It's about time I dusted off the keyboard and got back to blogging. It's tempting to say that the "college selection process" absorbed so much of my mental energy that I could not blog. The process DID engender much thought, energy and emotion. Might as well break the ice by talking about it.
I want to make some observations about the process, knowing that every family dynamic is different and every student is unique. Here we go:
1. The process could turn into a "life and death" or "be all and end all" situation. It is the parents' job to make it NOT this way. In reality, it's a process that ends with a result....your child is going to the college that is the result of the process, and the result is you collectively make a great decision.
2. Taking trips to visit colleges, or taking trips to visit cities that have a lot of colleges (like Boston) can be a great time. It should be approached that way. Not only does it help the decision making process, but it makes for nice mini-vacations.
3. There is a vast amount of information available. This is good and bad. Avail yourself, but don't go insane about it. If you are new to the process, two sites we used a lot were www.collegeprowler.com and www.collegeconfidential.com I admit that I did look at "rankings" in various publications, but unless "status" is what you're all about, these don't help much.
4. College is expensive, but there is a ton of financial aid available. I'm talking grants and aid here, not loans. Almost all schools use the "FAFSA," a long financial disclosure form. Many schools also use additional financial applications. These are really detailed, require backup info, and have deadlines. We used a professional person to assist us with this part of it. It turned out to be well worth the investment (of time and money) to do this part right.
5. There are several parts of the process that elicit family discussions on a mature level. This can be difficult at first, but I found that once we started having these discussions, new levels of mutual respect were attained. This was well worth the effort.
The most interesting of these discussions were about "affirmative action" and admissions criteria. Schools all emphasize how committed they are to "diversity." This flies in the face of the types of achievement most high school students have been pursuing. It is a shock to have high grades, high SAT scores, high AP scores and "extracurriculars" trumped by diversity.
Diversity does not mean simply "racial" diversity, though it becomes quite clear that some ethnic groups are evaluated by a different set of criteria regarding grades, SAT's and the like. It's one thing to learn about this in social studies, but feeling that you have lost a spot to a "less qualified" competitor is a real dose of real life. I didn't like it when it happened to me, and I said so, but I also pointed out that in the end, you go where you go and whether it works is up to YOU.
I think the other types of "diversity" bothered Rebecca more. The other diversity preferences are for athletes, foreign students, legacies, and geography. Bottom line -- being white, Jewish and from New York does not help.....unless you are applying outside the northeast. That may help for some, but if you want to be up here, you are in an uphill fight with the diversity boogie man. For what it's worth, I was accepted to (and attended) The University of Texas Law School back in the late 70's. It was, and still is, one of the best schools in the country, and at that time took only 10% from out of State. I didn't get into a bunch of comparable east coast law schools. How did I get into UT Law? Diversity.
Other maturity provoking discussions were about "what kind of career might you want," "what is important in a school," "what kind of college lifestyle do you prefer," and the like. This is a big step up the maturity ladder.
We also had discussions about family finances, something that had never been openly discussed before. As we were discussing this, we realized that when a child does not know or learn about finances, their maturity level will not develop as it should.
6. The process involves a lot of DECISIONS. What schools to apply to? What mix of "safe" and "target" and "reaches?" I can't speak for other families, but I can say that we had about 20 schools "in play" at various times. We made charts, and had talks about the schools. Schools were added, some were dropped, some came back on the list. At a certain point we got it down to 12, with a mixture of safes, targets and reaches.
7. Before the next round of decisions, there is something that some students have never faced before.....DISAPPOINTMENT. We had some of this; that's why some schools are "reaches." What can you say when a classmate who was not academically in your child's league (on any objective measure) gets into your child's first choice, for no other reason than "diversity." Well, you say "Fuck you, Brown" (Rebecca's quote, not mine, though I was proud of her for saying it), and you make your decision from the more worthy schools on your list.
8. When the smoke clears, you look at the acceptances, and DECIDE. This makes it sound like it happened quickly. For us, this was the hard part. We had it down to three. All were visited, all had strong points. We all researched, we all got input from many sources. We talked among ourselves. We contemplated on our own. Felicia and I agreed that while we would work together, ultimately Rebecca would make the decision.
It came down to Cornell, Wesleyan and Vassar.
I will never forget the process.
I am proud of her decision.
Wesleyan, Class of 2015
Monday, May 23, 2011
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Primary Election - Post Mortem
I put a lot of effort (physical, intellectual and emotional) into supporting my friend Joe Fox in his bid to unseat the incumbent, Andrew Hevesi, in the recent Democratic primary for the 28th Assembly District here in New York.
We were fighting long odds, considering that New York has the highest percentage of incumbency re-election in the country. We were fighting an incumbent with a known name. A tainted name to be sure, but known nevertheless. The turnout was low, about 12%. This was not unexpected. It meant that in a district of approx 36,000 eligible Democratic voters, it would take about 3000 votes to win.
Fighting an incumbent in a primary presents some entrenched problems. An experienced local politician pointed out to me that in a local primary, the incumbent starts out with a 1000-0 lead. This is because ALL the people who work at the polls....those elderly women who sit at the tables, ALL vote for the incumbent because they perceive that their paid poll worker jobs come from the incumbent. Between those poll workers, and supervisors, and staff, and people who are active in local politics, you have 1000 people, and the one thing they ALL do is vote.
So, Joe Fox got 40% of the vote and was defeated by Andrew Hevesi. Andrew will be on the ballot in November, against an unknown Republican candidate and an unknown independent candidate. He will probably win, despite the fact that his father, former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi, just plead guilty to ANOTHER felony involving corruption while in office, and despite the fact that Andrew is implicated in it and Alan obviously plead guilty to protect him. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/hevesi-is-set-to-plead-guilty-to-felony/
I could say a lot about the Hevesi's, and the reasons Joe Fox would have made a great representative (while Andrew will continue to be a disgraceful embarrassment), but I'll save that for a future post.
I want to make some observations about the experience of participating in the Joe Fox campaign:
1. I decided to get involved because I was disgusted with Andrew Hevesi and the local political scene, and respected that Joe wanted to actually DO something about it. I admit it, I secretly wanted to run for the seat from the moment I learned that the local politicos had rigged a special election to install Andrew back in 2005. I couldn't and didn't do it, but Joe had a burning desire to make this run. I knew that I knew enough people, and had enough political savvy, to at least help him in a meaningful way. I appreciated having input in a lot of the behind the scenes decisions in the campaign. There was a stretch of time when I had some fear that if Joe lost, my involvement would "come back to haunt me"......politically, in court, or in some way. That fear left me over time, and now I'll say it for any of the local politicos to see......I helped Joe Fox, I'm proud of it, and I'd do it again.
2. Hindsight is 20-20, and analyzing the campaign, there may have been a few things we could have done to change the results and pull off a major upset. I will not list them here, because if Joe runs again, surely he will use what was learned. I will say this though.....if Andrew is reelected, ends up running again in two years, and remains as ineffectual as he has been, he can and will be beaten.
3. Felicia and I were official "poll watchers" at PS 139. I was present at 6 AM when the doors opened, so I got to witness the poll workers dealing with the new voting machines for the first time. There was some confusion at first, but the system was up and functioning by 7 AM. I thought the system worked well for the most part. People are often resistant to change, but I did not encounter anyone who could not figure out how to vote. The only thing I did not like was a lack of privacy for the voters. I observed situations where people were being "helped" to vote, and this was all out in the open.
4. I spent most of my day on the corner of 63rd Drive and Wetherole Street, attempting to talk to "voters" on their way to and from work. I say attempting because the vast majority of people would not talk to me. There seemed to be a few main reasons......
- Many did not speak a word of English. Living in Rego Park, this was not a big surprise.
- Many were non-citizens, and proud of it. Also not a big surprise.
- Many were entranced in I-Pod isolation. Probably listening to last years American Idol winners, or "rap" (as if it were music).
- Some proudly told me they never vote.
- A few told me they were voting for Hevesi, because his father had been railroaded and "all he did was use State money to take his wife to the doctor".
- A few offered memorable excuses, such as "I already voted" (this was at 7 AM). Another said "I am going to vote....tomorrow."
5. During primary day, I split my time between campaigning out on the street, and poll watching inside the school. This was permitted, as long as I did not campaign inside the school or wear anything that would indicate I was campaigning. This simply meant when I went inside, I had to take off my Joe Fox name tag. I got involved in some poll watching excitement when I noticed Andrew Hevesi campaigning right in front of the school, in the area where you are clearly not supposed to do that. I was outside at the time, and walked right past him on my way inside to report him. I said hello to him, and he said hi back, since he did not know who I was (which REALLY pissed me off). I then did what a poll watcher is supposed to do....I told the policeman on duty and the local election supervisor that Andrew Hevesi was electioneering in the restricted area. I then watched them confront him, watched him argue back, and then leave the area in disgust. Andrew, in case you are wondering how that happened....it was ME.
6. When the polls closed, as poll watcher I got to see the results come off the machines, and was responsible for calling the results in to headquarters. It took awhile for the officials to figure out how to get the results off the machines and post them. After working from 6 AM to 9 PM I was anxious to see the results. Now I know that when they say on election night that "x% of precincts are reporting", they are talking about poll-watchers like me. I was pretty disappointed, though not shocked, when I saw that Joe got about 40% at PS 139. I called it in to headquarters and asked whether this was consistent with results from other polling places. They said it was, and I knew right there we had lost. I was angry for about 10 minutes. My rant was along these lines....."how could people be so stupid? how could people be so apathetic? People get what they deserve....etc" Then, I was concerned about how Joe would take it. When I drove over to headquarters and saw that Joe accepted things like the uber-mensch he is, I began to feel great pride at what we had done.
7. Prior to the campaign, I knew Joe for about 30 years, but I'd say we were casual friends at most, and I knew his family enough to say hello, but that was about it. I now consider Joe and his family my good friends. So, in addition to the actual campaign experience, the personal aspect was enough to make the whole experience worthwhile.
So, the primaries are over and the election season is on.
I foresee some changes and shifts coming, across the State and nationally, and personally I think it is needed.
But here in the 28th A.D., it will be "same old, same old". What a shame.
We were fighting long odds, considering that New York has the highest percentage of incumbency re-election in the country. We were fighting an incumbent with a known name. A tainted name to be sure, but known nevertheless. The turnout was low, about 12%. This was not unexpected. It meant that in a district of approx 36,000 eligible Democratic voters, it would take about 3000 votes to win.
Fighting an incumbent in a primary presents some entrenched problems. An experienced local politician pointed out to me that in a local primary, the incumbent starts out with a 1000-0 lead. This is because ALL the people who work at the polls....those elderly women who sit at the tables, ALL vote for the incumbent because they perceive that their paid poll worker jobs come from the incumbent. Between those poll workers, and supervisors, and staff, and people who are active in local politics, you have 1000 people, and the one thing they ALL do is vote.
So, Joe Fox got 40% of the vote and was defeated by Andrew Hevesi. Andrew will be on the ballot in November, against an unknown Republican candidate and an unknown independent candidate. He will probably win, despite the fact that his father, former New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi, just plead guilty to ANOTHER felony involving corruption while in office, and despite the fact that Andrew is implicated in it and Alan obviously plead guilty to protect him. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/hevesi-is-set-to-plead-guilty-to-felony/
I could say a lot about the Hevesi's, and the reasons Joe Fox would have made a great representative (while Andrew will continue to be a disgraceful embarrassment), but I'll save that for a future post.
I want to make some observations about the experience of participating in the Joe Fox campaign:
1. I decided to get involved because I was disgusted with Andrew Hevesi and the local political scene, and respected that Joe wanted to actually DO something about it. I admit it, I secretly wanted to run for the seat from the moment I learned that the local politicos had rigged a special election to install Andrew back in 2005. I couldn't and didn't do it, but Joe had a burning desire to make this run. I knew that I knew enough people, and had enough political savvy, to at least help him in a meaningful way. I appreciated having input in a lot of the behind the scenes decisions in the campaign. There was a stretch of time when I had some fear that if Joe lost, my involvement would "come back to haunt me"......politically, in court, or in some way. That fear left me over time, and now I'll say it for any of the local politicos to see......I helped Joe Fox, I'm proud of it, and I'd do it again.
2. Hindsight is 20-20, and analyzing the campaign, there may have been a few things we could have done to change the results and pull off a major upset. I will not list them here, because if Joe runs again, surely he will use what was learned. I will say this though.....if Andrew is reelected, ends up running again in two years, and remains as ineffectual as he has been, he can and will be beaten.
3. Felicia and I were official "poll watchers" at PS 139. I was present at 6 AM when the doors opened, so I got to witness the poll workers dealing with the new voting machines for the first time. There was some confusion at first, but the system was up and functioning by 7 AM. I thought the system worked well for the most part. People are often resistant to change, but I did not encounter anyone who could not figure out how to vote. The only thing I did not like was a lack of privacy for the voters. I observed situations where people were being "helped" to vote, and this was all out in the open.
4. I spent most of my day on the corner of 63rd Drive and Wetherole Street, attempting to talk to "voters" on their way to and from work. I say attempting because the vast majority of people would not talk to me. There seemed to be a few main reasons......
- Many did not speak a word of English. Living in Rego Park, this was not a big surprise.
- Many were non-citizens, and proud of it. Also not a big surprise.
- Many were entranced in I-Pod isolation. Probably listening to last years American Idol winners, or "rap" (as if it were music).
- Some proudly told me they never vote.
- A few told me they were voting for Hevesi, because his father had been railroaded and "all he did was use State money to take his wife to the doctor".
- A few offered memorable excuses, such as "I already voted" (this was at 7 AM). Another said "I am going to vote....tomorrow."
5. During primary day, I split my time between campaigning out on the street, and poll watching inside the school. This was permitted, as long as I did not campaign inside the school or wear anything that would indicate I was campaigning. This simply meant when I went inside, I had to take off my Joe Fox name tag. I got involved in some poll watching excitement when I noticed Andrew Hevesi campaigning right in front of the school, in the area where you are clearly not supposed to do that. I was outside at the time, and walked right past him on my way inside to report him. I said hello to him, and he said hi back, since he did not know who I was (which REALLY pissed me off). I then did what a poll watcher is supposed to do....I told the policeman on duty and the local election supervisor that Andrew Hevesi was electioneering in the restricted area. I then watched them confront him, watched him argue back, and then leave the area in disgust. Andrew, in case you are wondering how that happened....it was ME.
6. When the polls closed, as poll watcher I got to see the results come off the machines, and was responsible for calling the results in to headquarters. It took awhile for the officials to figure out how to get the results off the machines and post them. After working from 6 AM to 9 PM I was anxious to see the results. Now I know that when they say on election night that "x% of precincts are reporting", they are talking about poll-watchers like me. I was pretty disappointed, though not shocked, when I saw that Joe got about 40% at PS 139. I called it in to headquarters and asked whether this was consistent with results from other polling places. They said it was, and I knew right there we had lost. I was angry for about 10 minutes. My rant was along these lines....."how could people be so stupid? how could people be so apathetic? People get what they deserve....etc" Then, I was concerned about how Joe would take it. When I drove over to headquarters and saw that Joe accepted things like the uber-mensch he is, I began to feel great pride at what we had done.
7. Prior to the campaign, I knew Joe for about 30 years, but I'd say we were casual friends at most, and I knew his family enough to say hello, but that was about it. I now consider Joe and his family my good friends. So, in addition to the actual campaign experience, the personal aspect was enough to make the whole experience worthwhile.
So, the primaries are over and the election season is on.
I foresee some changes and shifts coming, across the State and nationally, and personally I think it is needed.
But here in the 28th A.D., it will be "same old, same old". What a shame.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Joe Fox for NYS Assembly
Dear Friends -
Next Tuesday, September 14th, there is a primary. In many ways, it’s not an exciting Democratic primary, as the Governor’s nomination is uncontested and the Attorney General race has a non-descript field of five. However, for those of us in the 28th Assembly District, this may be the most important Democratic primary in many years. That is because my good friend Joe Fox has taken a courageous action by challenging the incumbent, Andrew Hevesi. I have never been involved in a local political campaign before, but I am strongly supporting Joe Fox in this primary. For the reasons stated below, I am asking you to support Joe as well.
Approximately five years ago, our Assemblyman Michael Cohen abruptly resigned, under mysterious circumstances. Shortly thereafter, it was announced that 31 year old Andrew Hevesi would be nominated for the seat, and would be on the ballot in a “special election”. This was an orchestrated political maneuver, which essentially gave our Assembly seat to an inexperienced paralegal, whose only “qualifications” for the job were being the son of criminally convicted political figure Alan Hevesi.
Andrew Hevesi has never had to actually RUN for his seat. He was re-elected in exactly the same way he initially came to his office, being put on the ballot without challenge. Up until this year, nobody has had the courage or the support or the qualifications to contest the “powers that be” for this seat.Had Andrew Hevesi taken this seat and actually done something useful with it, I would support him, notwithstanding the undemocratic way he obtained the seat. But the fact is, he has done NOTHING with this opportunity, other than continue to be part of the problem in Albany. We have a disgraceful State legislature, which perpetuates every bad aspect of cronyism and corrupt politics. Our Assemblyman has not taken a leadership position on ANY meaningful issue or legislation during his five years in office. He speaks through “spokespeople”, and takes his lead from the “higher ups” on every important issue.
If my interest were strictly “anti-incumbent, I would not be writing. I want to place this primary in a positive light, by telling you about Joe Fox…………..I know Joe personally for over 30 years. He is a successful attorney in private practice, concentrating primarily in real estate, business transactions and bankruptcy law. He knows what it means to start and grow a business, and he knows what it means to help businesses and individuals who have REAL problems. He is down to earth, approachable, and effective in everything he does…………He is a homeowner in Forest Hills, and with his wife Helaine has raised two great children who are in their early twenties. He knows about the issues facing our schools, about the costs of higher education and its impact on families, and about employment issues facing our community………….He has been active in MANY local community issues, and it was never with an eye on politics, it was always because he wanted to use his skills to HELP…………He is not a political neophyte, as he was involved in economic development during the Koch administration. He left the political arena at that time, to pursue private law practice.
To say that he is NOT a professional politician is actually high praise, and at the same time, he is not some kid who is going to take marching orders from others. He will look out for US, first and foremost. He has decided that NOW is the time for him to give back, and to return to the political arena, precisely because he has something worthwhile to offer. HE IS WELL QUALIFIED and HE WANTS TO SERVE.This is the criteria which should be used to evaluate a candidate. Our Assembly seat should not be “given” to someone who is not qualified and doesn’t seem to want to serve.In a local primary race, the turnout is likely to be small. I live and work in this district, and my sense is this election will be very close. EVERY vote will count!!! If you have any questions about this letter, or about Joe Fox’s candidacy, please call me at the number above, or on my cell phone 718-216-5663. Please vote in this important election.
Sincerely,
Barry Seidel
Next Tuesday, September 14th, there is a primary. In many ways, it’s not an exciting Democratic primary, as the Governor’s nomination is uncontested and the Attorney General race has a non-descript field of five. However, for those of us in the 28th Assembly District, this may be the most important Democratic primary in many years. That is because my good friend Joe Fox has taken a courageous action by challenging the incumbent, Andrew Hevesi. I have never been involved in a local political campaign before, but I am strongly supporting Joe Fox in this primary. For the reasons stated below, I am asking you to support Joe as well.
Approximately five years ago, our Assemblyman Michael Cohen abruptly resigned, under mysterious circumstances. Shortly thereafter, it was announced that 31 year old Andrew Hevesi would be nominated for the seat, and would be on the ballot in a “special election”. This was an orchestrated political maneuver, which essentially gave our Assembly seat to an inexperienced paralegal, whose only “qualifications” for the job were being the son of criminally convicted political figure Alan Hevesi.
Andrew Hevesi has never had to actually RUN for his seat. He was re-elected in exactly the same way he initially came to his office, being put on the ballot without challenge. Up until this year, nobody has had the courage or the support or the qualifications to contest the “powers that be” for this seat.Had Andrew Hevesi taken this seat and actually done something useful with it, I would support him, notwithstanding the undemocratic way he obtained the seat. But the fact is, he has done NOTHING with this opportunity, other than continue to be part of the problem in Albany. We have a disgraceful State legislature, which perpetuates every bad aspect of cronyism and corrupt politics. Our Assemblyman has not taken a leadership position on ANY meaningful issue or legislation during his five years in office. He speaks through “spokespeople”, and takes his lead from the “higher ups” on every important issue.
If my interest were strictly “anti-incumbent, I would not be writing. I want to place this primary in a positive light, by telling you about Joe Fox…………..I know Joe personally for over 30 years. He is a successful attorney in private practice, concentrating primarily in real estate, business transactions and bankruptcy law. He knows what it means to start and grow a business, and he knows what it means to help businesses and individuals who have REAL problems. He is down to earth, approachable, and effective in everything he does…………He is a homeowner in Forest Hills, and with his wife Helaine has raised two great children who are in their early twenties. He knows about the issues facing our schools, about the costs of higher education and its impact on families, and about employment issues facing our community………….He has been active in MANY local community issues, and it was never with an eye on politics, it was always because he wanted to use his skills to HELP…………He is not a political neophyte, as he was involved in economic development during the Koch administration. He left the political arena at that time, to pursue private law practice.
To say that he is NOT a professional politician is actually high praise, and at the same time, he is not some kid who is going to take marching orders from others. He will look out for US, first and foremost. He has decided that NOW is the time for him to give back, and to return to the political arena, precisely because he has something worthwhile to offer. HE IS WELL QUALIFIED and HE WANTS TO SERVE.This is the criteria which should be used to evaluate a candidate. Our Assembly seat should not be “given” to someone who is not qualified and doesn’t seem to want to serve.In a local primary race, the turnout is likely to be small. I live and work in this district, and my sense is this election will be very close. EVERY vote will count!!! If you have any questions about this letter, or about Joe Fox’s candidacy, please call me at the number above, or on my cell phone 718-216-5663. Please vote in this important election.
Sincerely,
Barry Seidel
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Concert Review - Crosby, Stills & Nash at Jones Beach
After my recent deja vu experience, it seemed obvious we were supposed to see Crosby, Stills & Nash at Jones Beach. I was pleasantly surprised to find $20 tickets online. I asked the kids if they wanted to go, and they did (we have cool kids!), so I got four tickets.
On a nice summer night, there is no better venue than the Jones Beach theatre. We had one of those nights, about 75 and breezy, with a clear sky and a bright moon.
My daughter Rebecca (17) was somewhat familiar with Crosby, Stills & Nash, but of course I had to go on and on about how they are "cultural icons of the 60's".........part of a "dying breed of social commentators"......"they were at Woodstock".......and "they did the song OHIO, which is about Kent State, and it changed my world view". She accepts my commentary, but I heard myself sounding like a big "blah blah blah", so I decided to can it. She did ask me if I thought they would play "Deja Vu", and I said I hoped so.
Here are three guys in their late 60's, who still play and sing at the highest level and with tremendous feeling. The only noticeable concession is that Stephen Stills can't sing as well as he used to. However, they adjust their song selection to accommodate this, and he still plays a mean guitar. He was attacking his guitar solos, almost in defiance of his lowered place in the singing.
David Crosby and Graham Nash can still sing and harmonize like nobody else. David Crosby did most of the intros and talking, and after a few songs said "We always do one Neil Young song, and we always have a big discussion deciding which one to do, so here's tonight's Neil Young song." They then did "Long May You Run". It's a great song, though it is such a Neil Youngish song that I kept thinking "This song is missing something.....Neil Young". You can't replace this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nszR0tfp4Es , but it was still nice.
I was also surprised that they played many covers, including Norwegian Wood, Ruby Tuesday, Midnight Rider, Behind Blue Eyes and Girl From the North Country (a Bob Dylan song). These were well chosen and very enjoyable.
About halfway through the show, David Crosby said, "You know you can't come to one of our concerts without us playing Wooden Ships, but before we do, we want to get weird on you." Then they played Deja Vu. As we used to say at Stony Brook......"Pretty heavy". Here's a youtube of them performing the song 20 years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDOMuhpqUo It will give you the flavor, but I like the way they do it now even better.
The best song of the night was one that I had not considered a favorite, but I now change my mind. It was Guinevere. It was haunting and beautiful, and it also received the ultimate compliment when halfway through I noticed Felicia had a tear in her eye. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmC1zrpwfQ&feature=related (Not our show, just a representative sample).
They did not do every song in their catalogue, and while everyone expected them to do "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" in the encore, they did not. When I looked at youtube clips of this song, it struck me that it's a Stephen Stills song that he probably can't sing to a satisfactory level. No big deal. Here is an interesting Wikipedia entry about the song, with some history and facts and I never knew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite:_Judy_Blue_Eyes
After the concert Rebecca wondered what these guys looked like when they were young. I had a great time looking at youtube clips and showing them to her. Here are a few.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9Az6S1nus (Teach Your Children)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WGF5sA-3c (Suite: Judy Blue Eyes...at Woodstock)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QsSc95pPPY&feature=fvst (this one is "Down By the River", performed on the David Steinberg show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XWmwvT8bCw ("Almost Cut My Hair", in 2009, and a good sample of what they look like now)
Comments on this blog are always welcome.
On a nice summer night, there is no better venue than the Jones Beach theatre. We had one of those nights, about 75 and breezy, with a clear sky and a bright moon.
My daughter Rebecca (17) was somewhat familiar with Crosby, Stills & Nash, but of course I had to go on and on about how they are "cultural icons of the 60's".........part of a "dying breed of social commentators"......"they were at Woodstock".......and "they did the song OHIO, which is about Kent State, and it changed my world view". She accepts my commentary, but I heard myself sounding like a big "blah blah blah", so I decided to can it. She did ask me if I thought they would play "Deja Vu", and I said I hoped so.
Here are three guys in their late 60's, who still play and sing at the highest level and with tremendous feeling. The only noticeable concession is that Stephen Stills can't sing as well as he used to. However, they adjust their song selection to accommodate this, and he still plays a mean guitar. He was attacking his guitar solos, almost in defiance of his lowered place in the singing.
David Crosby and Graham Nash can still sing and harmonize like nobody else. David Crosby did most of the intros and talking, and after a few songs said "We always do one Neil Young song, and we always have a big discussion deciding which one to do, so here's tonight's Neil Young song." They then did "Long May You Run". It's a great song, though it is such a Neil Youngish song that I kept thinking "This song is missing something.....Neil Young". You can't replace this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nszR0tfp4Es , but it was still nice.
I was also surprised that they played many covers, including Norwegian Wood, Ruby Tuesday, Midnight Rider, Behind Blue Eyes and Girl From the North Country (a Bob Dylan song). These were well chosen and very enjoyable.
About halfway through the show, David Crosby said, "You know you can't come to one of our concerts without us playing Wooden Ships, but before we do, we want to get weird on you." Then they played Deja Vu. As we used to say at Stony Brook......"Pretty heavy". Here's a youtube of them performing the song 20 years ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDOMuhpqUo It will give you the flavor, but I like the way they do it now even better.
The best song of the night was one that I had not considered a favorite, but I now change my mind. It was Guinevere. It was haunting and beautiful, and it also received the ultimate compliment when halfway through I noticed Felicia had a tear in her eye. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmC1zrpwfQ&feature=related (Not our show, just a representative sample).
They did not do every song in their catalogue, and while everyone expected them to do "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" in the encore, they did not. When I looked at youtube clips of this song, it struck me that it's a Stephen Stills song that he probably can't sing to a satisfactory level. No big deal. Here is an interesting Wikipedia entry about the song, with some history and facts and I never knew http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suite:_Judy_Blue_Eyes
After the concert Rebecca wondered what these guys looked like when they were young. I had a great time looking at youtube clips and showing them to her. Here are a few.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9Az6S1nus (Teach Your Children)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WGF5sA-3c (Suite: Judy Blue Eyes...at Woodstock)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QsSc95pPPY&feature=fvst (this one is "Down By the River", performed on the David Steinberg show)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XWmwvT8bCw ("Almost Cut My Hair", in 2009, and a good sample of what they look like now)
Comments on this blog are always welcome.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Strange but True, Deja Vu
On Saturday we decided to drive down to Princeton to take a tour of the school. Princeton is a long-shot for anyone, but Rebecca warrants an application, so it was worth spending a day.
I have been to the campus many times, since my Mom lived the last 10 years of her life in Plainsboro, New Jersey, the next town from Princeton. I had not been around there since 1998, the last time being when Brian and I finished cleaning out Mom's apartment. I did not have any particular trepidation about going back there, I just haven't had a reason.
Our GPS suggested getting off at Jersey Turnpike Exit 9, and then taking Route 1 for 18 miles to Princeton. This seemed like a stupid way to go (too much Route 1 with lights), so I decided to ignore the GPS and go to Exit 8A (9 miles to that Exit) and go through Plainsboro to Princeton. Naturally, as soon as I passed Exit 9 we encountered heavy traffic all the way to Exit 8A, but in hindsight, I think we were supposed to get stuck in traffic.
When we got off at Exit 8A, we started driving on the very familiar Route 130. I had driven this route MANY times, and felt a warm feeling when we came upon the first cornfields. We were listening to a local Princeton radio station. Just as we approached the first cornfield, the Crosby, Stills & Nash song Deja Vu started playing.
I had to pull over for a moment. Deja Vu during my deja vu was a lot to handle. After I composed myself, I turned it up and kept driving. The cornfields were beautiful. Here's a youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDOMuhpqUo If you are not familiar, check it out.
Lyrics:
If I had ever been here before I would probably know just what to do.
Don't you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you.
And I feel
Like I've been here before
Feel Like I've been here before And you know It makes me wonder
What's going on under the ground
Do you know?
Don't you wonder?What's going on down under you.
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
I have been to the campus many times, since my Mom lived the last 10 years of her life in Plainsboro, New Jersey, the next town from Princeton. I had not been around there since 1998, the last time being when Brian and I finished cleaning out Mom's apartment. I did not have any particular trepidation about going back there, I just haven't had a reason.
Our GPS suggested getting off at Jersey Turnpike Exit 9, and then taking Route 1 for 18 miles to Princeton. This seemed like a stupid way to go (too much Route 1 with lights), so I decided to ignore the GPS and go to Exit 8A (9 miles to that Exit) and go through Plainsboro to Princeton. Naturally, as soon as I passed Exit 9 we encountered heavy traffic all the way to Exit 8A, but in hindsight, I think we were supposed to get stuck in traffic.
When we got off at Exit 8A, we started driving on the very familiar Route 130. I had driven this route MANY times, and felt a warm feeling when we came upon the first cornfields. We were listening to a local Princeton radio station. Just as we approached the first cornfield, the Crosby, Stills & Nash song Deja Vu started playing.
I had to pull over for a moment. Deja Vu during my deja vu was a lot to handle. After I composed myself, I turned it up and kept driving. The cornfields were beautiful. Here's a youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiDOMuhpqUo If you are not familiar, check it out.
Lyrics:
If I had ever been here before I would probably know just what to do.
Don't you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you.
And I feel
Like I've been here before
Feel Like I've been here before And you know It makes me wonder
What's going on under the ground
Do you know?
Don't you wonder?What's going on down under you.
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
We have all been here before
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Softball Playoff Update
The game lived up to its hype. The championship round matches up the two rival Lake Success teams. I'm a ringer on my team, an "outsider", but the other teams never care because I catch and bat 11th. Of course, if they realized I am our teams secret weapon and closet manager, they'd be seeking to bar me. I don't know if the teams have names or anything.....in my mind there's only "our team" and the "other" team. I love my team, but I don't feel the rivalry the way my teammates do. However, if my team is psyched, I'm psyched. If the rival is talking trash about our team (I heard one of them say we were 8-1 underdogs in the series), I'm mad and I'm playing hard.
The first game drew a big crowd, with wine drinking wives and extended family and friends. Lots of yelling and cheering. I admit it, the biggest crowd I've played in front of in a long time. It had both teams playing intensely and at a high level.
Softball wise, everybody knows what this series comes down to. The teams are evenly matched (personally I think we have significantly better players), but the other team has a great pitcher. OK, maybe "great" is too strong. He's a "B" league pitcher, pitching in a "C" league. He is MUCH better than any other pitcher in our league. He throws hard, and he never gives in and throws an easy one. He never "lays the first one in" to try and get ahead. His control is good enough to throw hard on any count. I actually like hitting against him, because he seems nice, and it's a challenge.
The other team also plays a smart defense, suited to their pitcher. They play their outfield very shallow, especially against weaker hitters, and they play their right fielder practically on the right field line. I will also say something nice about the other team.....they batted all the players who showed up. This makes it harder to score runs, as the better hitters bat less often, and some weaker hitters are using up outs. After all, in a seven inning game there are only 21 outs, and they all count. End of nice comments. I'd love to teach the opponents a lesson, the lesson being "it ain't much to brag about when you boost your mediocre team with a ringer pitcher". I do realize that regardless of the outcome of the series, lessons like this are lost on some people.
The game turned out to be a pitchers duel. We expected to have some trouble scoring runs. Not only is their pitcher good, but we went with a long lineup too. What was most impressive was that our pitching and defense made it a battle.
Both teams played tight defense and were making all the plays, with few errors. Going into the top of the 7th, we were down 2-1. In the top of the 7th we scratched out a run to tie the game at 2-2, and had a man on second with two outs. Had we managed one more hit to take the lead, I think we'd have clamped down and won. However, we didn't get it, and went to the bottom of the 7th, in the field with a tie score.
It's never comfortable for the visitors when the home team is batting in a tie game. There is no margin for error. With a man on first and one out, one of their batters hit a long drive to right center. I knew it was trouble right away, and I saw that as our shortstop went out for the relay, the runner was going to score easily, all the way from first. When the throw came in I didn't even bother to catch it, because the winning run had already crossed the plate and the other team was celebrating.
Except.....our third baseman (Jeff) was screaming at me "GET THE BALL!!!". I yelled back "WHY?!?!?" He said "APPEAL AT THIRD". So I got the ball, and noticed the umpire was still on the field, a good sign. I threw the ball to Jeff at third and looked at the umpire. He mumbled "You have to say something". I said "Appeal, he missed third base." And then....
the umpire made a fist with his right hand and and said "OUT".
Of course, the other team went nuts. Lots of screaming, calling the play "bush league" and the like. I had a good vantage point to hear all this nonsense, and at one point I turned to one of the apoplectic opponents and said "How hard would it have been to touch third base?" As an aside, I was told later by their third base coach that the runner had "missed it by a mile".
So it was back to baseball. Now we had a man on second and two out. We decided to walk the number six hitter and pitch to the next batter. I guess there was some poetic justice in what happened next.....the batter hit a single to left, and the winning run scored.
So, the 8-1 underdogs lost a nail-biter, 3-2.
Nothing to be ashamed of. Next game is Tuesday.
We can beat these guys!!! Let's get it on!!!!!
The first game drew a big crowd, with wine drinking wives and extended family and friends. Lots of yelling and cheering. I admit it, the biggest crowd I've played in front of in a long time. It had both teams playing intensely and at a high level.
Softball wise, everybody knows what this series comes down to. The teams are evenly matched (personally I think we have significantly better players), but the other team has a great pitcher. OK, maybe "great" is too strong. He's a "B" league pitcher, pitching in a "C" league. He is MUCH better than any other pitcher in our league. He throws hard, and he never gives in and throws an easy one. He never "lays the first one in" to try and get ahead. His control is good enough to throw hard on any count. I actually like hitting against him, because he seems nice, and it's a challenge.
The other team also plays a smart defense, suited to their pitcher. They play their outfield very shallow, especially against weaker hitters, and they play their right fielder practically on the right field line. I will also say something nice about the other team.....they batted all the players who showed up. This makes it harder to score runs, as the better hitters bat less often, and some weaker hitters are using up outs. After all, in a seven inning game there are only 21 outs, and they all count. End of nice comments. I'd love to teach the opponents a lesson, the lesson being "it ain't much to brag about when you boost your mediocre team with a ringer pitcher". I do realize that regardless of the outcome of the series, lessons like this are lost on some people.
The game turned out to be a pitchers duel. We expected to have some trouble scoring runs. Not only is their pitcher good, but we went with a long lineup too. What was most impressive was that our pitching and defense made it a battle.
Both teams played tight defense and were making all the plays, with few errors. Going into the top of the 7th, we were down 2-1. In the top of the 7th we scratched out a run to tie the game at 2-2, and had a man on second with two outs. Had we managed one more hit to take the lead, I think we'd have clamped down and won. However, we didn't get it, and went to the bottom of the 7th, in the field with a tie score.
It's never comfortable for the visitors when the home team is batting in a tie game. There is no margin for error. With a man on first and one out, one of their batters hit a long drive to right center. I knew it was trouble right away, and I saw that as our shortstop went out for the relay, the runner was going to score easily, all the way from first. When the throw came in I didn't even bother to catch it, because the winning run had already crossed the plate and the other team was celebrating.
Except.....our third baseman (Jeff) was screaming at me "GET THE BALL!!!". I yelled back "WHY?!?!?" He said "APPEAL AT THIRD". So I got the ball, and noticed the umpire was still on the field, a good sign. I threw the ball to Jeff at third and looked at the umpire. He mumbled "You have to say something". I said "Appeal, he missed third base." And then....
the umpire made a fist with his right hand and and said "OUT".
Of course, the other team went nuts. Lots of screaming, calling the play "bush league" and the like. I had a good vantage point to hear all this nonsense, and at one point I turned to one of the apoplectic opponents and said "How hard would it have been to touch third base?" As an aside, I was told later by their third base coach that the runner had "missed it by a mile".
So it was back to baseball. Now we had a man on second and two out. We decided to walk the number six hitter and pitch to the next batter. I guess there was some poetic justice in what happened next.....the batter hit a single to left, and the winning run scored.
So, the 8-1 underdogs lost a nail-biter, 3-2.
Nothing to be ashamed of. Next game is Tuesday.
We can beat these guys!!! Let's get it on!!!!!
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Softball Playoffs
Our team made the playoffs. Our opening playoff game was a single elimination against a team called "The Rookies". In the regular season we had split with them, winning the first game and then having them kill us in the second game. However, we played a flawless game and advanced to the next round.
Now we were in a "two out of three" series against "Sterling". Average age 35; strong and fast and aggressive. Their pitcher was pretty good too; very competitive and threw hard when he was ahead in the count.
In the first game we had a solid defensive effort, got some timely hitting, and some sloppy defense from the other side, and won 12-8.
In the second game we had a rude awakening, when we realized Sterling had been missing a few players the first game. Suddenly we saw guys hitting the ball to places we had never seen balls hit, and a shortstop who was catching EVERYTHING, both on the ground and in the air. We also got treated to the opponent taking extra bases and daring us to stop them. In short, they were treating us like "old guys", which we are. We lost this one 13-7, but it was really not a close game.
Going into the deciding game, the sentiment on our side was "What can we possibly do to beat these guys?" A few things were obvious:
- We had to play solid defense, and keep the extra bases to a minimum.
- We had to run the bases well, and be selectively aggressive. (We did notice they had a few weak outfield arms and could be pressured into throwing the ball around).
- We needed to hit well enough to make them make the plays. In other words, stay away from pop-ups and fly balls......so when in doubt.....DOWN AND HARD.
- We needed a good pitching strategy.....because in the prior game they killed us with long balls.
As catcher I was directly involved in pitching strategy. Our pitcher, Rick, has great control. It's a great feature, but when he becomes predictable, it is a downfall against strong hitters. He can throw harder when ahead in the count, but he is not overpowering. He does have an effective change-up, but again, when it becomes predictable it yields tremendous home runs.
One thing I noticed about the long hits in the second game, they were all to center field. They were also all on outside pitches. In the second game our left fielder didn't have a single fly ball hit his way. Very unusual, especially since Rick is not overpowering and throws change-ups. I suggested to Rick that we throw more pitches inside, even change-ups. I know as a hitter I hate inside pitches. They tie you up and take away your power. Outside pitches are much easier to hit hard because you can extend your arms and hit the ball on the best part of the bat. Throwing inside is easier said than done, but Rick agreed with this strategy and said he would try it. He also suggested that when he threw his change-up he would throw it with a higher arc, and even have some float in high, to try to tempt the aggressive Sterling hitters. I agreed with this idea. I also suggested that every so often he let loose a wild and hard pitch, maybe even over the batters head, just to keep them unsettled. He agreed to try it.
Our change in approach was VERY effective. Adding the inside pitches worked. There were quite a few fly outs to left and left center, and some infield pop-ups (which happens when big hitters try to hit inside pitches up the middle). Some of the pop-ups were on high change-ups. Rick threw a few high and inside too, and I sensed behind the plate that the hitters were not nearly as comfortable as they were in the prior game.
We had some timely hitting throughout the game, and the fact is, in the later innings Sterling made some errors on what should have been easy plays. However, this is not "luck" on our end, we applied pressure by forcing them to make plays and by hustling.
In the 6th inning I was involved in a big play in the field. The opposing pitcher also turned out to be one of their best hitters. In the 3 game series he had 10 hits in 11 at bats (no lie). Almost every hit was a line shot up the middle, and he also ran hard out of the box and went for a double every time. He was able to make it because our outfielders had to play so deep. When he came up in the 6th inning, we were ahead 7-6 and they had a man on second. He lined a single up the middle which scored the runner and tied the game 7-7. However, this time we held him at first. The next batter hit a single to right center, and I had a feeling the runner on first would try to score. Sure enough, he rounded third and never stopped, BUT, our shortstop (Mike) went out and got the relay from right, and realized the runner on first was probably coming. He threw me a strike, which I received in enough time to trap the overly aggressive runner between home and third. What ensued was an extended run down play, which ended with me tagging the runner out at home. The run down went on so long that the runner seemed exhausted. Run down plays SHOULD result in an out, but at our level they are by no means routine. It felt great to end their rally this way.
In the top of the seventh we scored two to make in 9-7. This did not feel comfortable, and it wasn't. They strung together a few hits and tied the game at 9-9. They also had the winning run on second with two outs. Time for some strategy. I went to the mound and suggested to Rick that we intentionally walk the hitter. Rick wanted to "pitch around him", but I really did not like that idea. There were a few reasons: I like setting up a force at third. I also thought that the next batter (the opposing catcher) was not as good a hitter as the batter. In addition, the next batter was a dead pull hitter, who had hit a triple down the left field line earlier in the game, and I thought he might change his swing with a force at third. We called in the infielders and collectively agreed to intentionally walk the batter. With first and second, the next batter hit a ground ball back to Rick, for the third out, and the game went into extra innings. Personally, I think he hit the comebacker because he altered his swing due to the intentional walk, but hey, I don't need to take credit.....walking that guy was the right move any way you look at it.
In the top of the 8th, we scored three times to make it 12-9. I had a small role in this. With a man on first and no outs, I hit a ground ball to third. My thought as I ran to first was "Oh shit, I just hit into a double play....run hard!!". I ran hard, figuring I would be trying to beat a relay throw on a double play. Instead, as I reached first I heard a lot of yelling, which turned out to be our fans cheering when the third baseman's throw to second pulled the second baseman off the bag. Another example of "down and hard" being better than balls in the air. Our next batter hit a single, which scored a run and sent me to third. I then scored on a sac fly.
So we went to the bottom of the 8th with a three run lead. Before the inning started Rick said to me "These guys are so aggressive they will probably still be swinging for the fences, even though they need baserunners. I'm gonna let 'em do that. What do you think?" I said "Go for it." We had our outfielders playing VERY deep, enabling them to catch very long drives for very big outs. Had Sterling just hit some line drives, they would have been doubles, that's how deep we were playing. But I have no problem letting opponents beat themselves. They went down one-two-three on two fly balls and a grounder to short.
I've played in a lot of games over the years, but this one was the most exciting and most gratifying.
Now we advance to the finals, against our arch-rivals. They lost only once during the regular season, they have a very strong pitcher, and they beat us twice. Can we come up with a winning strategy?
We'll sure try.
Now we were in a "two out of three" series against "Sterling". Average age 35; strong and fast and aggressive. Their pitcher was pretty good too; very competitive and threw hard when he was ahead in the count.
In the first game we had a solid defensive effort, got some timely hitting, and some sloppy defense from the other side, and won 12-8.
In the second game we had a rude awakening, when we realized Sterling had been missing a few players the first game. Suddenly we saw guys hitting the ball to places we had never seen balls hit, and a shortstop who was catching EVERYTHING, both on the ground and in the air. We also got treated to the opponent taking extra bases and daring us to stop them. In short, they were treating us like "old guys", which we are. We lost this one 13-7, but it was really not a close game.
Going into the deciding game, the sentiment on our side was "What can we possibly do to beat these guys?" A few things were obvious:
- We had to play solid defense, and keep the extra bases to a minimum.
- We had to run the bases well, and be selectively aggressive. (We did notice they had a few weak outfield arms and could be pressured into throwing the ball around).
- We needed to hit well enough to make them make the plays. In other words, stay away from pop-ups and fly balls......so when in doubt.....DOWN AND HARD.
- We needed a good pitching strategy.....because in the prior game they killed us with long balls.
As catcher I was directly involved in pitching strategy. Our pitcher, Rick, has great control. It's a great feature, but when he becomes predictable, it is a downfall against strong hitters. He can throw harder when ahead in the count, but he is not overpowering. He does have an effective change-up, but again, when it becomes predictable it yields tremendous home runs.
One thing I noticed about the long hits in the second game, they were all to center field. They were also all on outside pitches. In the second game our left fielder didn't have a single fly ball hit his way. Very unusual, especially since Rick is not overpowering and throws change-ups. I suggested to Rick that we throw more pitches inside, even change-ups. I know as a hitter I hate inside pitches. They tie you up and take away your power. Outside pitches are much easier to hit hard because you can extend your arms and hit the ball on the best part of the bat. Throwing inside is easier said than done, but Rick agreed with this strategy and said he would try it. He also suggested that when he threw his change-up he would throw it with a higher arc, and even have some float in high, to try to tempt the aggressive Sterling hitters. I agreed with this idea. I also suggested that every so often he let loose a wild and hard pitch, maybe even over the batters head, just to keep them unsettled. He agreed to try it.
Our change in approach was VERY effective. Adding the inside pitches worked. There were quite a few fly outs to left and left center, and some infield pop-ups (which happens when big hitters try to hit inside pitches up the middle). Some of the pop-ups were on high change-ups. Rick threw a few high and inside too, and I sensed behind the plate that the hitters were not nearly as comfortable as they were in the prior game.
We had some timely hitting throughout the game, and the fact is, in the later innings Sterling made some errors on what should have been easy plays. However, this is not "luck" on our end, we applied pressure by forcing them to make plays and by hustling.
In the 6th inning I was involved in a big play in the field. The opposing pitcher also turned out to be one of their best hitters. In the 3 game series he had 10 hits in 11 at bats (no lie). Almost every hit was a line shot up the middle, and he also ran hard out of the box and went for a double every time. He was able to make it because our outfielders had to play so deep. When he came up in the 6th inning, we were ahead 7-6 and they had a man on second. He lined a single up the middle which scored the runner and tied the game 7-7. However, this time we held him at first. The next batter hit a single to right center, and I had a feeling the runner on first would try to score. Sure enough, he rounded third and never stopped, BUT, our shortstop (Mike) went out and got the relay from right, and realized the runner on first was probably coming. He threw me a strike, which I received in enough time to trap the overly aggressive runner between home and third. What ensued was an extended run down play, which ended with me tagging the runner out at home. The run down went on so long that the runner seemed exhausted. Run down plays SHOULD result in an out, but at our level they are by no means routine. It felt great to end their rally this way.
In the top of the seventh we scored two to make in 9-7. This did not feel comfortable, and it wasn't. They strung together a few hits and tied the game at 9-9. They also had the winning run on second with two outs. Time for some strategy. I went to the mound and suggested to Rick that we intentionally walk the hitter. Rick wanted to "pitch around him", but I really did not like that idea. There were a few reasons: I like setting up a force at third. I also thought that the next batter (the opposing catcher) was not as good a hitter as the batter. In addition, the next batter was a dead pull hitter, who had hit a triple down the left field line earlier in the game, and I thought he might change his swing with a force at third. We called in the infielders and collectively agreed to intentionally walk the batter. With first and second, the next batter hit a ground ball back to Rick, for the third out, and the game went into extra innings. Personally, I think he hit the comebacker because he altered his swing due to the intentional walk, but hey, I don't need to take credit.....walking that guy was the right move any way you look at it.
In the top of the 8th, we scored three times to make it 12-9. I had a small role in this. With a man on first and no outs, I hit a ground ball to third. My thought as I ran to first was "Oh shit, I just hit into a double play....run hard!!". I ran hard, figuring I would be trying to beat a relay throw on a double play. Instead, as I reached first I heard a lot of yelling, which turned out to be our fans cheering when the third baseman's throw to second pulled the second baseman off the bag. Another example of "down and hard" being better than balls in the air. Our next batter hit a single, which scored a run and sent me to third. I then scored on a sac fly.
So we went to the bottom of the 8th with a three run lead. Before the inning started Rick said to me "These guys are so aggressive they will probably still be swinging for the fences, even though they need baserunners. I'm gonna let 'em do that. What do you think?" I said "Go for it." We had our outfielders playing VERY deep, enabling them to catch very long drives for very big outs. Had Sterling just hit some line drives, they would have been doubles, that's how deep we were playing. But I have no problem letting opponents beat themselves. They went down one-two-three on two fly balls and a grounder to short.
I've played in a lot of games over the years, but this one was the most exciting and most gratifying.
Now we advance to the finals, against our arch-rivals. They lost only once during the regular season, they have a very strong pitcher, and they beat us twice. Can we come up with a winning strategy?
We'll sure try.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Still Playin' Softball
I play on a softball team. Our games are on Tuesday at 6:30, but this week we played Monday and Tuesday to make up for a rained out game. This is fast pitch with balls and strikes (not arc pitch, not windmill). I love this style of play because the strategy and flow of the game is much like "real baseball". That is because all three aspects of the game (pitching, fielding and hitting) are important. Our league is evenly matched, with most of the games being close. We have some slugfests of the 15-14 variety, but some nights we'll have a 4-3 game too.
I'd say the average age on our team is late 40's. One or two guys are relatively in their prime, but the rest of us are at various levels of decline. Some guys were surely excellent players when they were younger, while some were average, and the declines are in proportion to where we used to be.
I've been playing catcher the past few seasons. In softball this is usually the position to play when you aren't too good in the field. This is probably true for me, but what I try to do is play catcher really well. I observe the other team's hitters, try to figure out the best strategy to pitch them, and discuss it with our pitcher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeiYnVScg7w&feature=related However, we don't have many big meetings at the mound. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lptsSTTWLVQ&feature=related I check out our fielding alignment and suggest adjustments when needed. I keep the fielders alert as to number of outs, and situations. About once a game there is a foul pop-up to go after (they are harder to catch than it looks, lots of spin). Fairly regularly there are plays at the plate. These are also harder than they look, and obviously, when there's a play at the plate its always important to the outcome of the game.
I always had a good eye at the plate and could hit pretty well. You'd never know it now, but I used to hit with some pop. Now I try to hit line drives, and sometimes will look for an outside pitch I can hit to right field. In fast pitch you have to be aware of the count, and if you are behind in the count, some pitchers will throw pretty hard, or try to get you to swing at tempting pitches out of the zone. Sometimes if I think a good pitcher is trying to get ahead of me, and if I think the first pitch is the best one I'll get, I'll jump on it. Sometimes I'll take a strike, just to look the pitcher over. I try to think about what I'm doing, but sometimes you can think too much, and it's better to just try to hit the ball "down and hard".
I have a few observations about softball, for what they are worth.....
There is a big difference between being 35 and 55.
If you hit the ball on the ground you have a much better chance to get on base than if you hit it in the air. The same could be said to Jose Reyes.
You can't win without good pitching.
If you throw to the wrong bases, run the bases poorly, or play sloppily, you won't win.
With first and second, on a ground ball to shortstop, the best play is usually a force at third.
With a man on second, and a single to the outfield, the best play is almost always to concede the run and hold the batter at first base.
If you are playing with 10 in the field (very common in softball), you have to decide whether to play four outfielders, or three plus a "short fielder". We usually play four, but in last nights game the other team killed us with a short fielder.
When the players on your team are nice, and the league is generally nice, it is much more fun. I played a few years for a Knights of Pythias Lodge team, where the people were not so nice, and I stopped playing because it just wasn't fun.
When I played for the Lodge team I was in my early 30's. I played shortstop and batted lead-off, in a pretty good league. Not only would the guys on my present team not believe this, I sometimes think I must have imagined it!
It would be nice to capture some magic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2pXikeDRg
I'd say the average age on our team is late 40's. One or two guys are relatively in their prime, but the rest of us are at various levels of decline. Some guys were surely excellent players when they were younger, while some were average, and the declines are in proportion to where we used to be.
I've been playing catcher the past few seasons. In softball this is usually the position to play when you aren't too good in the field. This is probably true for me, but what I try to do is play catcher really well. I observe the other team's hitters, try to figure out the best strategy to pitch them, and discuss it with our pitcher. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeiYnVScg7w&feature=related However, we don't have many big meetings at the mound. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lptsSTTWLVQ&feature=related I check out our fielding alignment and suggest adjustments when needed. I keep the fielders alert as to number of outs, and situations. About once a game there is a foul pop-up to go after (they are harder to catch than it looks, lots of spin). Fairly regularly there are plays at the plate. These are also harder than they look, and obviously, when there's a play at the plate its always important to the outcome of the game.
I always had a good eye at the plate and could hit pretty well. You'd never know it now, but I used to hit with some pop. Now I try to hit line drives, and sometimes will look for an outside pitch I can hit to right field. In fast pitch you have to be aware of the count, and if you are behind in the count, some pitchers will throw pretty hard, or try to get you to swing at tempting pitches out of the zone. Sometimes if I think a good pitcher is trying to get ahead of me, and if I think the first pitch is the best one I'll get, I'll jump on it. Sometimes I'll take a strike, just to look the pitcher over. I try to think about what I'm doing, but sometimes you can think too much, and it's better to just try to hit the ball "down and hard".
I have a few observations about softball, for what they are worth.....
There is a big difference between being 35 and 55.
If you hit the ball on the ground you have a much better chance to get on base than if you hit it in the air. The same could be said to Jose Reyes.
You can't win without good pitching.
If you throw to the wrong bases, run the bases poorly, or play sloppily, you won't win.
With first and second, on a ground ball to shortstop, the best play is usually a force at third.
With a man on second, and a single to the outfield, the best play is almost always to concede the run and hold the batter at first base.
If you are playing with 10 in the field (very common in softball), you have to decide whether to play four outfielders, or three plus a "short fielder". We usually play four, but in last nights game the other team killed us with a short fielder.
When the players on your team are nice, and the league is generally nice, it is much more fun. I played a few years for a Knights of Pythias Lodge team, where the people were not so nice, and I stopped playing because it just wasn't fun.
When I played for the Lodge team I was in my early 30's. I played shortstop and batted lead-off, in a pretty good league. Not only would the guys on my present team not believe this, I sometimes think I must have imagined it!
It would be nice to capture some magic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2pXikeDRg
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Random Thoughts
I have watched some of the World Cup Soccer matches. The skill and athleticism is impressive. But what is the story with that humming sound throughout all the games? I heard the announcers say something about some noisemakers the South African fans are using. It is REALLY annoying. The networks must be furious about this........OK......I googled the question, and here's the story....its the "vuvuzela"
http://www.soccer.fanhouse.com/2010/06/13/vuvuzela-ban-could-come-to-world-cup/
Another thing about the World Cup. I kind of like the smug and well spoken British announcers. They announce the games like a golf match.
Last thing about the World Cup, and soccer in general. As a spectator sport, and a sport to talk about during a game, and for strategy.....gimme BASEBALL. Not even close.
Next topic - gulf oil spill. Man, there's a lot of oil down there! I don't understand the geology of how so much is shooting out of there for so long. Is this a typical well? An amazing well? How long would it have taken to "harvest" all the oil that's shooting out of there, had it not blown up? When I was in law school in Texas, a popular elective was "O&G" (oil & gas). I didn't take that class because I didn't see much use for it in Queens, but now I wish I knew the answers to my questions. All I really know about O&G is what I learned from the Beverly Hillbillies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkOGM6gHvao
While I was "researching" the Beverly Hillbillies, I came across the theme from another cool show. All I can say is...they don't make em like this any more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbk81X6WHA4&feature=related
I'm always interested in what historical or cultural things people of different ages are aware of. The other day I mentioned "Joan Baez" in my office. Three people under age 35 "never heard of her". Is it just me, or is this evidence that we are in serious trouble?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFvkhzkS4bw&feature=related When I was a kid, my mom took guitar lessons. She wanted to play and sing like Joan Baez, and to my recollection, she did a good job of it.
Bonus clip: I love this song, Diamonds and Rust....it's about Bob Dylan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGMHSbcd_qI&feature=related
I am usually a big fan of "cover" versions of songs, but I don't know about the Judas Priest version of Diamonds and Rust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIC7KQPDuDc&feature=related
Last topic for today. The Mets are fun this year. They fight hard and they have some nice players. It should be a great summer.
http://www.soccer.fanhouse.com/2010/06/13/vuvuzela-ban-could-come-to-world-cup/
Another thing about the World Cup. I kind of like the smug and well spoken British announcers. They announce the games like a golf match.
Last thing about the World Cup, and soccer in general. As a spectator sport, and a sport to talk about during a game, and for strategy.....gimme BASEBALL. Not even close.
Next topic - gulf oil spill. Man, there's a lot of oil down there! I don't understand the geology of how so much is shooting out of there for so long. Is this a typical well? An amazing well? How long would it have taken to "harvest" all the oil that's shooting out of there, had it not blown up? When I was in law school in Texas, a popular elective was "O&G" (oil & gas). I didn't take that class because I didn't see much use for it in Queens, but now I wish I knew the answers to my questions. All I really know about O&G is what I learned from the Beverly Hillbillies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkOGM6gHvao
While I was "researching" the Beverly Hillbillies, I came across the theme from another cool show. All I can say is...they don't make em like this any more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbk81X6WHA4&feature=related
I'm always interested in what historical or cultural things people of different ages are aware of. The other day I mentioned "Joan Baez" in my office. Three people under age 35 "never heard of her". Is it just me, or is this evidence that we are in serious trouble?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFvkhzkS4bw&feature=related When I was a kid, my mom took guitar lessons. She wanted to play and sing like Joan Baez, and to my recollection, she did a good job of it.
Bonus clip: I love this song, Diamonds and Rust....it's about Bob Dylan...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGMHSbcd_qI&feature=related
I am usually a big fan of "cover" versions of songs, but I don't know about the Judas Priest version of Diamonds and Rust http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIC7KQPDuDc&feature=related
Last topic for today. The Mets are fun this year. They fight hard and they have some nice players. It should be a great summer.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Who Should Really Make a Will?
The answer to this question starts with a question.....
"Who would inherit from you if you did not make a Will?"
When I interview someone who wants to make a Will, the first group of questions I ask is THAT. There is a good reason I start with this. It usually lets me know who the "players" are. Not only that, later on, the people on my little family tree are the people who must be notified when I try to probate the will.
People are sometimes taken aback when I start off questioning them about their closest family members, and sometimes they even say "But I don't want those people in my Will". This is fine with me, but I still have to know who they are. This is because anyone who would inherit if there were no will, is someone I have to notify when the Will is being probated. Legally, we call these people "adversely affected" by the Will. They are the only people who have standing to contest a Will. Even if they are not going to be in the Will, I need to know who they are. If it's a close relation, say a child or a sibling, I will usually ask WHY they are being left out, and I make a written note of it in my file.
When somebody is left out and squawks after the person dies, having a note about it in the drafting attorneys file is VERY important. When I represent someone in a potential will contest, one thing I hate to see is a note in the drafting attorneys file explaining WHY the person is being left out. If I see this it is usually enough reason for me not to take on the will contest.
I am amazed at how often people do not consider the question "Who would inherit from me if I did not make a Will?" The place I usually see this is Estates where there is no Will, and distant relatives are inheriting. I see this often, sometimes with a lot of money involved, and I always think "Did the person never think of what the result of not making a Will would be?" "Could they have intended THIS?" Did they not have a friend or a charity that was more deserving than the cousin once removed (who never met the decedent)?
Think this never happens?
I GET THESE ALL THE TIME!!!
I frequently represent distant relatives in this position, and this is often a major score for them. I like these cases too, but at some point in the case it always occurs to me (and it sometimes occurs to people who actually knew the decedent) "they should have made a Will".
I have also had many cases where people told me "the decedent talked about making a Will", or "he told me he was going to make a Will", but for some reason they never did. I think there are several reasons for this....
Procrastination - an intent to do it in the future, and just not dealing with it.
Superstition - a fear that doing it will cause illness or death.
Cheapness - not wanting to pay for a Will.
Delusions of immortality - more people have this than one might think.
Monumental inconsiderateness - totally not caring what happens to others after you go.
Strangely, Wills are most often made by people in a tight nuclear family....say a married couple with two children. There are good reasons for such people to make Wills too, but the fact is, the results if they don't are not so different then if they do.
People who don't or can't ask the question "Who would inherit from me you if I did not make a Will?" are often some combo of cheap, procrastinating, superstitious, monumentally inconsiderate, and/or delusional (vis a vis their mortality) individuals. I don't mind this all that much, these end up being my largest fee cases, but.....it sure is puzzling.
Maybe they "just can't deal with it", and on many levels I understand and respect this. I also know that if you are the person someone SHOULD be putting in their Will, it is a difficult subject to bring up. I've had people ask me what to do in this situation. Not only is there is no easy answer, but every situation is unique.
I will say this.....if the person has talked about it, and you think they WANT to do it, help them get it done. But, as we say in poker, don't overplay your hand.
Yeah, this gets complicated. But not nearly as complicated as when procrastination wins out, and the person who should have made a will doesn't.
Next post - something not death related!!
"Who would inherit from you if you did not make a Will?"
When I interview someone who wants to make a Will, the first group of questions I ask is THAT. There is a good reason I start with this. It usually lets me know who the "players" are. Not only that, later on, the people on my little family tree are the people who must be notified when I try to probate the will.
People are sometimes taken aback when I start off questioning them about their closest family members, and sometimes they even say "But I don't want those people in my Will". This is fine with me, but I still have to know who they are. This is because anyone who would inherit if there were no will, is someone I have to notify when the Will is being probated. Legally, we call these people "adversely affected" by the Will. They are the only people who have standing to contest a Will. Even if they are not going to be in the Will, I need to know who they are. If it's a close relation, say a child or a sibling, I will usually ask WHY they are being left out, and I make a written note of it in my file.
When somebody is left out and squawks after the person dies, having a note about it in the drafting attorneys file is VERY important. When I represent someone in a potential will contest, one thing I hate to see is a note in the drafting attorneys file explaining WHY the person is being left out. If I see this it is usually enough reason for me not to take on the will contest.
I am amazed at how often people do not consider the question "Who would inherit from me if I did not make a Will?" The place I usually see this is Estates where there is no Will, and distant relatives are inheriting. I see this often, sometimes with a lot of money involved, and I always think "Did the person never think of what the result of not making a Will would be?" "Could they have intended THIS?" Did they not have a friend or a charity that was more deserving than the cousin once removed (who never met the decedent)?
Think this never happens?
I GET THESE ALL THE TIME!!!
I frequently represent distant relatives in this position, and this is often a major score for them. I like these cases too, but at some point in the case it always occurs to me (and it sometimes occurs to people who actually knew the decedent) "they should have made a Will".
I have also had many cases where people told me "the decedent talked about making a Will", or "he told me he was going to make a Will", but for some reason they never did. I think there are several reasons for this....
Procrastination - an intent to do it in the future, and just not dealing with it.
Superstition - a fear that doing it will cause illness or death.
Cheapness - not wanting to pay for a Will.
Delusions of immortality - more people have this than one might think.
Monumental inconsiderateness - totally not caring what happens to others after you go.
Strangely, Wills are most often made by people in a tight nuclear family....say a married couple with two children. There are good reasons for such people to make Wills too, but the fact is, the results if they don't are not so different then if they do.
People who don't or can't ask the question "Who would inherit from me you if I did not make a Will?" are often some combo of cheap, procrastinating, superstitious, monumentally inconsiderate, and/or delusional (vis a vis their mortality) individuals. I don't mind this all that much, these end up being my largest fee cases, but.....it sure is puzzling.
Maybe they "just can't deal with it", and on many levels I understand and respect this. I also know that if you are the person someone SHOULD be putting in their Will, it is a difficult subject to bring up. I've had people ask me what to do in this situation. Not only is there is no easy answer, but every situation is unique.
I will say this.....if the person has talked about it, and you think they WANT to do it, help them get it done. But, as we say in poker, don't overplay your hand.
Yeah, this gets complicated. But not nearly as complicated as when procrastination wins out, and the person who should have made a will doesn't.
Next post - something not death related!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)