Brewers Update
Today’s update is mostly about Rickie Weeks’ injury situation. It’s been reported by both Adam McCalvy (of MLB.com) and Tom Haudricourt (of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) that Rickie Weeks has both a severely sprained left ankle and some ligament damage that will not require surgery. The estimated time for Weeks’ return is anywhere from three to six weeks; as Weeks has been injured before — both wrists and one of his knees — he’s aware of what he needs to do to rehab, so the Brewers are hoping Weeks will only be gone about a month.
For the moment, the Brewers have re-acquired infielder Felipe Lopez, who’s played with the Brewers before. Lopez is an iffy defender with a good bat — similar to Weeks in that way, though Weeks is a bit better in the field and works really hard at it while Lopez, to be charitable, is mostly known to be a guy who’s been a bit of a loudmouth (which is why he doesn’t stick around very long at any team he’s ever played for). Lopez, who had been in the Tampa Bay Rays organization, batting over .300 at AAA ball, will start tonight at second base and bat fifth, which is where Weeks had been batting before the injury due to the Brewers’ woes at that batting position . . . here’s hoping Lopez can put his money where his mouth is, as the saying goes.
Otherwise, I was remiss not to mention John Axford during my last Brewers-centered post, as Axford has set a new Brewers record for 27 saves in a row (his 26th save, which broke the previous record, was on Wednesday; his 27th save was yesterday afternoon). Axford is nearly certain to be the Brewers player of the week, as this was a tough record to surpass; Axford has been consistently good (not always great, but good) as a closer, and has been a big part of the Brewers success this year.
One reason I like Axford so much, though, is that he has a blue collar sensibility to him. He just goes out to the mound and gets the job done. No histrionics. No drama. Just goes out every day and does his job.
I wish we had more people in this world who were like Axford.
Brewers Win Game, but Lose Weeks to DL
The Milwaukee Brewers won tonight’s game against the Chicago Cubs, 2-0. Zack Greinke pitched very well for 6 2/3 innings, then the bullpen (Saito, F. Rodriguez, and Axford in that order) did their part to shut the Cubs right down.
But the Brewers win afterglow had to be somewhat dimmed by the loss of Rickie Weeks; early in the game, Weeks was busting down the line trying to beat out a ground ball for an infield hit. He threw his front leg out to its widest extension, hit first base before the throw came in (meaning he did get that IF hit), but landed funny on the bag. Making matters worse, he then “rolled over” the ankle as he fell face-first onto the ground. He did not get up until the trainers, and Brewers manager Ron Roenicke, came out to get him; at that point, he put a little weight on his right (uninjured) foot but none on his left, and was basically carried off that field by a trainer and Roenicke.
Now, Weeks’ replacement, Craig Counsell, played sparkling defense after being inserted as a pinch runner for Weeks. Counsell didn’t get any hits in three plate appearances, but that defense saved the Brewers quite a few headaches. (Counsell is not only a better fielder than Weeks, but a much better fielder.) So for tonight, losing Weeks wasn’t the world’s worst thing to happen.
However, Ron Roenicke said after tonight’s game that Weeks is headed straight to the disabled list (DL) and will have a MRI on Thursday to pinpoint what damage might be there. (All they know right now is that Weeks did not break his ankle. He may still have tendon damage of some sort, though I’m hoping it’s a strain rather than a tear.)
This is not good news for the Brewers. Despite Weeks’ inconsistent play in the field, he’s been one of the Brewers best hitters this year and has 19 HR, 43 RBI, and 71 runs scored (that last is probably his most important stat, as for most of the year Weeks was batting leadoff). Weeks was named the starting second baseman for the 2011 All-Star game and looked to have a banner season after signing a four-year contract extension earlier this year ($32 million with a signing bonus; it averages to $8 mil a year but the Brewers usually write such contracts with escalator clauses, meaning this year might be $5 mil, next year $10 mil, etc.); this injury definitely will not help the Brewers overall chances to win their division and go to the playoffs for the first time since 2008.
More will be known about Weeks injury tomorrow, so check in with me then as I’ll be sure to update y’all as to what’s going on in that quarter.
God’s Poll Numbers Slipping — Really!
Folks, now I’ve heard and seen it all. Even God has poll numbers.
According to this Web site, God’s approval numbers stand at 52%, with 9% disapproving. (I’m not sure where all the other people are on this issue. Perhaps the pollsters talked with a lot of atheists?)
Note I’ve seen other polls, rarely, such as the Gallup Poll, with numbers on God. They’re usually much higher than this. I would venture a guess that the reason for that is because of our overtly pessimistic American culture and political situation more so than anything else — we’re unhappy about our politics, we’re unhappy about our financial situation (personal and governmental), and we’re unhappy about the overall prospects for anything better because it sure doesn’t look like anything’s really improving out there.
Anyway, the reason we have new poll numbers for God is that the PPP polling firm wanted to use them in order to contrast those numbers against the poll numbers for Congress. And while God’s poll numbers were lower than you might expect for a Deity, they were considerably higher than any member of Congress.
From the article:
Questions about God were asked as part of a larger survey assessing American opinions of congressional leaders in the midst of the ongoing debt ceiling debate in Washington.
God’s approval rating exceeded that of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, as well as both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with each party receiving only a 33 percent approval rating.
God also polled significantly higher than the scandal-ridden media baron Rupert Murdoch: only 12 percent of those polled viewed him favorably, compared to 49 percent who viewed him unfavorably.
“Though not the most popular figure PPP has polled, if God exists, voters are prepared to give it (sic) good marks,” PPP said in a July 21 press release.
I would sincerely hope so!
Add a corollary of sorts from this article, which discusses a church in Washington, DC, that’s praying for a “just and compassionate budget.” From the article, which has a video attached:
‘There’s nothing in the Bible about whether there should be revenues in the budget package of 2011,” said Rev. David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, a nonpartisan Christian movement working to end hunger in the U.S. and abroad. “But there’s nothing in the Bible that says you can’t tax rich people. There’s a lot in the Bible that says you ought to protect poor people.”
Later in the article, the interfaith leaders who’ve been helping to hold this daily vigil said:
Besides praying, the group of interfaith leaders are urging their followers to contact members of Congress. Earlier this month, they sent a letter to President Obama, writing that “people who are served by government program – those who are poor, sick, and hungry, older adults, children, and people with disabilities – should not bear the brunt of the budget-cutting burden.”
Can I get an “Amen” from the peanut gallery? (Please?)
Back Issues, and a Few Thoughts on Politics
Folks, my back is really acting up at the moment. Which is not conducive to blogging or any form of writing — nor to a lot of editing, either, truth be told, though it is good for planning. But I can’t let the nonsense going on right now go by without a few comments, either . . . so here we go.
First, last night’s “face-off” between President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner was, to my mind, rather underwhelming. These two people obviously don’t like each other, don’t trust each other, would rather not have anything to do with one another, but have to work together to try to do the country’s business — and are failing miserably. I place more of the blame on Boehner than on the POTUS, partly because Boehner has been a Representative for a lot longer than Obama has been President, and partly because when the Republicans gained control of the House after the 2010 elections, they promised to create jobs — not do all this screwing around.
I keep wanting to ask Boehner, “Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?” Because that’s what he, and by extension his whole party, kept saying, and that’s why they got elected — on a job creating platform. But once they got in there, they decided “job creation” really meant “protect the wealthy at all costs from any form of tax increase, no matter how benign.” And they’ve acted on the latter belief, insisting even though they should know better that this is what the American public wants them to do — then have pushed the real cost of lowering the deficit onto the middle classes and below, who can’t afford it and are already paying too much, proportionately, as it is.
Now, the Republican argument is that the lower 50% of income earners “pay no income tax at all.” That is, to an extent, true. However, we do pay FICA, where many high earners don’t, meaning we’re helping to sustain Social Security; we pay sales tax, and cannot tap into loopholes that get part of those taxes back as can the wealthiest Americans when they buy a new yacht or a second or third home in order to use it for two weeks a year on vacation. So proportionately, the lowest earners are paying more than the high earners, which in effect gets blood from a stone as low earners have very little to work with in the first place.
Then, with all the picayune nonsense going on in Washington, DC, I’m still having to put up with the Wisconsin Republicans in the state Senate screwing around. These guys have decided they will pass a bill that agrees with the state’s Assembly bill — that will hold one week of benefits from new unemployment claimants, starting on January 1, 2012 — on August 1, 2011, because that’s just one short week away from the recall elections for state Senators Darling, Cowles, Harsdorf, Kapanke, Hopper, and Olsen. The Rs have decided to do this because they think that’ll make their Senators look more compassionate, of all things . . . they like the timing, and don’t care that they’re making people who’ve not had any extended benefits since April 16, 2011, wait even more for their money.
Me, I find this behavior terrible. Shallow. Rude. Obnoxious. And reprehensible, too, because these Senators should know better.
The whole bit of difference between the two bills was there because the Senate Rs wanted to look more compassionate (the Senate voted 30-3 against withholding the first week of unemployment from people, knowing full well the Assembly would pass a different version of the bill so they’d be able to “have their cake and eat it, too.”), yet how compassionate is it to make people wait another week for their money?
Because, remember, this is a Federal program. The money is already there. The WI Rs are just sitting on it, perhaps collecting interest on it, rather than paying it out — so there’s no excuse for this whatsoever.
At any rate, this is why every single last R Senator in Wisconsin (with the possible exception of Dale Schultz) should be recalled — they’ve lost touch with the real people in our state, who are suffering. And only seem to care about the wealthiest people in the state, protecting wealthy corporations and their tax loopholes . . . then wonder why they’re all in danger of being recalled on the first available date (which for eleven other Rs is January 3, 2012; two are recallable now, Grothman and Lazich, and may yet end up recalled by the end of the year for all I know).
Just Reviewed Mario Livio’s “Is God a Mathematician?” for SBR
Folks, my headline for my review at Shiny Book Review tonight is simple:
That refers to Livio’s main argument, which is about whether or not math was designed by humans in order to reflect what humans see — a modern thought, that — or the view of the “Platonists” (mathematicians since Plato who agree with Plato’s point of view) that math was always present in the universe, but human beings may not have had the skill-set in order to be able to understand what they saw around them. This “nature or nurture” type of argument is intriguing enough by itself, but in order to make it, Livio also had to sketch out a history of math and mathematicians or it wouldn’t have made any sense to a non-mathematician like myself.
That Livio did a phenomenal job in explaining what this philosophical argument is all about is intriguing enough, but the historical overview adds depth and breadth to it all, making the point that philosophy doesn’t have to be “dry as dust” stuff as it refers to things we all take for granted every day. In that sense, Livio’s book reminds me of THE TAO OF PHYSICS in that there’s a great deal more to life than what’s been observed and measured up to now — but isn’t it interesting what’s around us that we can observe and measure?
Anyway, go read my review, then grab this book! It’s something that will help you whether or not you’re a SF&F author; it’s something that will interest you if you’ve ever given thought as to how these mathematicians have managed to improve the world (and what we know of it) through the millenia of recorded history.
Brewers Play Giants; My Thoughts
My late husband Michael was a San Francisco Giants fan.
Of course, this isn’t surprising, considering he was a long-time San Francisco resident. That his father and mother both supported the Giants, as did his brother and sister . . . well, that probably helped a little, though Michael wasn’t the type to join in just for the sake of joining.
Nope. He loved baseball because it was — and is — a game that can be measured. Baseball statistics make sense, to the degree that different eras can be compared and contrasted, as are various players, their situations and their teams.
Michael loved his Giants. Which is why me watching my Milwaukee Brewers team play them is ever so slightly bittersweet.
I keep thinking about how Michael would enjoy this year’s Giants team as much as he would’ve enjoyed last year’s — the 2011 Giants once again have stellar pitching, defense, and play well as a team, all things Michael appreciated as a long-time baseball fan. But, of course, it’s my Brewers playing the Giants — the Brewers, who mostly live and die by the long ball. By the big inning. Who aren’t exactly known for their skills at base-stealing, small ball, or for any of their starting pitchers.
I mean, think about it. Who do you know on the Giants pitching staff that’s a big name? Tim Lincecum. Matt Cain, who’s pitching tonight. Barry Zito, though he’s not done well this year and hasn’t justified the huge amount of money the Giants spent on him a few years ago. Jonathan Sanchez, perhaps the best #5 pitcher in baseball. And previously-unknown Ryan Vogelsong, perhaps the best story in baseball this year as he went from getting his outright release in 2010 to having the best ERA in baseball — 2.02 — in 2011, with a 7-1 record in fifteen starts.
Whereas the Brewers have two pitchers who’ve pitched reasonably well throughout — Shaun Marcum, who’s pitching tonight, and Randy Wolf. Then, we have two wildly inconsistent pitchers who can be either really good or really bad — Zack Greinke and Yovani Gallardo. And, finally, we have Chris Narveson, a guy who is better known for his bat than his pitching, though he’s had a decent year thus far. And let’s not even start about the Brewers defense, as I could go all day about how many ways the infield in particular needs improvement (only Rickie Weeks is relatively solid at second, though he does not have great range; Casey McGehee has had some good moments but mostly isn’t known for his glove; Prince Fielder’s fielding has regressed this season, so he’s once again a well below average first baseman who holds his position due to his fearsome bat; and, of course, Yuniesky Betancourt, who hits better than he fields, but doesn’t exactly hit a ton considering his overall .250 batting average coming into tonight’s game).
I have mixed feelings here, because I see how the Giants are by far the superior team. The Giants have pitching, defense, and overall team chemistry, even if they don’t hit particularly well . . . their pitching makes up for a great deal, which is how they win games. While the Brewers have hitting, hitting, and more hitting, with some good outfield defense (Corey Hart in RF is good, Ryan Braun has really improved in LF but hasn’t been healthy recently, while Nyjer Morgan plays a decent center field and has speed — mind, losing Carlos Gomez due to a broken collarbone hasn’t helped), some good to better pitching amidst massive inconsistency, and more hitting.
So it’s a battle of two different styles of baseball being played out tonight in this Brewers-Giants game (currently, as I write this, the Brewers lead 3-1 in the top of the sixth). Good to excellent hitting versus good to excellent pitching and outstanding defense. A worthy game, one which I’ll enjoy as best I can, wishing all the while that my wonderful husband were still alive to share it with me.
Still. I am here, and I see at least some of what Michael would’ve seen in the Giants, as I’m also a long-time baseball fan who appreciates excellent pitching and defense. I can’t recreate a conversation which didn’t have a chance to happen, though I know what sorts of comments Michael made when he and I watched his Giants play in 2002, 2003 and 2004 . . . I suppose because I’m thinking so much about what he would’ve seen had he been here to observe it, at least a small part of Michael has survived.
And that, at least, is a good thing. As is the enjoyment I get from watching my Brewers and Michael’s Giants.
Dave Hansen Retained; US Reps dither in DC
Folks, I have two things to discuss tonight.
First, in the “grand opening” recall election, Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) has easily defeated Republican challenger David Vanderleest. The Associated Press called the race with 47 of 72 precincts reporting; so far, Hansen has 13,675 votes to Vanderleest’s 6,191. Or, in other words, Hansen has 69% of the vote to Vanderleest’s 31%.
This recall election may or may not be a harbinger for the six Republicans who face recall on August 9, 2011 — remember, this was an election where the question was, “Do you wish to retain Dave Hansen, or not?” more so than, “How angry are you with Dave Hansen? Do you want him out?” And while the six Republicans certainly will have to face all three questions, too, my best guess is that the second two questions — i.e, “How angry are you with Alberta Darling? Do you want her out, or not?” (fill in the name of the other five Senators in place of Darling’s, here) — that will count far more in those elections.
Otherwise, I’ve been bemused for several days now watching the United States House of Representatives dither in Washington, DC. The Republicans there have proposed something called a “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan that would cap the amount of federal expenditures to 18% of the Gross Domestic Product (what used to be called Gross National Product), which sounds good until you realize they’re talking about doing this for political advantage rather than to do anything good for the country at all. And the fact that the US remains in, if not an actual, textbook definition recession, in very bad economic straits does not help anything.
See, sometimes if you cut programs that work during a recession (or in this case, in very bad economic straits — a “jobless recovery,” in short), that is counterproductive. It adds more strain to the economy when you don’t make any provisions for people who are hurting. And it adds more strain on the economy when people can’t find work — the case all over the country, but worse in some areas than others — or are working far below their capacity, either in hours, in pay, or in most cases, both.
All I know is, that “Cap, Cut and Balance” plan will never pass the US Senate. And the House Reps know this — which means all of this has been political posturing, not anything that will do any good in the long run.
I’d rather the US House of Reps, Rs and Ds alike, concentrated on the “art of the possible” rather than play these ridiculous games. And right now, what’s possible is this — raise taxes on the top 1%. Close loopholes in the tax rates so corporations pay some taxes — it’s absolutely absurd that a big company like General Electric pays less in taxes than I do, and some companies pay even less than GE! And continue the troop draw-downs in Iraq and Afghanistan, bring those troops back home, and station them instead on the border with Mexico to help out there. (This way, there aren’t a whole bunch of soldiers joining the ranks of the unemployed, and they’re doing something vital and necessary, to boot. But we get rid of a lot of expenses that come from having a bunch of our folks overseas in the bargain.)
If the Republicans do all of that — or even if they do some of it, as we’re talking about the “art of the possible,” here — then I agree that changes to the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs should be discussed, too. But at this time, the Rs have shown absolutely no willingness to raise revenue at all — not even by closing tax loopholes, which is the easiest thing in the world to do — which frustrates me greatly.
During a time of three separate wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — we need all the revenue we can in order to keep funding those wars (even if they do start immediate draw-downs as I believe would be best for the country in many senses). Why the Rs refuse to close the tax loopholes is beyond me, because that would be by far the easiest thing to do — then they can work on instituting additional taxes on the top 1% to bring them in line with the middle class in this country (note that I’m not asking for draconian increases; I simply want to see something that’s comparable to what the middle class are paying, that’s all).
So far, the Rs in Congress — especially in the House of Reps — have shown no willingness to compromise whatsoever. Which makes me wonder: why did they even go to DC at all, if they were going to refuse to work on issues that are best for the country?
Surely these Rs don’t believe that defaulting on our debt as of August 2, 2011, is really the best thing to do, right? So taking that as an axiom, why is it these Rs don’t want to deal with what they know will work — raising some revenue, even if it’s only by closing tax loopholes or eliminating corporate subsidies for oil companies (the wealthiest companies ever to exist on this Earth according to more than one economist), speed up the troop draw-downs, and then and only then talk about cuts to essential programs that many Americans use — and need — every day?
Barb Caffrey's Blog 