I've been watching the Olympics lately and I was struck by an ad they've shown throughout. The commercial features Nordic Combined athlete Bill Demong and his playlists for his workouts, preferring hip hop for the gym, classical for cross country skiing and "something special" for ski jumps.
I can't comment on the effectiveness of Jimi Hendrix on ski jump performances, but you can't listen to hip hop in the gym. Hip hop music is for a night out, it's for loosening up your mood at a party, get's you in the right frame of mind when you see that special lady.
And classic music is too soothing for a workout. You might fall asleep and drop a set of weights across your throat.
Working out is about misery, pain, despair, agony and the survival thereof. The best way to get through your workout, therefore, is the music of despair, torment and suffering: heavy metal. OK, but you probably don't listen to heavy metal on a regular basis. After all, you're a reasonable, sane, well-adjusted human being. No worries. There are those of us equipped to assist people like you. The next time you hit the gym, go for a run, jump on your bike or tackle exercise of some sort, arm yourself with these songs and you'll power through much more easily than you might have.
The "ground rules" The chosen songs were selected for their tone, pace and rhythm along with their ability to supply occasional motivational lyrics. I also stayed away from obvious choices like "Welcome to the Jungle" by Guns N' Roses or "Bodies" by Drowning Pool. Lastly, I tried to keep the swearing to a minimum--which eliminated several great choices right off the bat. With that, the list:
Alive and Kicking, Nonpoint
Fittingly of the album, To The Pain, "Alive and Kicking" has some nice grooves and riffs but it will keep you motoring with lyrics, particularly chorus parts like, "I'm stronger now even after everything that you did/ I'm still alive and kicking/ I'm better now, I'm awake now, I can see/ everything in front of me..." Verses are stocked with helpful lines, too, like: "I'm tearing this and everything else between me and what I want to do to pieces..."
New World Order, Ministry
Children of the '90s will recognize this as one of the seminal tracks of the sub-genre Industrial. The hard, repetitive chords are perfect for a stint on the treadmill. The song's grinding guitar riff seems to line up perfectly with each foot strike on the treadmill. It also sets the perfect pace for squats, a scraping "daa daaaaah" is just the right amount of time to dip down and back up again.
The Last Fight, Bullet for My Valentine
Different songs are better for different phases of each workout. "The Last Fight" is up tempo and energetic, perfectly suited for those final 10 minutes when you're trying to convince yourself to stop and you're generally hating your workout. Just when you feel ready to collapse, the boys from Wales chime in with, "I will fight, one more fight/ don't break down in front of me/ I will fight, will you fight/ I am not the enemy..."
Heatseeker, AC/DC
This song is much better to play at the start of your workout. It feeds off high energy levels and sets the tone with the opening line, "Get ready to rock, get ready to roll/ I'm gonna turn on the heat, gonna fire up the coals..." The drum beat keeps a nice tempo for cardio machines, dance classes, kick boxing or just plain old calisthenics. "I don't need no life preserver, don't need no one to hose me down."
Over the Mountain, Ozzy Osbourne
There are plenty of great Ozzy tracks for a workout, but this one is perfect in a lot of ways. It has a not-too-fast, not-to-slow tempo for when you're settling into a nice rhythm mid-workout. It's perfect for something like step aerobic, jumping rope or something where you want to go a while and keep a good rhythm. Plus, lines like, "Don't need no apology/ it's inside of you and me/ you don't need a ticket to ride with me, I'm free," are just trippy enough to help you find your Zen.
Broken, Beat & Scarred, Metallica
If Stuart Smalley (of Positive Affirmations fame) wrote metal songs, he would have written this one. Despite the title, this song is about rising above difficulty and turmoil--such as a tough workout. This song has a moderate pace and tempo which is great for mid or late workout. What it's best for is helping you through those "I can't do this" moments in every workout. "Your rise, you fall, you're down and you rise again/ what don't kill you make you more strong..." OK, it'll make grammarians cringe for sure, but when Metallica are singing throughout, "Show...Your..Scars..." and saying, "breaking your life, broken, beat and scarred...but we die hard..." It'll carry you through your toughest moments.
Southtown, P.O.D.
This track is nice to start off with. The opening line "welcome to hard times, back again/ like it's never been the first time..." let you know the misery you're about to endure. However, I find this song much better mid-workout. There's pain, sweat, who knows, probably even some tears and perhaps you've even wet yourself a little. It happens. When your workout is weighing heavy on your head, you need a song to pull you out...but sometimes you need a song to commiserate with. When you hear, "Life isn't got to be like this/ life isn't got to be like this..." in the middle of this song, you'll take heart in knowing someone understands your state of being.
Push It, Static X
There are lots of Static X songs that fit into a workout playlist well, but this one is the best for obvious reasons. Getting through a workout is about pushing through, challenging yourself to go a little farther and dig a little deeper. The grinding beat in this song will drown out any voice in your head telling you to do anything but push it. Whatever the hardest thing in your workout is, it's no match for this song.
Back for More, Five Finger Death Punch
If you can only tolerate one metal song in your workout, make this the one. The riffy, up-tempo pace is great for any activity but the lyrics are what will really push you through anything. In a workout, sports contest or life in general, you won't win all the time. There are good days and bad ones. This song makes you want to fight. If you've had ten straight losses, a dozen bad days or just a string of really bad workouts, this song will put you back on track. It's a three and a half minute halftime speech that will compel you to a championship. "Ain't no room for second place/ go big or go home," is only the start. FFDP hits you again and again with sections like, "It's time to rise up, man up, get back up/ never been and won't be broken/ dust off and then come back for more/ you've got to reach down, dig deep, break ground/ show then all you won't be beaten..." If that doesn't pick you up from a bad day at the gym, nothing will.
Now dust off those shoes and get to that gym and show everyone what you're made of.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Top Ten Players in Baseball
With all of the recent talk about Mount Rushmore and the best players in certain sports, I thought, in anticipation of spring training starting, I'd pull together a top list of my own. Here's my list of the top ten players in Major League Baseball:
First, a few ground rules: I chose one player for each regular position and one left-handed starting pitcher and one right-handed starter. Note there is no room for a DH on this list because the DH is a creation of the anti-Christ and therefore of no use to me. My criteria, by the way, is that the players had to be good in both halves of the inning, not just good offensive players. With that, let the venomous debate begin...
LHP: Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers
A disclaimer: I'm a San Francisco Giants fan, so to make this acknowledgement pains me severely. As a Giants fan, I want very badly to put Madison Bumgarner's name here, but I just can't. The two pitchers, oddly enough, are very similar in terms of production--high innings, strikeouts, good ERA, WHIP... The difference for me is that the Dodgers just don't often lose when Kershaw pitches. The Giants shouldn't lose when Bumgarner pitches, but the Dodgers simply win when Kershaw's on the mound. Now excuse me while I make a sacrifice on the alter of John McGraw, lest I be visited by 1,000 ghosts of Giants past...Moonlight Graham, anyone?
RHP: Max Scherzer, Detroit Tigers
This is kind of a no-lose proposition. I could have easily justified guys like Adam Wainwright and Yu Darvish, but there's something about Scherzer I really like. Oh yeah, I remember, the sheer dominance. Scherzer is good and I think he'll only get better from here. Wainwright chews up a ton of innings, which I like, but Scherzer's overall productivity to innings pitched is pretty phenomenal. Darvish is also really good, but the Rangers lost eight games in a span of 11 straight starts by Darvish. Not all of that is his fault, certainly, but it's still a concern. Plus, history hasn't been kind to Japanese starters as their careers progress. I'd expect Scherzer to pitch better for the next few seasons. I'm not sure with Darvish.
Catcher: Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants
My head tells me to pick Yadier Molina, but I have to live around here and show my face at AT&T Park on occasion, so I chose Posey. Both are phenomenal and when the Cardinals and Giants play, it's one of the few times media will focus on the catcher match up rather than the pitching match ups. The potential for improvement also factored into the decision. I think Posey has a little room to improve his game. I couldn't imagine Molina getting much better than he is right now. Fans in NL Central territory had better hope he doesn't.
First Base: Paul Goldschmidt, Arizona Diamondbacks
The winning factor really has me leaning toward players like Freddie Freeman, Joey Votto and Allen Craig, but Goldschmidt personifies exactly what this list is about. He's a very productive hitter but, unexpectedly so for a player with his size, he's a really solid fielder, soft hands, nice footwork. I hate that Goldschmidt plays in the NL West against my team, but Goldschmidt scored major points for potential. He's already really good but I have a feeling a light bulb is about to go off and he's going to become downright destructive.
Second Base: Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox
Dustin Pedroia is from a town near where I live called Woodland. While this might be a shameless attempt to cozy up to my neighbors, the truth is I think all other second basemen are a step below Pedroia at this point. He reminds me a lot of Craig Biggio in that he plays second base with the mentality of a catcher. Pedroia is not only rock-solid all around, playing the game as hard as you can gets you a lot of love from me. I'm not really a fan of the Red Sox, so I sort of don't want to like him, but Pedroia makes it really hard not to appreciate his game.
Shortstop: Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies
OK, I know I'm choosing a lot of NL West guys, but that's a coincidence so far, I promise. If this was a one-dimensional decision, I might have someone else here, but Tulowitzki is the best all around for me. First, a guy his size has no business playing shortstop, but because of that, his offensive numbers for his position leave everyone else behind. Often, when a too-big-for-the-position guy with great offense is around, he's not a great defensive player. Tulowitzki is, however. He's got good range for a guy his size and a superior throwing arm. If Derek Jeter was healthier, I'd give him a look, but for now, I still with the big guy.
Third Base: Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers
I broke my own rule on this one. Cabrera is a good defensive player, but there are certainly others much better with the glove than him. But I give back all of the defensive losses for what he brings with the bat. He's the best all-around hitter in baseball right now and that's worth an occasional error or two. I thought about going with David Wright, who is the best all-around guy in my estimation. Wright also gets less credit than he deserves--oddly enough, playing in New York...plus, you know, the Mets...they need some love, too. Evan Longoria popped into my head as well, but I always think about Tony Parker for some reason when I think about Longoria...
Left Field: Alex Gordon, Kansas City Royals
Every list needs a name that makes people thing, 'da hell is this guy drinking?' This is mine. I'd like Gordon's average to be a little higher and for him to cut down on the strikeouts. Other than that, he has good power and run-producing numbers. Gordon has great range and is a solid defensive player. The biggest point with Gordon for me, however, is the Royals win when he plays and they don't when he doesn't. Hockey has a plus/minus rating to describe players like Gordon. For a team on the rise like Kansas City, the more Gordons they have in the line up, the better off they are.
Center Field: Mike Trout, Angels
I don't know where the heck the Angels play anymore-California, LA, Anaheim, Disneyland...so my apologies for the abbreviated team name, but Mike Trout is my choice either way. This is another can't-lose category. I could have chosen Andrew McCutchen, Jacoby Ellsbury, Adam Jones or several others and had no problems justifying it. Coco Crisp, for instance, is very good for the A's and he wasn't even on my radar, that's how good the center field position is. Trout can hit, I'm certain, in any one of the top five spots and excel. He's a classic five-tool player and exactly what any team wants their center fielder to be. Also, my hope is there's a Subway commercial in this for me at some point.
Right Field: Jay Bruce, Cincinnati Reds
Bruce is another off-the-board choice like Gordon and is similar to Gordon in some ways. I wish his average was a bit higher, but Bruce has great power and run-producing numbers and, for a guy with his build, he also has pretty good range and a great assist ability from the outfield. I'm probably going to get beaten up in San Francisco now because I didn't say Hunter Pence, but those people will have to wait in line behind fans of Michael Cuddyer, Jayson Werth and Carlos Beltran. I really wanted to go with Cuddyer because he's got that Pedroia grinder quality about him, but we've already had the too-many-NL-West guys discussion, so...
First, a few ground rules: I chose one player for each regular position and one left-handed starting pitcher and one right-handed starter. Note there is no room for a DH on this list because the DH is a creation of the anti-Christ and therefore of no use to me. My criteria, by the way, is that the players had to be good in both halves of the inning, not just good offensive players. With that, let the venomous debate begin...
LHP: Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers
A disclaimer: I'm a San Francisco Giants fan, so to make this acknowledgement pains me severely. As a Giants fan, I want very badly to put Madison Bumgarner's name here, but I just can't. The two pitchers, oddly enough, are very similar in terms of production--high innings, strikeouts, good ERA, WHIP... The difference for me is that the Dodgers just don't often lose when Kershaw pitches. The Giants shouldn't lose when Bumgarner pitches, but the Dodgers simply win when Kershaw's on the mound. Now excuse me while I make a sacrifice on the alter of John McGraw, lest I be visited by 1,000 ghosts of Giants past...Moonlight Graham, anyone?
RHP: Max Scherzer, Detroit Tigers
This is kind of a no-lose proposition. I could have easily justified guys like Adam Wainwright and Yu Darvish, but there's something about Scherzer I really like. Oh yeah, I remember, the sheer dominance. Scherzer is good and I think he'll only get better from here. Wainwright chews up a ton of innings, which I like, but Scherzer's overall productivity to innings pitched is pretty phenomenal. Darvish is also really good, but the Rangers lost eight games in a span of 11 straight starts by Darvish. Not all of that is his fault, certainly, but it's still a concern. Plus, history hasn't been kind to Japanese starters as their careers progress. I'd expect Scherzer to pitch better for the next few seasons. I'm not sure with Darvish.
Catcher: Buster Posey, San Francisco Giants
My head tells me to pick Yadier Molina, but I have to live around here and show my face at AT&T Park on occasion, so I chose Posey. Both are phenomenal and when the Cardinals and Giants play, it's one of the few times media will focus on the catcher match up rather than the pitching match ups. The potential for improvement also factored into the decision. I think Posey has a little room to improve his game. I couldn't imagine Molina getting much better than he is right now. Fans in NL Central territory had better hope he doesn't.
First Base: Paul Goldschmidt, Arizona Diamondbacks
The winning factor really has me leaning toward players like Freddie Freeman, Joey Votto and Allen Craig, but Goldschmidt personifies exactly what this list is about. He's a very productive hitter but, unexpectedly so for a player with his size, he's a really solid fielder, soft hands, nice footwork. I hate that Goldschmidt plays in the NL West against my team, but Goldschmidt scored major points for potential. He's already really good but I have a feeling a light bulb is about to go off and he's going to become downright destructive.
Second Base: Dustin Pedroia, Boston Red Sox
Dustin Pedroia is from a town near where I live called Woodland. While this might be a shameless attempt to cozy up to my neighbors, the truth is I think all other second basemen are a step below Pedroia at this point. He reminds me a lot of Craig Biggio in that he plays second base with the mentality of a catcher. Pedroia is not only rock-solid all around, playing the game as hard as you can gets you a lot of love from me. I'm not really a fan of the Red Sox, so I sort of don't want to like him, but Pedroia makes it really hard not to appreciate his game.
Shortstop: Troy Tulowitzki, Colorado Rockies
OK, I know I'm choosing a lot of NL West guys, but that's a coincidence so far, I promise. If this was a one-dimensional decision, I might have someone else here, but Tulowitzki is the best all around for me. First, a guy his size has no business playing shortstop, but because of that, his offensive numbers for his position leave everyone else behind. Often, when a too-big-for-the-position guy with great offense is around, he's not a great defensive player. Tulowitzki is, however. He's got good range for a guy his size and a superior throwing arm. If Derek Jeter was healthier, I'd give him a look, but for now, I still with the big guy.
Third Base: Miguel Cabrera, Detroit Tigers
I broke my own rule on this one. Cabrera is a good defensive player, but there are certainly others much better with the glove than him. But I give back all of the defensive losses for what he brings with the bat. He's the best all-around hitter in baseball right now and that's worth an occasional error or two. I thought about going with David Wright, who is the best all-around guy in my estimation. Wright also gets less credit than he deserves--oddly enough, playing in New York...plus, you know, the Mets...they need some love, too. Evan Longoria popped into my head as well, but I always think about Tony Parker for some reason when I think about Longoria...
Left Field: Alex Gordon, Kansas City Royals
Every list needs a name that makes people thing, 'da hell is this guy drinking?' This is mine. I'd like Gordon's average to be a little higher and for him to cut down on the strikeouts. Other than that, he has good power and run-producing numbers. Gordon has great range and is a solid defensive player. The biggest point with Gordon for me, however, is the Royals win when he plays and they don't when he doesn't. Hockey has a plus/minus rating to describe players like Gordon. For a team on the rise like Kansas City, the more Gordons they have in the line up, the better off they are.
Center Field: Mike Trout, Angels
I don't know where the heck the Angels play anymore-California, LA, Anaheim, Disneyland...so my apologies for the abbreviated team name, but Mike Trout is my choice either way. This is another can't-lose category. I could have chosen Andrew McCutchen, Jacoby Ellsbury, Adam Jones or several others and had no problems justifying it. Coco Crisp, for instance, is very good for the A's and he wasn't even on my radar, that's how good the center field position is. Trout can hit, I'm certain, in any one of the top five spots and excel. He's a classic five-tool player and exactly what any team wants their center fielder to be. Also, my hope is there's a Subway commercial in this for me at some point.
Right Field: Jay Bruce, Cincinnati Reds
Bruce is another off-the-board choice like Gordon and is similar to Gordon in some ways. I wish his average was a bit higher, but Bruce has great power and run-producing numbers and, for a guy with his build, he also has pretty good range and a great assist ability from the outfield. I'm probably going to get beaten up in San Francisco now because I didn't say Hunter Pence, but those people will have to wait in line behind fans of Michael Cuddyer, Jayson Werth and Carlos Beltran. I really wanted to go with Cuddyer because he's got that Pedroia grinder quality about him, but we've already had the too-many-NL-West guys discussion, so...
Friday, February 14, 2014
Open Letter
This is an open letter to our President:
Mr. President-
Like the 43 people who have held your office before you, you are, I'm certain, busy from day-to-day. I certainly wouldn't want your schedule, nor would I care to have your job. There are a great many difficulties you or any American President faces in that job.
First, there is the pragmatic challenge of how to address any number of issues facing our country. In a vacuum, fixing things like education, health care, security concerns and employment is a difficult enough task. I mean, you can think of an idea that might work but implementing the plan is the only way to find out for sure. It's my understanding you've met with some resistance in Washington when it comes to plan implementation.
And that's point number two. In a controlled, lab environment, being the President is a hard job. Add politics to the mix as a constant variable and the whole science experiment of being the President goes from an introductory to upper division course.
Finally, there is the whole notion that, clearing both of these hurdles, there still isn't clear sailing. Even if you craft an effective plan to solve a problem and get bi-partisan support (along with Vatican validation of the miracle you just pulled off) there's still the problem of effectiveness. The great plan, whatever it is, probably won't work well for everyone. A jobs plan that helps factory workers, for instance, might not help much for tech workers.
Such is the trouble with your job, which is why I wouldn't want to have your job. Sitting here, like so many other Americans, I would, however like to have some job.
I know you and your Washington counterparts talk about jobs a lot. And with good reason. Ours is a consumer-driven economy. When people buy TVs and cars, go on vacation, get apples from the store, pump a little gas and buy a box of Girl Scout cookies...OK, two boxes...alright, alright, 20 boxes...damn you Thin Mints!! At any rate, when we buy stuff, someone somewhere needs to make new stuff to replace what we bought. Someone has to stock it, ship it, store it and sell it.
While there is a lament related to consumerism, the truth is when we buy stuff, everyone benefits. Henry Ford knew this as well as anyone.
And that's the problem with unemployment. When people don't work, they have no means to buy. Not only that, they use set-aside tax revenue for social support programs while simultaneously being unable to replenish those programs with income and sales tax generation. In short, it's a burden for government programs and businesses to have large groups of people unemployed.
I know you understand that and I'm certain you'd change the situation had you a magic wand. My personal struggles have been, in comparison to many others, minor. One man I've heard about was recently hired for a job, ending a four-year stint of being jobless. And he's not alone. There are thousands of unemployed people who have been so for a year or more.
I know employment issues are complex and full of political static for people like you. You and other Presidents before you have formulated plans to retrain workers, develop public works projects to put masses of people to work and encourage business development and expansion within our borders.
These various plans are usually effective to some degree or another--at least enough to pour a bit more revenue and consumer spending into the economy to the extent that businesses sell more goods, need to expand and thus hire more workers.
But I seem to have uncovered an area of need that Presidents often overlook. Don't feel badly. I was unaware of this circumstance myself until I was in the middle of it. There are plenty of open and available jobs. Believe me. I search every day. There are jobs by the tens of thousands listed all over the country all the time.
Certainly some people are being hired but not nearly as many as could be. And that's the nature of the problem. Some of the jobs being listed are being listed in perpetuity. One job, for instance, at a nearby college was listed in August of last year. Here, in February of the following year, the job has yet to be filled. There are dozens of additional jobs like that which are posted repeatedly, week after week, month after month and they never get filled. Perhaps there isn't a big enough pool of applicants. But shouldn't these companies hire someone if they had just one qualified applicant? What baseball team, for example, would continue looking for a catcher if the only one who applied was Buster Posey? Voters still elected office seekers running unopposed. Why isn't one qualified person enough? If these teams had 50 crummy catchers lined up and one Buster Posey, would they choose someone else? What difference does it then make if those others are there or not? Some people I know in my same position, of being an experienced, highly trained, highly educated professional, find themselves all too frequently in place of Buster Posey, being passed over, one could only imagine, because the company is looking for more choices.
So along with plans to fix our awful infrastructure and retrain and re-educate displaced workers, perhaps you could add this issue to an already full plate of problems to deal with related to employment. If more companies would simply choose any of the qualified people applying for work rather than hold out for whatever reasons, leaving these positions in employment limbo, the need for you or anyone else in Washington to address jobs would diminish greatly, I'm certain.
I appreciate the time, Mr. President. I'll let you get back to work. I understand a pretty serious snow storm has swept across your neighborhood and the White House walkway isn't going to shovel itself. Being from Hawaii, I doubt you have much experience with shoveling snow, though. Maybe that's a solution: hire people like me to shovel out the South and Mid-Atlantic states. If I bring some of that snow back to California with me, you'll be able to help with three areas of need all at once--get people back east back on the road and back to school, get loads of people back to work and solve the California drought.
Hey, this problem-solving thing is pretty easy. Maybe I'll try to get your job after all.
Mr. President-
Like the 43 people who have held your office before you, you are, I'm certain, busy from day-to-day. I certainly wouldn't want your schedule, nor would I care to have your job. There are a great many difficulties you or any American President faces in that job.
First, there is the pragmatic challenge of how to address any number of issues facing our country. In a vacuum, fixing things like education, health care, security concerns and employment is a difficult enough task. I mean, you can think of an idea that might work but implementing the plan is the only way to find out for sure. It's my understanding you've met with some resistance in Washington when it comes to plan implementation.
And that's point number two. In a controlled, lab environment, being the President is a hard job. Add politics to the mix as a constant variable and the whole science experiment of being the President goes from an introductory to upper division course.
Finally, there is the whole notion that, clearing both of these hurdles, there still isn't clear sailing. Even if you craft an effective plan to solve a problem and get bi-partisan support (along with Vatican validation of the miracle you just pulled off) there's still the problem of effectiveness. The great plan, whatever it is, probably won't work well for everyone. A jobs plan that helps factory workers, for instance, might not help much for tech workers.
Such is the trouble with your job, which is why I wouldn't want to have your job. Sitting here, like so many other Americans, I would, however like to have some job.
I know you and your Washington counterparts talk about jobs a lot. And with good reason. Ours is a consumer-driven economy. When people buy TVs and cars, go on vacation, get apples from the store, pump a little gas and buy a box of Girl Scout cookies...OK, two boxes...alright, alright, 20 boxes...damn you Thin Mints!! At any rate, when we buy stuff, someone somewhere needs to make new stuff to replace what we bought. Someone has to stock it, ship it, store it and sell it.
While there is a lament related to consumerism, the truth is when we buy stuff, everyone benefits. Henry Ford knew this as well as anyone.
And that's the problem with unemployment. When people don't work, they have no means to buy. Not only that, they use set-aside tax revenue for social support programs while simultaneously being unable to replenish those programs with income and sales tax generation. In short, it's a burden for government programs and businesses to have large groups of people unemployed.
I know you understand that and I'm certain you'd change the situation had you a magic wand. My personal struggles have been, in comparison to many others, minor. One man I've heard about was recently hired for a job, ending a four-year stint of being jobless. And he's not alone. There are thousands of unemployed people who have been so for a year or more.
I know employment issues are complex and full of political static for people like you. You and other Presidents before you have formulated plans to retrain workers, develop public works projects to put masses of people to work and encourage business development and expansion within our borders.
These various plans are usually effective to some degree or another--at least enough to pour a bit more revenue and consumer spending into the economy to the extent that businesses sell more goods, need to expand and thus hire more workers.
But I seem to have uncovered an area of need that Presidents often overlook. Don't feel badly. I was unaware of this circumstance myself until I was in the middle of it. There are plenty of open and available jobs. Believe me. I search every day. There are jobs by the tens of thousands listed all over the country all the time.
Certainly some people are being hired but not nearly as many as could be. And that's the nature of the problem. Some of the jobs being listed are being listed in perpetuity. One job, for instance, at a nearby college was listed in August of last year. Here, in February of the following year, the job has yet to be filled. There are dozens of additional jobs like that which are posted repeatedly, week after week, month after month and they never get filled. Perhaps there isn't a big enough pool of applicants. But shouldn't these companies hire someone if they had just one qualified applicant? What baseball team, for example, would continue looking for a catcher if the only one who applied was Buster Posey? Voters still elected office seekers running unopposed. Why isn't one qualified person enough? If these teams had 50 crummy catchers lined up and one Buster Posey, would they choose someone else? What difference does it then make if those others are there or not? Some people I know in my same position, of being an experienced, highly trained, highly educated professional, find themselves all too frequently in place of Buster Posey, being passed over, one could only imagine, because the company is looking for more choices.
So along with plans to fix our awful infrastructure and retrain and re-educate displaced workers, perhaps you could add this issue to an already full plate of problems to deal with related to employment. If more companies would simply choose any of the qualified people applying for work rather than hold out for whatever reasons, leaving these positions in employment limbo, the need for you or anyone else in Washington to address jobs would diminish greatly, I'm certain.
I appreciate the time, Mr. President. I'll let you get back to work. I understand a pretty serious snow storm has swept across your neighborhood and the White House walkway isn't going to shovel itself. Being from Hawaii, I doubt you have much experience with shoveling snow, though. Maybe that's a solution: hire people like me to shovel out the South and Mid-Atlantic states. If I bring some of that snow back to California with me, you'll be able to help with three areas of need all at once--get people back east back on the road and back to school, get loads of people back to work and solve the California drought.
Hey, this problem-solving thing is pretty easy. Maybe I'll try to get your job after all.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Tan their hide
One of my favorite scenes from #The Simpson is during a book fair. Lisa, inspired by literary hero #Amy Tan, stands to give her assessment of the novel, #Joy Luck Club. Though Lisa's interpretation (speaking now as someone with a degree in English) is pretty accurate, Tan, a panelist at the book fair, places her hands over her eyes, shakes her head adamantly, saying, "No, that's not it at all...sit down, I'm embarrassed for both of us..."
I've felt the same way reading some recent stories from the #Olympics. Of course, I could be talking about yellow death water or athletes getting trapped in bathrooms and/or elevators, but as a sports writer, I'm talking about the actual sports writing itself.
In the news industry, particularly the print industry, newspapers have closed down left and right across this country. More and more younger news consumers, the lament is, prefer the news online. Fair enough. We can't all use stone tools forever.
But whether the story is in print, online or sent via mental telepathy (#Aquaman would be proud), the story still has to be well crafted and properly presented. If not, not only will newspapers close up shop over time, the news as a concept will do likewise.
Case in point number one: I read a recent story from a well-respected sports writer from a large, metropolitan daily. The story, following a women's curling match between Russia and the USA, was about how much attention has been paid to the Russian team for their attractiveness. And undoubtedly, the Russian team is pretty hot (Google it and see for yourself...) But within the story, the writer suggested they aren't simply sexy but good at curling, as well. Go figure, Olympic athletes good at their sport... The Russians, as a matter of fact, beat the Americans, 9-7.
Curling consists of 10 periods of play, like frames in bowling, with teams taking turns pushing stones down the ice. Ends, as they're called in curling, often end with one team scoring a point or two. On a rare occasion, a team will score three or more and it's not unlikely that teams will not score at all. As such, a 9-7 win in curling is not unlike a 9-7 game in baseball. Pretty good game for both sides, one team edging the other in the long run.
But according to the story, the Russians, "systematically dismantled the Americans..." Umm...what? First of all, the Americans were leading for a portion of that match and the Russians weren't playing especially well. That isn't "systematic" by any stretch. Systematic is when the game is in your control the entire time and you were never at risk of losing. Further, dismantling is losing 9-0 or 11-0 or 14-1. A 9-7 final isn't being dismantled, even in soccer or golf. We won by a field goal! Woo hoo! We kicked their ass! Except, a field goal is actually more points than the difference in a 9-7 match.
Case in point number two comes from the AP... the A friggin' P! The #Associated Press is perhaps the most respected news outlet on Earth and in some parts of Venus and Mars. The criteria for becoming an #AP writer, however, has dropped off precipitously, it would seem.
When the stunning news emerged that American snowboarder Shaun White failed to medal, the AP was right on top of the story. They reported the stunning news of his fourth-place finish and the disappointment therein. Umm, here's something they didn't mention: the name of the gold medalist. Although they mentioned White losing to "IPod" in their headline, they never once mentioned Swiss boarder Iouri Podladtchikov. The two Japanese medallists, finishing second and third, had no chance of mention, of course.
Certainly White's shortfall is the bigger news element but surely it might be interesting for one or two people to know the name of the guy who actually won instead of White. But the AP is now hiring 13-year old #One Direction fans to cover boarding at the Olympics. The AP story:
Oh my God, you guys, so like, Shaun White finished fourth...I was totally like, you don't even know, seriously. Like, when his name said fourth place next to it, I was all like, OMG, this isn't happening. Seriously. I'm like, freaking out right now.
And now, for an update, we take you to "rolling over in his grave" correspondent Edward R Murrow...
I've felt the same way reading some recent stories from the #Olympics. Of course, I could be talking about yellow death water or athletes getting trapped in bathrooms and/or elevators, but as a sports writer, I'm talking about the actual sports writing itself.
In the news industry, particularly the print industry, newspapers have closed down left and right across this country. More and more younger news consumers, the lament is, prefer the news online. Fair enough. We can't all use stone tools forever.
But whether the story is in print, online or sent via mental telepathy (#Aquaman would be proud), the story still has to be well crafted and properly presented. If not, not only will newspapers close up shop over time, the news as a concept will do likewise.
Case in point number one: I read a recent story from a well-respected sports writer from a large, metropolitan daily. The story, following a women's curling match between Russia and the USA, was about how much attention has been paid to the Russian team for their attractiveness. And undoubtedly, the Russian team is pretty hot (Google it and see for yourself...) But within the story, the writer suggested they aren't simply sexy but good at curling, as well. Go figure, Olympic athletes good at their sport... The Russians, as a matter of fact, beat the Americans, 9-7.
Curling consists of 10 periods of play, like frames in bowling, with teams taking turns pushing stones down the ice. Ends, as they're called in curling, often end with one team scoring a point or two. On a rare occasion, a team will score three or more and it's not unlikely that teams will not score at all. As such, a 9-7 win in curling is not unlike a 9-7 game in baseball. Pretty good game for both sides, one team edging the other in the long run.
But according to the story, the Russians, "systematically dismantled the Americans..." Umm...what? First of all, the Americans were leading for a portion of that match and the Russians weren't playing especially well. That isn't "systematic" by any stretch. Systematic is when the game is in your control the entire time and you were never at risk of losing. Further, dismantling is losing 9-0 or 11-0 or 14-1. A 9-7 final isn't being dismantled, even in soccer or golf. We won by a field goal! Woo hoo! We kicked their ass! Except, a field goal is actually more points than the difference in a 9-7 match.
Case in point number two comes from the AP... the A friggin' P! The #Associated Press is perhaps the most respected news outlet on Earth and in some parts of Venus and Mars. The criteria for becoming an #AP writer, however, has dropped off precipitously, it would seem.
When the stunning news emerged that American snowboarder Shaun White failed to medal, the AP was right on top of the story. They reported the stunning news of his fourth-place finish and the disappointment therein. Umm, here's something they didn't mention: the name of the gold medalist. Although they mentioned White losing to "IPod" in their headline, they never once mentioned Swiss boarder Iouri Podladtchikov. The two Japanese medallists, finishing second and third, had no chance of mention, of course.
Certainly White's shortfall is the bigger news element but surely it might be interesting for one or two people to know the name of the guy who actually won instead of White. But the AP is now hiring 13-year old #One Direction fans to cover boarding at the Olympics. The AP story:
Oh my God, you guys, so like, Shaun White finished fourth...I was totally like, you don't even know, seriously. Like, when his name said fourth place next to it, I was all like, OMG, this isn't happening. Seriously. I'm like, freaking out right now.
And now, for an update, we take you to "rolling over in his grave" correspondent Edward R Murrow...
The Kareem of the Crop
There was an interesting interview recently with #LeBron James. He was asked who he would put on the "Mount Rushmore" of NBA basketball. James answered that he thought he would belong up there by the end of his career, but for now his top four included #Magic Johnson, #Larry Bird and #Michael Jordan along with #Oscar Robertson.
The Big O would abdicate for James, of course.
Few could can argue, effectively anyway, against the other three. Magic, Bird and Jordan built the NBA into what it is now. The reason the league can have players like Dirk Nowitzki and Tony Parker is because that holy trinity inspired an entire globe of would-be ballers to reach for their dreams.
Take nothing away from anyone else who came before these three, but the whole reason old timers can complain about how much money players make these days is because Bird, Magic and Jordan made fans of the game understand fully what a gifted player could do for his team. And not just their respective teams either. To compete, teams like the #Warriors, #Pistons, #Rockets and others were forced to improve dramatically. As they did, more fans had more fun at more games.
But what about that last spot? Robertson is certainly a good choice. Other NBA analysts have suggested players like Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell. Good choices still. Nobody, in these moments of "best ever" comparisons, ever seems to mention #Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Weird.
The point of basketball is to score more points than your opponent. Nobody did that more effectively than Kareem. He is the all-time scoring leader in NBA history-and it seems unlikely anyone will catch him.
#Kobe Bryant will have to have three consecutive MVP caliber seasons to come close. The dropoff after Kobe is massive. #LeBron will need to average 28 points a game every year for the next seven years...which will be tough since he's currently averaging a touch over 26 PPG and Kareem has the all-time highest PPG in league history at 29.
And it extends beyond points. Kareem set that lofty point tally despite leading the league is scoring just twice. He's a three-time NCAA champion, a six-time NBA champion, a six-time NBA MVP, a two-time NBA Finals MVP and a 19-time NBA all star. To my recollection, he's also the only NBA player to ever appear in a Bruce Lee movie, which, let's face it, is the coolest of any of these accomplishments. And never mind his performance in Airplane!
And maybe my opinion will change by the time LeBron's playing days are over, but for now, I just think Kareem gets overlooked far too often in times like these...which is odd for a guy 7' 2".
The Big O would abdicate for James, of course.
Few could can argue, effectively anyway, against the other three. Magic, Bird and Jordan built the NBA into what it is now. The reason the league can have players like Dirk Nowitzki and Tony Parker is because that holy trinity inspired an entire globe of would-be ballers to reach for their dreams.
Take nothing away from anyone else who came before these three, but the whole reason old timers can complain about how much money players make these days is because Bird, Magic and Jordan made fans of the game understand fully what a gifted player could do for his team. And not just their respective teams either. To compete, teams like the #Warriors, #Pistons, #Rockets and others were forced to improve dramatically. As they did, more fans had more fun at more games.
But what about that last spot? Robertson is certainly a good choice. Other NBA analysts have suggested players like Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell. Good choices still. Nobody, in these moments of "best ever" comparisons, ever seems to mention #Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Weird.
The point of basketball is to score more points than your opponent. Nobody did that more effectively than Kareem. He is the all-time scoring leader in NBA history-and it seems unlikely anyone will catch him.
#Kobe Bryant will have to have three consecutive MVP caliber seasons to come close. The dropoff after Kobe is massive. #LeBron will need to average 28 points a game every year for the next seven years...which will be tough since he's currently averaging a touch over 26 PPG and Kareem has the all-time highest PPG in league history at 29.
And it extends beyond points. Kareem set that lofty point tally despite leading the league is scoring just twice. He's a three-time NCAA champion, a six-time NBA champion, a six-time NBA MVP, a two-time NBA Finals MVP and a 19-time NBA all star. To my recollection, he's also the only NBA player to ever appear in a Bruce Lee movie, which, let's face it, is the coolest of any of these accomplishments. And never mind his performance in Airplane!
And maybe my opinion will change by the time LeBron's playing days are over, but for now, I just think Kareem gets overlooked far too often in times like these...which is odd for a guy 7' 2".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)