the law to eventually save her own skin. But at this point, as much as Republicans have wet dreams about Hillary going to jail, there is minimal chance that she is going to be charged with anything, and virtually zero chance that she will ever be convicted, so I don’t see the point in harping on it. People in power don’t like to lock up people from their predecessor's administration because in either four or eight years, THEY will be the predecessors, and they will be happy to have a blanket gentleman’s agreement on immunity. Do you think that Dick Cheney was never charged with any crime because no one in the Obama Administration wanted to charge him or could think of something to charge him with? No. Powerful people don’t play by the same rules, and the overly obvious “Well, if she were so-and-so, she’d be in jail!” commentary ignores the very basic rule of human government nature. At the same time, Democrats remain convinced that Director Comey’s letter is the single reason that she lost the Presidency (except on days that it is the Russians; or misogyny) despite being wholly unable to produce a single actual voter who will acknowledge being swayed by the news. They seem to point heavily towards some analysis by Five-Thirty Eight (which, ftr, I love and link to later on) that says “Well, polls said she was winning by 5 points a week before and 3 points after the Comey letter and therefore the letter cost her two points which was enough to sway the election. This seems like uncharacteristically poor analysis to me...polls shift all the time, and to use 538’s own math, they measure her chances of winning as going from 80% a week before the election to 65% on the day of the election. In other words, they were already allowing a 20% chance that Clinton was losing before the Comey letter came out...you can’t then go back and claim that the letter absolutely, positively cost her the election. That’s not how math works. So, while somewhat inflammatory, the Director’s testimony isn’t going to send her to jail and it isn’t going to make her President, so I don’t see a lot of value in re-litigating this over and over again. Submitted by: CDP At a certain point it's just no longer a taco. Is this that point? Happy Cino de Mayo everyone! What a perfect day for a taco question! I’m not really sure what to call this thing, but it is absolutely not a taco. Full disclosure, my definition of taco, informed by the seemingly reliable but utterly unreliable BrownSkin, was woefully wrong, so I may not be the best person to ask about this. This thing looks like some kind of giant nacho canoe. (True fact: Jeremy Wade could land an angry killer whale with only a nacho canoe, a single chopstick and two standard spools of dental floss). (True Fact #2: Rex saw Giant Nacho Canoe open for Hall and Oates in 1986) But calling this thing a taco is stretching the rules of logic to a place that I am not comfortable with. Old El Paso may be OK stomping on the traditions of their forefathers, but I most definitely am not. Have they no respect for basic rules of civility? {Digression: I just finished Amor Towles’ delightful A Gentleman in Moscow, and liked it so much that I started The Rules of Civility. He writes magnificently, the characters are deep and charming, and he paints pictures of Russia and New York, respectively, that are lush and detailed. Highly recommend, and thus begins Alex’s Book Club.} Is this a taco for people who hate tacos? And who the fuck hates tacos? Tacos are as American as apple pie and border walls, and I won’t stand here and listen to you slander the taco, nay, the “American Crunch Sandwich” (btw, that name is trademarked). Good day to you, sir. I said GOOD DAY! Submitted by: LunaticRex What do you think about the shift? Should the defense be allowed to use that to the extent they do now? Took me a while to figure out that this was about baseball, so my first thought was about stick shifts and the sad state of American manual transmission operation knowledge. Everyone should learn to drive a stick, just as everyone should learn to tie a bow tie, balance a checkbook, change a tire and properly cook a steak (medium rare at the most, maybe medium on a rib-eye or something equally fatty...when in doubt, just ask for it how the chef thinks is best. Otherwise, you’ll overcook it, and you may as well join ISIS.) This is much more a city affliction than a rural one...people I know who grew up anywhere in the near suburbs have no idea how to drive a stick. Another weird thing? Guys from places where no one drives sticks are weirdly turned on by girls who can. I suppose it’s not that weird, it is something entirely phallic, but it is absolutely true. Another bonus? Fewer people ask to borrow your car! For someone who rarely ever drives anywhere, I drive an awful lot of different cars. My little sister owns two (long story...not my doing), both of which are standard and I drive both of those periodically (a Mini and a Wrangler), and my husband’s car is a standard as well. I drive that when I can because it is a rocket ship. The only one that isn’t a manual is my own, which exists solely because sometimes we need to drive the kids places and need a car with a back seat and some cargo space. It is a lovely, comfortable SUV and I can’t stand it. It is just so stinking boring to drive and I never know what to do with either my right hand or my left foot while I am driving. None of that, however, is related to Rex’s question, which deals with baseball teams shifting one extra infielder onto the opposite side of second base (usually the shortstop for a left-handed hitter, although occasionally the second baseman for a right handed hitter). An exceedingly rare event 15 years ago, it is now pretty common fare, especially for big, slow left-handed hitters with a lot of power and little ability to hit the ball on the ground to the opposite field. As a casual Red Sox watcher, this was the normal state of affairs for a David Ortiz at-bat over the last third of his career at least (other parts of that at-bat included a Dunkin Donuts ad, a “B12 *wink-wink*” shot and a towering Home Run). Of course they should be allowed to use it, and trying to tell them not to would require a re-write of the rules of baseball (also, it probably works.) There are no actual positions in the rules of baseball, there are only standard roles that have developed over nearly 150 years of playing. Given the changes in other sports, it is actually sort of surprising that there hasn’t been MORE innovation in the positioning of players in baseball. Basketball teams sometimes play three guard offenses, and there are times that some teams even play four guards at once. It is not out of the question that the Cleveland Cavaliers play four little guys and LeBron James, with LeBron as the de facto center, but then allow that center to be the primary ball handler. Teams regularly play without a center, which is something of a change from the 1980’s, when the Houston Rockets debuted a “Twin Towers” offense featuring two centers - Ralph Sampson and Akeem (don’t call me Hakeem yet) Olajuwon. Soccer teams have never been wed to positional line-ups and often change them mid-game without substituting players. Football makes significantly more use of nickel and dime packages now than they did in earlier times, and some positions (think Tight End) have seen their role change dramatically as the game as evolved. Rex Ryan had some success against Tom Brady by employing a front seven that included zero players with their hand on the ground. Before Bobby Orr (hockey’s greatest player...come at me, eh?) debuted, the idea of a defenseman being heavily involved in a hockey team’s offense was totally foreign. But at the same time that the Boston Bruins were revolutionizing hockey offense (pronounced “oh-fense”) the Czechoslovakian national team was dealing with the supremely talented Soviet Red Army team by revolutionizing defensive hockey through the left wing lock. In both cases, the game was flipped upside down by a change in the normal positioning of players during play. Baseball, despite its unhealthy obsession with tradition, shouldn’t be any different. What really surprises me is that more players don’t try to beat the shift by simply bunting at or slapping the ball towards the giant open space on the left side of the infield. David Ortiz was baseball’s most dangerous hitter last year, reaching base in 31% of the plate appearances in which he didn’t walk and averaging .62 bases per at bat. But by bunting the ball past the pitcher in every at bat in which the other team dared him to just take first base, he would have been a substantially more dangerous hitter. And spare me your nonsense about big hits and extra bases...if you ever read Moneyball, you know that the single most important thing a hitter can do is keep the line moving without making an out. The difference between a home run and a walk is huge, but it is not as important in creating runs as simply not making an out. In reality, if David Ortiz bunted once a month, the opposing teams would stop using the shift, which allows him to go back to being his normal self in his other 620 plate appearances. And if they don’t? He will just have to settle for being the greatest hitter in history without really putting in a whole lot of effort. After that, we can work on pitchers that can swap out with position players for one or two batters at a time, then go back to the mound without leaving the game.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
MisfitsJust a gaggle of people from all over who have similar interests and loud opinions mixed with a dose of humor. We met on Twitter. Archives
January 2024
|