I love this time of year. Of all the sporting events, the World Series is by far my favorite. This year's match-up should be great as well, with the tradition of the Red Sox v. the Cinderella Rockies. I am pulling for a great series and for a Rockies win. (Now why can't the Rangers ever get here?)
I started thinking about my brilliant baseball career. My career lasted from 1985-1990 with an attempted comeback that fell short in 1992. (Ok, so my career happened before I was 15. I have never been mistaken for a great athlete.) Here are my career highlights:
1985 - Team: Cowboys, Grade: 3rd. This was my first year of baseball where there was no tee or no coach pitch. I batted .000 drawing many walks and HBPs. I think I got more walks than strikeouts, but I am not sure. Needless to say, I could only go up from here. I believe I mostly played outfield or DH - my fielding has always been a liability, even when I batted .000.
1986 - Team: Cowboys, Grade: 4th. My career year. I batted .500, played better in the field, and was part of a winning team. The highlight of my career came in the quarter finals of the playoffs, where I came up in the last inning with 2 outs, runners on 2nd and 3rd, and the fate of our season in my hands as we trailed 2-1. (Incidentally, whenever the season was over, we had to turn in our jerseys and baseball pants. So in the playoffs, we were supposed to always bring a change of clothes in case our team lost, but I had forgotten mine, which made me worry that I would have to go home in my underwear if we lost.) My coach pulled me over and said, "Just like batting practice." The first pitch I lined up the middle for a base hit, two runners scored, game over. My first base coach hoisted me up and we celebrated the victory. It was a great feeling. Every kid dreams of doing this - it was surreal. I remember afterwards going to Denny's where Pappaw bought us all dessert. Definitely the highlight of my sports career. (Yeah, since 4th grade it has all been downhill for me athletically.)
1987 - Team: Eagles, Grade: 5th. Thus began the dark ages. New team, new coach. The coach was the coach of the team I had the winning hit against the year before. I never liked him all that much - my confidence was gone. I was Roy Hobbs dating Memo. I batted .150. Simply a terrible year. Iris never stood up.
1988 - Team: Eagles, Grade: 6th. Again .150. See 1987 for more details.
1989 - Team: Pirates, Grade: 7th. A rebound year for me. I batted .300 and had the most RBI on my team. New coach, same friends. Still playing the outfield and occasionally 2nd base.
1990 - Team: Pirates, Grade: 8th. A repeat performance as I batted .300 again and led the team in RBI, but I wasn't chosen to be the All-Star representative from my team. It's funny what affects a kid, but not being chosen and not ever having the chance to pitch stuck with me for a long time. This was my last official year of playing baseball. I am not sure why I didn't play in 9th grade, but I didn't.
1992 - Attempted Comeback. I tried out for the AHS baseball team my Sophomore year. I didn't make it - my hitting wasn't consistent (actually it was kind of bad) and I wasn't very fast for a 2nd baseman (in fact, I am pretty slow). So thus ended my playing career.
I have good memories from my baseball days - many of my friends were on my team. Good memories for the most part with the game winning hit as the definite acme of my career. I continue to be a big baseball fan. I learned a lot about myself playing baseball. I experienced the joy of winning, the frustration of losing and not hitting, and the fun of being a kid dreaming about being a baseball player. That is why I love the World Series so much - all the drama and emotion in a simple, yet wonderful game.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Arlington's Crime Tax Proposal
On November 6, Arlington residents will decide whether to raise the sales tax .125% to help fight crime in Arlington. This increase to 8.125 cents on the dollar will enable the city to hire more police officers, more bomb squad officers, and code enforcement personnel. In addition, the revenue would go toward youth and senior adult initiatives.
Arlington is a growing city with a bright future. But with growing cities comes an increase in crime. In order for Arlington to remain a vibrant, attractive city, we need to make sure we lower the crime rate in Arlington. An addition of 48 police officers is a step in the right direction, along with more code enforcement officers who will hopefully crack down on property owners' deteriorating structures.
The opponents of the tax increase, the Citizens for Lower Taxes, cite youth initiatives as part of the problem with this tax increase. First of all, the Citizens for Lower Taxes are always opposing progress in Arlington. If they had their way, Arlington would already be an unattractive city with no future of improvement. This is a very narrow-minded group that has little visionary insight. They seem to live in an Arlington of about 40,000 people rather than a city approaching 400,000. Thankfully, this group is a very small group, but it is a group that will turn out to vote, which represents a threat to this crime tax increase passing.
On the objection to money going toward youth initiatives, CLT is simply not making logical sense. This tax increase is going to fight crime. We want our city to be safer and to stay safe - that's the ultimate goal. The youth initiatives, which grant money to at-risk youth to participate in after school programs, sports, and camps, are simply ways to stop crime before it happens. Cops hopefully catch criminals after or during a crime. The youth initiatives will hopefully stop crime before it happens. Our city is safer and the youth have a better future. It's a win-win. And any plan on fighting crime must take into consideration ways to prevent crime. Having worked in inner-city Tampa for two years, I saw firsthand the need for teens to have healthy alternatives after school. Many of the teenagers we worked with after school were not only safe from crime, but were safe from committing crime. A city that addresses only the after-effects of crime without addressing the causes for crime is a city that will never corral the crime problem. Thankfully, our city leaders appear to see this - hopefully those who don't, such as CLT, will be outnumbered at the ballot box.
I'm voting for the crime tax increase. It is worth the extra $0.00125 it will cost me per dollar to have a safe place to live. I hope you vote for it too.
Arlington is a growing city with a bright future. But with growing cities comes an increase in crime. In order for Arlington to remain a vibrant, attractive city, we need to make sure we lower the crime rate in Arlington. An addition of 48 police officers is a step in the right direction, along with more code enforcement officers who will hopefully crack down on property owners' deteriorating structures.
The opponents of the tax increase, the Citizens for Lower Taxes, cite youth initiatives as part of the problem with this tax increase. First of all, the Citizens for Lower Taxes are always opposing progress in Arlington. If they had their way, Arlington would already be an unattractive city with no future of improvement. This is a very narrow-minded group that has little visionary insight. They seem to live in an Arlington of about 40,000 people rather than a city approaching 400,000. Thankfully, this group is a very small group, but it is a group that will turn out to vote, which represents a threat to this crime tax increase passing.
On the objection to money going toward youth initiatives, CLT is simply not making logical sense. This tax increase is going to fight crime. We want our city to be safer and to stay safe - that's the ultimate goal. The youth initiatives, which grant money to at-risk youth to participate in after school programs, sports, and camps, are simply ways to stop crime before it happens. Cops hopefully catch criminals after or during a crime. The youth initiatives will hopefully stop crime before it happens. Our city is safer and the youth have a better future. It's a win-win. And any plan on fighting crime must take into consideration ways to prevent crime. Having worked in inner-city Tampa for two years, I saw firsthand the need for teens to have healthy alternatives after school. Many of the teenagers we worked with after school were not only safe from crime, but were safe from committing crime. A city that addresses only the after-effects of crime without addressing the causes for crime is a city that will never corral the crime problem. Thankfully, our city leaders appear to see this - hopefully those who don't, such as CLT, will be outnumbered at the ballot box.
I'm voting for the crime tax increase. It is worth the extra $0.00125 it will cost me per dollar to have a safe place to live. I hope you vote for it too.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Claire-ism
We are on round three of the dreaded webworm. For the third time this summer, our yard has been overrun with the crawling, leaf-eating menaces. After spraying them today with poison, something I really hate doing, I came inside and told Claire, "We have webworms everywhere." She said, "I know, I saw one as I came in from the garage today." I said, "They are disgusting and I don't like them." She replied, "No daddy, they're cute. You can like them because they are cute."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Republican Presidential Debate
Yesterday, I was stuck running sound for the same presentation three times at my work. In the sound booth ensuring quality vocals on the microphone for three hours, I quickly found other things to do. So I pulled up the internet and watched the Republican debate in Michigan on CNBC.com. There are still nine Republicans running for the nomination, which makes the debate extra boring and worthless. Why do we need to hear from Tancredo, Brownback, and Hunter? Are they adding anything to the campaign? Is there anyone beyond their immediate family supporting them? Anyway, here are my reactions to the debate:
Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter: See aforementioned question of just what exactly they are doing here. I'll give Brownback some credit - he was the best of these three, but that is not saying much. He did sound rather knowledgeable on the issues and I particularly liked his answer to the biggest obstacle facing the US economy - the breakdown of the American family. But other than that, these three should pack it in and allow others to have more time to talk about the issues. I really don't care what Hunter thinks about China, because he is never going to be close to making any sort of presidential decision concerning it. These three have the same amount of chance of winning the presidency in '08 that I do.
Ron Paul: The most unique positions of the candidates. He is more Libertarian than Republican. I am not sure whether his presence helps or hurts the other candidates. In the first few debates, he may have helped, but now he is a distraction. But, at least you know where he stands on issues - he is not afraid to speak his mind. And he nailed Romney on the Iran question. But he has no chance as well, and at this point, is merely an ideological candidate for the Libertarian Party and a few conspiracy nuts.
Huckabee: I don't know what to make of him. He is trying too hard to have down-home witty things to say all the time. I oppose his tax plan, and I really don't know what more he stands for, except that he is socially conservative. People mention him as a possible running mate for Giuliani, but I think he would be Quayled if he ran as VP.
McCain: A few months ago, I declared his candidacy to be dead. But there is still something I like about McCain. I like that he is not beholden to the Religious Right. I like that he was brave enough to try to do something rational about immigration, even though he is taking the heat for it now. I like his military experience and his opposition to torture. I like the guy - but it may be too late for him to make a comeback. However, there is a sign of a pulse there, so we'll see.
Romney: I can't stand him. Too smooth, too mechanical. And, I don't believe he believes half of what he is saying. Unlike McCain, Romney is trying to fashion himself as a Religious Right candidate, even though he has held positions contrary to them in the past. I find him unauthentic. His jab at Thompson was so rehearsed and lame. His "consulting lawyers" answer was completely out of touch. I would not vote for him - and while much has been made of his Mormonism, that is not a factor as to my dislike for him. I hope he fades quickly, because the Democrats would have a field day with him and the Republicans could lose southern states if he is nominated.
Thompson: At this point in the race, he is my personal favorite. While the beginning of the debate was a bit rocky for him, I could barely hear him in the sound booth - I almost thought he was too tall for the microphone - he got better as the debate went on. But he will have to be much more emphatic with his answers if he wants to gain much ground. He is a very tall guy - I never realized until yesterday how much taller he was than everybody else. He has a way to go to catch Rudy, but he showed a genuine, relaxed attitude that contrasts sharply with Romney's fakeness. I also appreciate the fact that, while he is conservative, he is not pandering to Dobson either - in an interview last week he said he doesn't care to meet with Dobson until Dobson apologized to him. I am eager to hear him articulate his issues in the coming days.
Giuliani - still the front-runner, but for how long? Just how much influence will the social conservatives have in '08? Rudy could split the party, which is why I still doubt he could win the nomination. But I like him as a leader and communicator. He is very genuine as well and quick on his feet. But will he be able to win the nomination merely as a fiscal conservative? He would do well in the general election against Hillary. Of all the candidates, I think he would be the strongest, but if the social conservatives bail on him, he may not have much of a chance. Still, with Hillary as the Democratic nominee, that may be motivation enough for social conservatives to vote for Rudy - just as an opposing vote to Hillary more than anything else.
Of the Republican candidates, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain would be the three most formidable candidates. Any of those three would be a solid nominee for the Republican Party. But this is a watershed moment, because neither of those three will be in the pocket of the Religious Right, even though McCain and Thompson share much in common with them. It should be an interesting few months.
Tancredo, Brownback, Hunter: See aforementioned question of just what exactly they are doing here. I'll give Brownback some credit - he was the best of these three, but that is not saying much. He did sound rather knowledgeable on the issues and I particularly liked his answer to the biggest obstacle facing the US economy - the breakdown of the American family. But other than that, these three should pack it in and allow others to have more time to talk about the issues. I really don't care what Hunter thinks about China, because he is never going to be close to making any sort of presidential decision concerning it. These three have the same amount of chance of winning the presidency in '08 that I do.
Ron Paul: The most unique positions of the candidates. He is more Libertarian than Republican. I am not sure whether his presence helps or hurts the other candidates. In the first few debates, he may have helped, but now he is a distraction. But, at least you know where he stands on issues - he is not afraid to speak his mind. And he nailed Romney on the Iran question. But he has no chance as well, and at this point, is merely an ideological candidate for the Libertarian Party and a few conspiracy nuts.
Huckabee: I don't know what to make of him. He is trying too hard to have down-home witty things to say all the time. I oppose his tax plan, and I really don't know what more he stands for, except that he is socially conservative. People mention him as a possible running mate for Giuliani, but I think he would be Quayled if he ran as VP.
McCain: A few months ago, I declared his candidacy to be dead. But there is still something I like about McCain. I like that he is not beholden to the Religious Right. I like that he was brave enough to try to do something rational about immigration, even though he is taking the heat for it now. I like his military experience and his opposition to torture. I like the guy - but it may be too late for him to make a comeback. However, there is a sign of a pulse there, so we'll see.
Romney: I can't stand him. Too smooth, too mechanical. And, I don't believe he believes half of what he is saying. Unlike McCain, Romney is trying to fashion himself as a Religious Right candidate, even though he has held positions contrary to them in the past. I find him unauthentic. His jab at Thompson was so rehearsed and lame. His "consulting lawyers" answer was completely out of touch. I would not vote for him - and while much has been made of his Mormonism, that is not a factor as to my dislike for him. I hope he fades quickly, because the Democrats would have a field day with him and the Republicans could lose southern states if he is nominated.
Thompson: At this point in the race, he is my personal favorite. While the beginning of the debate was a bit rocky for him, I could barely hear him in the sound booth - I almost thought he was too tall for the microphone - he got better as the debate went on. But he will have to be much more emphatic with his answers if he wants to gain much ground. He is a very tall guy - I never realized until yesterday how much taller he was than everybody else. He has a way to go to catch Rudy, but he showed a genuine, relaxed attitude that contrasts sharply with Romney's fakeness. I also appreciate the fact that, while he is conservative, he is not pandering to Dobson either - in an interview last week he said he doesn't care to meet with Dobson until Dobson apologized to him. I am eager to hear him articulate his issues in the coming days.
Giuliani - still the front-runner, but for how long? Just how much influence will the social conservatives have in '08? Rudy could split the party, which is why I still doubt he could win the nomination. But I like him as a leader and communicator. He is very genuine as well and quick on his feet. But will he be able to win the nomination merely as a fiscal conservative? He would do well in the general election against Hillary. Of all the candidates, I think he would be the strongest, but if the social conservatives bail on him, he may not have much of a chance. Still, with Hillary as the Democratic nominee, that may be motivation enough for social conservatives to vote for Rudy - just as an opposing vote to Hillary more than anything else.
Of the Republican candidates, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain would be the three most formidable candidates. Any of those three would be a solid nominee for the Republican Party. But this is a watershed moment, because neither of those three will be in the pocket of the Religious Right, even though McCain and Thompson share much in common with them. It should be an interesting few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)