Monthly Archive for November, 2006

Update: Details beats Times on rich versus superrich!

It’s common practice for newspapers to re-report scoops uncovered by their rivals in order to avoid giving credit; this is a bit underhanded but not unexpected. Acknowleding another publication’s work is even rarer when it comes to “trend” articles — can one outlet truly be said to have “uncovered” this or that health fad or religious fad?

That said, it’s worth pointing out that a full six months before the Times became obsessed with the issue, Details put together a not-insignificant package on the whole rich versus superrich thing. Of course, no one in the Times ever reads Details…right?

Rich still pushing that boulder up the hill, according to the Times

Nope, it wasn’t a one-week phenomenon: after last week’s pair of articles about the plight of the rich as compared to the superrich, the Times is at it again: today’s front page features a story by Louis Uchitelle titled “Very Rich are Leaving the Merely Rich Behind.” Cue the violins:

“The opportunity to become abundantly rich is a recent phenomenon not only in medicine, but in a growing number of other professions and occupations. In each case, the great majority still earn fairly uniform six-figure incomes, usually less than $400,000 a year, government data show. But starting in the 1990s, a significant number began to earn much more, creating a two-tier income stratum within such occupations.

The divide has emerged as people like Dr. Glassman, who is 45, latched onto opportunities within their fields that offered significantly higher incomes. Some lawyers and bankers, for example, collect much larger fees than others in their fields for their work on business deals and cases.”

At least the Times has now acknowledged this is a story they’ll be focused on for some time to come: today’s article has the obligatory box (”Gilded Paychecks: New Paths to a Windfall”) signifying an ongoing series. Any guesses as to what might be next?

AL MVP yet another example of the stupidity of some sportswriters

There are a handful of the country’s sportswriters who repeatedly demonstrate they are aren’t worth the paper their ballots for baseball’s year-end awards are printed on. (The repulsive and repulsively dishonest George King* of the New York Post is perhaps the best example of rampaging stupidity: in 1999, he left Pedro** off his ballot completely, handing the MVP to Pudge Rodriguez. King lied through his teeth and claimed he didn’t believe pitchers deserved the award despite putting Rick Helling and David Wells on his ballot the year before.)

The 2006 AL MVP Awards, as Keith Law points out in yet another one of his excellent columns (ESPN Insider only), is another example of the travesties that regularly result when a bunch of folks with very little understanding of the game have the power to decide its most prestigious honors. Law points out — correctly — that Morneau wasn’t even the most valuable Twin; Joe Mauer was. (Another reason to like Mauer: he looks enough like me that more than one person joked that I’d somehow snaked my way onto the cover of SI.) I’ll let Law handle the honors: “The reality of baseball is that a great offensive player at an up-the-middle position is substantially more valuable than a slightly better hitter at a corner position. And when that up-the-middle player is one of the best fielders at his position in baseball, there’s absolutely no comparison. Joe Mauer was more valuable than Justin Morneau this past season. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the first thing about baseball.”

Indeed. Derek Jeter*** would likewise have been a better choice. Oh well.

* Late-morning addition: Irony of repulsive ironies: King actually has a column in today’s Post discussing the writers who didn’t put Jeter atop their ballots.

** Take another look at that season. That’s good enough to inspire an entire region’s worth of man crushes.

*** Historical footnote: the only other time Jeter received even a single first-place vote was on King’s 1999 ballot. What a fucking moron.

The 2004 Red Sox made me sit through an act of truly atrocious musical theater

Last night, I used a pair of free tickets to the musical version of “High Fidelity.” I feared this would probably be a mistake; it’s rare enough when the movie version of a good book is well done. Two decent spinoffs was a major longshot.

I would have walked out after the first ten minutes — it was truly that bad — but for some reason I got kind of stuck on Justin Brill, who played one of the show’s peripheral characters. It wasn’t until the first act’s last song that it hit me: Brill, with straight hair and a scruffy beard, was a dead ringer for one of my favorite characters from the ‘04 Sox: never-nervous Curtis. I love that guy. And in this time of thanks, I’m sure as hell thankful for Leskanic’s 1.1 innings of 1-hit ball to close out Game 4 of the ALCS. Curtis, you deserve that W.

Anyway. I still made it in time to catch most of The Wedding Crashers on HBO.

Black reporter attempts to prove he can be just as crazy stupid as Michael Richards; Kyra Phillips demonstrates why the Late Show may be a better source of news than CNN

Earlier this afternoon, CNN’s Kyra Phillips spoke with comedian Paul Mooney and Chicago Defender editor Roland Martin about Michael “Kramer” Richards’s insane, racist rant and subsequent apology on last night’s Letterman show.

This was one of the very few times I didn’t have a pen and notebook on me — I was at the gym, which is the only reason I was watching CNN in the middle of the afternoon — so I don’t have the exact phrasing here (there should be a transcript posted on CNN’s site soon), but Roland Martin did nothing so much as demonstrate that people can make incredibly stupid comments even when they’re not having a nervous breakdown on stage (or getting pulled over for drunk driving). Apparently riffing off of Richards’s on-stage explosion, which began, “50 years ago we’d have you upside down with a fucking fork in your ass,” Martin said, “50 years ago he would have been in an oven in Germany.”

Impressive — Martin managed to be both as ridiculously offensive and as poorly informed as Richards: the Germans surrendered in May 1945, which is actually more than 60 years ago; what’s more, Richards, according to Paul Mooney (and the Interweb) is not Jewish (or a gay Gypsy). (* - see correction below.) (To be fair to Martin, the hook nose and frizzy hair would confuse anyone.)

This kind of inanity doesn’t appear to be totally new ground for Martin. In February, the paper he edits ran a piece headlined “Farrakhan: Neocons, Zionists making America weak.” According to the story, at a recent public appearance Farrakhan “read from a verse from the Bible that refers to false Jews” as a way of “challenging those who refer to him as anti-Semitic.” The story did not have any opposing viewpoints — no quotes from Jewish leaders, no one pointing out that perhaps it’s not the “neoconservatives and Zionists” who have manipulated Bush “into actions that are bringing about the fall of America.” A few days before that piece ran, Farrakhan was included in the Defender’s list of African Americans [who] have contributed mightily to American history. Needless to say, none of Farrakhan’s more colorful quotes — say, “The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road” — were included in the blurb highlighting Farrakhan’s achievements.

The rest of the segment wasn’t quite as offensive, but it did bring to mind Jon Stewart’s “stop stop stop hurting America” speech on CNN’s Crossfire. After the guests agreed that Letterman was not the proper forum for Richards to have made his apology, Phillips played the whole segment as if it was set to a laugh track. (Mooney, who didn’t get through a single question without cracking a one-liner, didn’t help matters.) And at the end of the segment, she playfully pointed out that Martin referred to her as “white chocolate”…which prompted Mooney to respond, “Oh, you’re that white black woman?” (Your guess is as good as mine as to what, exactly, that’s supposed to mean.) Richards’s appearance on Letterman was squirmingly uncomfortable — both Letterman and scheduled guest Jerry Seinfeld more or less just let Richards talk, and the audience’s laughing reaction was a pitch-perfect illustration of the discomfort so much of the country feels when discussing race — and Phillips et al did nothing so much as demonstrate why, if Richards had wanted a much gentler forum, he would have been well-served by showing up on Phillips’s show.

* A Defender article on the Richards contretemps reports that Richards’ spokesman, Howard Rubenstein, said that Richards is, indeed, Jewish.

This year’s multi-part Times series: the difficulties of only being able to afford a single Ferrari

It’s been a six years since the New York Times’s Pultizer-winning, multi- multi-part series “How Race Is Lived in America” and a little over a year since the equally multi-part) “Class Matters.” What’s next on the didactic horizen? Apparently the plight of those who only break the top one percent of American wage earners.

“This year’s special contribution to the canon may be the argument that the moment has arrived for a battle that looks to most of the population like a battle among peers, which in a sense it is: the rich versus the rich, the meritocrats versus the meritocrats, the ambitious versus the ambitious. But it also pits two highly distinct groups, the merely rich and the superrich.”

A New Class War: The Haves vs. The Haves More
By Eric Konisberg
The New York Times
November 19, 2006

“Envy may be a sin in some books, but it is a powerful driving force in Silicon Valley, where technical achievements are admired but financial payoffs are the ultimate form of recognition. And now that the YouTube purchase has amplified talk of a second dot-com boom, many high-tech entrepreneurs — successful and not so successful — are examining their lives as measured against upstarts who have made it bigger.”

In Web World, Rich Now Envy Superrich
By Katie Hafner
The New York Times
November 21, 2006

Coming tomorrow: “In today’s NBA, the guards with $10 million contracts envy the centers with $40 million deals.”

More thoughts on Aramis’s and Alfonso’s pay day: Coco and Wily Mo, Matsuzaka and Drew (fine, those last two don’t rhyme)

The $8 billion to Cubs paid out to Aramis Ramirez and Alfonso Soriano make a couple of things clear:

* Despite all the talk about a new, smarter generation of GMs, there are still folks who are more than willing to shell out crazy amounts of money regardless of the long-term consequences.

* Coco Crisp’s three-year, $15.5 million contract extension (with an $8 million team option for 2010) is looking a lot more attractive. How attractive? Well, as Buster Olney points out, Carlos Lee, one of the remaining big-time free agents on the market, must be salivating at the prospect of an obscene payday (Lee is already said to have a five-year, $60 million deal on the table). From ages 24-26, Lee averaged (and I’m eyeballing this), a .275 average, a .345 OBP, and a .475 slugging percentage. If you take at face-value the notion that Coco was injured last year, his 24 and 25 year old seasons average out to somewhere around .298, .345, .450. That’s $7 million more a year for 25 points of slugging percentage. Let’s say Coco does end up being a bust; it still puts the Sox’s decision in much better perspective.

* Speaking of perspective, the WMP deal — while still, considering the dearth of good pitching (to say nothing of good two-tone mullets), an occasionally painful one — makes even more sense. Here’s a guy who has the potential to be an absolute monster who’s under the Sox’s control for two more years.

* All of which offers one more illustration of why it made sense to offer up that $51.1 million posting figure for Matsuzaka. The Sox have the revenue to spend a lot on payroll, but don’t want to shell out obscene amounts for free agents who want to be signing until they’re 52 years old. They do, however, want to spend that money on 26-year old studs.

* Finally, if the Sox were really thinking about J.D. Drew as a Trot replacement, that option just got a helluva lot more expensive. It’ll be interesting to see what happens here; overpaying on dollars and years for someone like Drew would seem to go against everything the Sox have been working towards as of late; on the other hand, maybe they can get Drew at a relative bargain because of his injury history.