Now-Phillies pitcher Pedro Martinez, once a Cy Young-award winning pitcher for the Red Sox who struck out more than 300 batters twice in his career, took the loss last night, pitching against the Yankees in the World Series.
His line was: 6 innings pitched, 6 hits, 3 earned runs, 2 walks, 8 strikeouts.
Not bad for a 38-year-old who is about 8 years past his prime.
The Phillies lost 3-1 last night in Game 2 of the World Series, evening the series, 1to 1. It would have been sweet to see Pedro lead his team to a 2-0 series lead, but the Yankees had a bit too much power. The Phillies, meanwhile, could not hit AJ Burnett.
But Pedro still pitched really well. He gave up two home runs, but he had good command of his pitches, striking out 8 while walking 2.
One thing that's changed about Pedro over the years is his velocity. Last night, he topped out at 89 mph, from what I saw. In his heyday, Pedro routinely hit 93-95 mph. The speed decrease is a big difference because it affects his offspeed pitches. Pedro's changeups used to be 85 mph. Now, they're about 75 mph. Even Derek Jeter, who NEVER pulls the ball, last night smacked a double to left field. He was way out in front of the pitch, which is rare.
Pedro's pitches still have good movement, and because he's such a smart pitcher, he can accumulate strikeouts. He knows what to pitch when.
When he pitched for the Red Sox, he was magical. Dominant. Hitters could not successfully guess what he was throwing. They could not keep up with his fastball. And even if they could hit his fastball, it had such movement that it didn't seem fair. His placement of the ball, on the outside corner of the plate, was unbelievably accurate. For a period of years, he was in the zone. And the Red Sox were the lucky beneficiary of his superior performance.
Watching him last night brought back some memories from his mid-90s form. He fooled a bunch of batters throughout the night. He was in control. It was almost the Pedro of old. He hit the outside corner of the plate, granted at velocity in the uper 80s, regularly.
It was a shame that Pedro had to lose, but it was also a testament to the strength of the Yankees. The Phillies needed to get run support. And it didn't happen. I wonder if Pedro will get another chance this postseason.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Hope for a White-Collar Criminal
After a great hike today at Mt. Tom in Litchfield, we were famished and needed to eat. Since all we had were Twizzlers and kid fruit snacks, we stopped in the village and ate at a very good, very unpretentious little Italian joint, DiFranco's, on West Street.
(I do have to admit that I salivated while passing by the West Street Grill, one of Connecticut's finest and most critically acclaimed restaurants. I've had some of my best meals - although worst service - there.)
So we're set to leave, get the kids packed in the car and I notice a guy who looks familiar. Dressed in a blue Polo sweater, wearing sunglasses, the man had a recognizable profile. I turned to my wife and said, "Look, John Rowland."
He was going into the West Street Grill, for a late lunch.
He looked sharp. Well groomed. Cool as the days when he was governor.
Rowland resigned from office in 2004 in the midst of a corruption investigation and he later served 10 months in federal prison.
He has, however, returned to the public arena. In 2008, he was hired by Waterbury's mayor as the city's economic development coordinator. The position pays him $95,000.
I don't think about criminals much, and white-collar criminals obviously are different than violent criminals. They are more suave and savvy, more connected, and better educated. They're also generally nonviolent.
So it shouldn't have surprised me to see Rowland in Litchfield center, in front of a posh restaurant (while I was at the cheap place down the street!). But to see the man who had been through the ringer, prison time, and an intense media storm, resurface and succeed is pretty remarkable.
I mean, he served his time, and he's allegedly trying to counsel others and speak publicly of his failures in order to help others. There has been a mild uproar about the fact that he's a public employee again, and earning a generous salary, too.
But as much as I wanted to say, "Hey! This isn't right! Rowland's a criminal!", he doesn't deserve that. Although he was definitely shady in the way he conducted business as governor, awarding state contracts to friends, receiving free home improvements, including the infamous hot tub on Bantam Lake, which is in Litchfield, he's human. He seems to have realized and learned from his mistakes.
I would imagine that Rowland will one day rise up through the ranks again, and he at some point will earn more than $95,000. He will one day be bigger than Waterbury's economic development director.
But in the meantime, he seemed pretty content eating lunch on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Litchfield, earning a decent living, and perhaps pondering his next step.
(I do have to admit that I salivated while passing by the West Street Grill, one of Connecticut's finest and most critically acclaimed restaurants. I've had some of my best meals - although worst service - there.)
So we're set to leave, get the kids packed in the car and I notice a guy who looks familiar. Dressed in a blue Polo sweater, wearing sunglasses, the man had a recognizable profile. I turned to my wife and said, "Look, John Rowland."
He was going into the West Street Grill, for a late lunch.
He looked sharp. Well groomed. Cool as the days when he was governor.
Rowland resigned from office in 2004 in the midst of a corruption investigation and he later served 10 months in federal prison.
He has, however, returned to the public arena. In 2008, he was hired by Waterbury's mayor as the city's economic development coordinator. The position pays him $95,000.
I don't think about criminals much, and white-collar criminals obviously are different than violent criminals. They are more suave and savvy, more connected, and better educated. They're also generally nonviolent.
So it shouldn't have surprised me to see Rowland in Litchfield center, in front of a posh restaurant (while I was at the cheap place down the street!). But to see the man who had been through the ringer, prison time, and an intense media storm, resurface and succeed is pretty remarkable.
I mean, he served his time, and he's allegedly trying to counsel others and speak publicly of his failures in order to help others. There has been a mild uproar about the fact that he's a public employee again, and earning a generous salary, too.
But as much as I wanted to say, "Hey! This isn't right! Rowland's a criminal!", he doesn't deserve that. Although he was definitely shady in the way he conducted business as governor, awarding state contracts to friends, receiving free home improvements, including the infamous hot tub on Bantam Lake, which is in Litchfield, he's human. He seems to have realized and learned from his mistakes.
I would imagine that Rowland will one day rise up through the ranks again, and he at some point will earn more than $95,000. He will one day be bigger than Waterbury's economic development director.
But in the meantime, he seemed pretty content eating lunch on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Litchfield, earning a decent living, and perhaps pondering his next step.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Marathon Deaths
Officials claim it was a fluke that three people (a 26-year-old half-marathon runner, and a 36-year-old and 65-year-old) running in yesterday's Detroit Marathon died. All three people, all men, were reportedly experienced runners.
What doesn't seem to be in question is that running a marathon puts the heart in extreme stress and that research shows this can be the equivalent of having a mild heart attack.
Statistically, according to www.livescience.com, somewhere between 1-in-50,000 and 1-in-75,000 people who finish a marathon will die from it. So three deaths at an event with 19,000 registered runners is higher than normal but not considered off the charts.
But the event has spawned questions about how running such a long distance can affect the heart.
Running a marathon can trigger heart attacks because the increased exertion raises a person's heart rate, which boosts the heart's blood demand, according to livescience.com. If there is any blockage to the arteries, they can't accommodate this increase in blood flow, and the heart can't get enough blood, causing a heart attack.
Officials question whether those who die running a marathon may have an underlying heart condition.
The New York Times recently examined the subject of marathon running and its connection to an elevated heart risk. A number of studies showed that after running a marathon, blood markers of heart damage were elevated. In one study, runners who finished a marathon had blood profiles "similar to those in a very mild heart attack.”
It was noted that those who train properly for marathon running are less likely to have a heart problem, although one study contradicted that finding.
The idea, perhaps, is to use common sense.
"In the long run it's more dangerous to be sedentary than it is to be regularly physically active," a University of Minnesota doctor said. "It's people who don’t do anything except walk to the refrigerator who are the ones that are at the most risk [of heart disease]."
If you read message boards and blog posts, "health running" stops at 8 to 10k. After that, it's about "heart" and "ego", according to one blogger.
What doesn't seem to be in question is that running a marathon puts the heart in extreme stress and that research shows this can be the equivalent of having a mild heart attack.
Statistically, according to www.livescience.com, somewhere between 1-in-50,000 and 1-in-75,000 people who finish a marathon will die from it. So three deaths at an event with 19,000 registered runners is higher than normal but not considered off the charts.
But the event has spawned questions about how running such a long distance can affect the heart.
Running a marathon can trigger heart attacks because the increased exertion raises a person's heart rate, which boosts the heart's blood demand, according to livescience.com. If there is any blockage to the arteries, they can't accommodate this increase in blood flow, and the heart can't get enough blood, causing a heart attack.
Officials question whether those who die running a marathon may have an underlying heart condition.
The New York Times recently examined the subject of marathon running and its connection to an elevated heart risk. A number of studies showed that after running a marathon, blood markers of heart damage were elevated. In one study, runners who finished a marathon had blood profiles "similar to those in a very mild heart attack.”
It was noted that those who train properly for marathon running are less likely to have a heart problem, although one study contradicted that finding.
The idea, perhaps, is to use common sense.
"In the long run it's more dangerous to be sedentary than it is to be regularly physically active," a University of Minnesota doctor said. "It's people who don’t do anything except walk to the refrigerator who are the ones that are at the most risk [of heart disease]."
If you read message boards and blog posts, "health running" stops at 8 to 10k. After that, it's about "heart" and "ego", according to one blogger.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
On the need for older actors
Once upon a time, older actors could get a job on television, and they played key roles in notable shows.
I'm thinking back to the 80s and 70s here, but shows such as "Newhart", featuring Bob Newhart, "All in the Family" (featuring Carroll O'Connor), "Sanford and Son", (Redd Foxx), and "St. Elsewhere" (a number of older actors, including Ed Flanders) are a few examples of shows that included actors older than 50, or in some cases, 60. "Coach" on "Cheers" was a senior citizen, the landlords on "Three's Company" (Mr. Roper and Furley) were both old men.
Even older women actresses were once almost en vogue. Consider "Maude", "The Golden Girls." I'm not saying either of these programs were very good, but at one time older actresses had a possibility of landing a job on a big network show.
Older actors don't seem to have as good as shot anymore. Many of today's primetime actors are not even actors - they're on reality shows, so they're amateurs. But even the real actors are mostly young. There are a few older actors on "The Office", which I like, but you would be hard-pressed to find actors over 50 on most shows. I think this is because the coveted demographics are young - from 25 to 44 years old. Trends, they say, start with the young. And young people are not thought to like watching older people. They want to watch people like themselves.
And when developing programs, it is all about ratings and advertising revenue. Not the quality of the writing, the actors, or the show itself.
Older actors can add an element of maturity and credibility, I believe. The world is not just young. Many older people, like my parents for instance, watch A LOT of TV, much more than me. It is often difficult to find a younger person who comes off as someone who you can learn something from. It is different with older actors. They've been around.
Older actors can also be funny, as in Ray Romano's parents in "Everybody Loves Raymond." I didn't like that show when it was on, I especially didn't like Ray Romano, but his parents were very funny. "Seinfeld", a great show regardless, also featured Jerry's and George's parents, which added a funny intergenerational dynamic.
Hospital shows, in particular, need older actors. In "House", though, House, the doctor is not old enough. I don't recall seeing a seasoned older doctor in Grey's Anatomy, or any of the new hospital dramas. In these hospitals, it seems, the only doctors are young, attractive, and struggling with self-identity. An exception was "Scrubs", which featured a few older docs, including Ken Jenkins who played Doctor Kelso hilariously.
With a lot of television programming in the toilet, network executives need to consider older actors. Plenty are out there, waiting for work. Older actors will make for better programming and add a much-needed ingredient to a program's plot, something that is sorely missing from most contemporary shows today.
I'm thinking back to the 80s and 70s here, but shows such as "Newhart", featuring Bob Newhart, "All in the Family" (featuring Carroll O'Connor), "Sanford and Son", (Redd Foxx), and "St. Elsewhere" (a number of older actors, including Ed Flanders) are a few examples of shows that included actors older than 50, or in some cases, 60. "Coach" on "Cheers" was a senior citizen, the landlords on "Three's Company" (Mr. Roper and Furley) were both old men.
Even older women actresses were once almost en vogue. Consider "Maude", "The Golden Girls." I'm not saying either of these programs were very good, but at one time older actresses had a possibility of landing a job on a big network show.
Older actors don't seem to have as good as shot anymore. Many of today's primetime actors are not even actors - they're on reality shows, so they're amateurs. But even the real actors are mostly young. There are a few older actors on "The Office", which I like, but you would be hard-pressed to find actors over 50 on most shows. I think this is because the coveted demographics are young - from 25 to 44 years old. Trends, they say, start with the young. And young people are not thought to like watching older people. They want to watch people like themselves.
And when developing programs, it is all about ratings and advertising revenue. Not the quality of the writing, the actors, or the show itself.
Older actors can add an element of maturity and credibility, I believe. The world is not just young. Many older people, like my parents for instance, watch A LOT of TV, much more than me. It is often difficult to find a younger person who comes off as someone who you can learn something from. It is different with older actors. They've been around.
Older actors can also be funny, as in Ray Romano's parents in "Everybody Loves Raymond." I didn't like that show when it was on, I especially didn't like Ray Romano, but his parents were very funny. "Seinfeld", a great show regardless, also featured Jerry's and George's parents, which added a funny intergenerational dynamic.
Hospital shows, in particular, need older actors. In "House", though, House, the doctor is not old enough. I don't recall seeing a seasoned older doctor in Grey's Anatomy, or any of the new hospital dramas. In these hospitals, it seems, the only doctors are young, attractive, and struggling with self-identity. An exception was "Scrubs", which featured a few older docs, including Ken Jenkins who played Doctor Kelso hilariously.
With a lot of television programming in the toilet, network executives need to consider older actors. Plenty are out there, waiting for work. Older actors will make for better programming and add a much-needed ingredient to a program's plot, something that is sorely missing from most contemporary shows today.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Eating a real dinner
When you have kids who are four and two, you can try to eat what you once did, meals that are good and full of taste, food that you want to eat yourself and is not processed, but sometimes you fail.
Last night was one example. We picked up a sirloin steak and made broccoli rabe and stuffed clams, sort of like a surf and turf and vegetable. (And red wine.) A decent meal. I was personally looking forward to it, and so was Claudine. I seasoned the steak, grilled it, and everything came together quite well.
I cut the steak into tiny kid pieces, even chopped up the broccoli rabe so it wasn't too large. The stuffed clams, I thought, would go over well with the kids because it was mostly stuffing.
But they were having none of it. We ended up breaking out bread and butter and yogurt (always good to have on hand). We were nearly prepared to pour them a bowl of Froot Loops.
Feeding kids is a funny thing. You want them to eat what you're serving and not have to be a short order cook for them. But this was one case when the food that we thought was good was evidently not good in their minds.
Of course, after they picked at the dinner, ate bread and butter and yogurt, they still wanted dessert. We balked at that request until they ate more steak. Ten minutes after everyone had finished, our son returned to the table, asking for spicy mustard and barbeque sauce in which to dip his steak. He wanted brownies.
Tonight, interestingly, we had a crappy dinner. Claudine went out, so I threw together random foods from the freezer, cabinet, and refrigerator. We had: green beans (Whole Foods, organic, loaded with butter and salt), Stove Top stuffing, Crinkle Cut French Fries, and Boar's Hoad deli rosemary ham. It was edible, but not steak with broccoli rabe.
The kids' verdict on tonight's dinner? They cleared their plates.
Last night was one example. We picked up a sirloin steak and made broccoli rabe and stuffed clams, sort of like a surf and turf and vegetable. (And red wine.) A decent meal. I was personally looking forward to it, and so was Claudine. I seasoned the steak, grilled it, and everything came together quite well.
I cut the steak into tiny kid pieces, even chopped up the broccoli rabe so it wasn't too large. The stuffed clams, I thought, would go over well with the kids because it was mostly stuffing.
But they were having none of it. We ended up breaking out bread and butter and yogurt (always good to have on hand). We were nearly prepared to pour them a bowl of Froot Loops.
Feeding kids is a funny thing. You want them to eat what you're serving and not have to be a short order cook for them. But this was one case when the food that we thought was good was evidently not good in their minds.
Of course, after they picked at the dinner, ate bread and butter and yogurt, they still wanted dessert. We balked at that request until they ate more steak. Ten minutes after everyone had finished, our son returned to the table, asking for spicy mustard and barbeque sauce in which to dip his steak. He wanted brownies.
Tonight, interestingly, we had a crappy dinner. Claudine went out, so I threw together random foods from the freezer, cabinet, and refrigerator. We had: green beans (Whole Foods, organic, loaded with butter and salt), Stove Top stuffing, Crinkle Cut French Fries, and Boar's Hoad deli rosemary ham. It was edible, but not steak with broccoli rabe.
The kids' verdict on tonight's dinner? They cleared their plates.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
WalMart Nation
Although the town in which I live is small and relatively rural, there are 11 WalMarts located within 20 miles from my house, according to the company's website. This is not counting Sam's Club, which is owned by WalMart.
The proliferation of WalMarts is what I consider to be one of the fundamental problems with America - a megacorporation that, although it provides jobs, the jobs it provides are low-paying positions that famously do not always feature affordable health care benefits. True, store prices are low, but this of course is due to the massive inventories in each store and the ease with which each store sells its products. Why? Because everything is cheap.
It is also at the expense of better, customer-friendly, locally owned stores that once existed along the main streets of America, places where someone could find home and garden goods, clothes, or electronic products and you could actually get an accurate answer about the product from an employee. Sadly, this is rarely the case at WalMart, where, unfortunately, many people who work there are doing so to survive. If you check the website featured on the link above, it shows that many WalMart employees collect welfare.
A story in the New York Times today echoed WalMart's influence on our country. Those who responded to a poll said that WalMart is the "best corporate symbol of America."
This is a sad statement about our country. Although some planning and zoning boards get downright giddy to approve a WalMart in their town, mostly for the sake of collecting property taxes, it's unfortunate that communities cannot create better ways for owners of smaller, local businesses, which would sell the same things as WalMart, to open and thrive.
At least there is this hope to hold on to: At one point, Caldor's, Bradlees, KMarts, Zayre's and Ames were department stores that dominated the landscape. WalMarts, too, one day will crash and die, like the rest.
The proliferation of WalMarts is what I consider to be one of the fundamental problems with America - a megacorporation that, although it provides jobs, the jobs it provides are low-paying positions that famously do not always feature affordable health care benefits. True, store prices are low, but this of course is due to the massive inventories in each store and the ease with which each store sells its products. Why? Because everything is cheap.
It is also at the expense of better, customer-friendly, locally owned stores that once existed along the main streets of America, places where someone could find home and garden goods, clothes, or electronic products and you could actually get an accurate answer about the product from an employee. Sadly, this is rarely the case at WalMart, where, unfortunately, many people who work there are doing so to survive. If you check the website featured on the link above, it shows that many WalMart employees collect welfare.
A story in the New York Times today echoed WalMart's influence on our country. Those who responded to a poll said that WalMart is the "best corporate symbol of America."
This is a sad statement about our country. Although some planning and zoning boards get downright giddy to approve a WalMart in their town, mostly for the sake of collecting property taxes, it's unfortunate that communities cannot create better ways for owners of smaller, local businesses, which would sell the same things as WalMart, to open and thrive.
At least there is this hope to hold on to: At one point, Caldor's, Bradlees, KMarts, Zayre's and Ames were department stores that dominated the landscape. WalMarts, too, one day will crash and die, like the rest.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
On the need for a padded room
Just about each day, someone in our house - one of our kids, specifically - hits his/her head, usually on the floor, a wall, or a piece of furniture. This is typical for little kids, I know, and it's amazing, actually, how quickly they usually recover. I know if it were my head getting smashed against the floor, I'd be hurting and miserable. The kids usually cry for about three minutes, although it seems longer, and then they're seemingly fine.
Having a 4 and 2 year-old means we're not out of the woods yet. Thus, the padded room idea. I don't think it would be difficult to create - we'd just need to clear the existing furniture out of a room, get some huge pads like the kind you find in gyms and bolt them into the wall. I think I could market this. How many parents of little kids would love to be able to not worry about their kids hurting each other, or getting hurt, by, for example, the corner of a wooden piece of furniture, for at least a little while? These padded rooms would have nothing in them, except, perhaps, Nerf balls and balloons. In other words, things that kids can't hurt themselves with.
When you're a parent of a preschooler and/or toddler, a lot of time is spent trying to help your children avert a disaster of some sort. Just today, my wife and I held onto our kids so they wouldn't fall out of a trailer, pulled by a tractor, at a local apple orchard. Then, when we went back to the orchard "store", we practically had to threaten our kids and coerce them to hold our hands so they wouldn't run out in front of cars in the parking lot. On the way home, we stop at a playground and pray our kids won't fall off a high platform with an open side. We get home, and they jump on the couch, then later on their beds. They also have taken an interest lately in playing on the stairs.
This is the way it is with young kids, I guess. Sometimes, I force myself to just let them be. I can't prevent every fall. The falls they have that seem terrible mostly end up uneventful. The minor ones leave lasting bruises. We're still trying to figure out when to step in and hold their hands and when to let them remain on their own.
Although we probably won't figure this out anytime soon, a padded room sure would help.
Having a 4 and 2 year-old means we're not out of the woods yet. Thus, the padded room idea. I don't think it would be difficult to create - we'd just need to clear the existing furniture out of a room, get some huge pads like the kind you find in gyms and bolt them into the wall. I think I could market this. How many parents of little kids would love to be able to not worry about their kids hurting each other, or getting hurt, by, for example, the corner of a wooden piece of furniture, for at least a little while? These padded rooms would have nothing in them, except, perhaps, Nerf balls and balloons. In other words, things that kids can't hurt themselves with.
When you're a parent of a preschooler and/or toddler, a lot of time is spent trying to help your children avert a disaster of some sort. Just today, my wife and I held onto our kids so they wouldn't fall out of a trailer, pulled by a tractor, at a local apple orchard. Then, when we went back to the orchard "store", we practically had to threaten our kids and coerce them to hold our hands so they wouldn't run out in front of cars in the parking lot. On the way home, we stop at a playground and pray our kids won't fall off a high platform with an open side. We get home, and they jump on the couch, then later on their beds. They also have taken an interest lately in playing on the stairs.
This is the way it is with young kids, I guess. Sometimes, I force myself to just let them be. I can't prevent every fall. The falls they have that seem terrible mostly end up uneventful. The minor ones leave lasting bruises. We're still trying to figure out when to step in and hold their hands and when to let them remain on their own.
Although we probably won't figure this out anytime soon, a padded room sure would help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
