If You Have a Boy Child...Teach Him Baseball!

I have been blessed with two wonderful girls who have blossomed into quite delightful and accomplished young women.

But it would've been kinda nice to have had a boy as well. Among other pleasures, it would have enabled me to exercise some theories when it comes to properly introducing my son to the art and science of baseball. Besides the inherent joy of playing this wonderful game, if my son had the requisite natural talent and proper coaching to aspire to the game's highest levels, it would make for quite a career.

Some quick research indicates that the average major league salary today is about $3.2 million a year. Since the average major league career lasts 5.6 years, a person would have a nice nest egg by his early 30s. Of course NBA players average over $5 million a year for careers lasting an average of 5 years, but since my genes would never produce a giant, that route would seem impractical. Plus there are fewer NBA spots open than in the MLB, and the international competition is brutal

And football is out of the question, since it pays a measly $1.9 million a year for an average career of just 3 years. Plus, you're a basket case and a physical wreck by the time the NFL has used you up.

So back to baseball. So learning based on the coaching and nurturing mistakes made during my nascent baseball upbringing in the late 60s and early 70s, here's how I'd get my son started:

• Get a bat in his hands by the age of 3 and teach him to hit from both sides of the plate. Never let him learn his natural hitting side. My baseball career was on the ropes the first time I faced a good lefty curve ball (I batted left handed). A switch hitter never has to face a pitcher with a curve ball that breaks away and it gives the coach more flexibility when putting together a line-up, resulting in more playing time for switch hitters.
• If right-handed, teach him to play every position, including catcher. At the very least, hit him a million ground balls at shortstop and second base and a million fly balls to center field. Players who can play the middle positions (catcher, SS, 2nd base) are more valuable for their gloves and lessens the need to become power hitters, which is a rare gift as opposed to something that can be taught. 
• If left-handed, teach him to play first base and the outfield. Also teach him to pitch. Every team needs lefty pitchers because they are a rare breed. Even if he doesn't have a blinding fastball, teaching him a variety of breaking pitches and changing speeds will enable him to get even the best hitters out.
• Teach him to hit line drives to all fields using a short, quick and even stroke. Pull hitters are worthless unless they can hit with power. Line drive hitters hit for high average, drive in a lot of runs and, once their mechanics are fully developed and they start filling out physically, they can add power to their repertoire down the road. Think Don Mattingly and Mike Trout.
• Have him play all sports. I don't believe in club teams and travel teams since it focuses on and wears down specific muscle groups. Your son will develop better overall athletic skills if he plays baseball only during baseball season and plays basketball, tennis, cross country, hockey, etc. during the appropriate seasons. I would recommend against football, given the risks to life and limb. Once out of high school and the potential is there, then maybe baseball becomes a year-round vocation.
• Finally, practice, practice, practice. One positive thing I did growing up was throwing a golf ball against a concrete wall and fielding the crazy ricochets blasting back at me. It made my reflexes lightning quick and enabled me to handle any hot smashes coming my way at first base. Also, the best batting practice in the world is hitting off a tee. It's more difficult than you think. The only way to make solid contact is with a perfectly level swing, which is the key to good hitting merchanics.

This piece is running long, but I have a lot more. Let me know if you're interested.

Guns in America--No, Not Those Guns!

I'm referring to biceps, those relatively large muscles on the top of your upper arms that for some reason are nicknamed "guns" by the weightlifting set. As a runner, I force myself to spend time in the gym doing resistance work, mainly on my upper body so I don't shrivel into one of those scrawny old-man runners who can cover great distances but look like plucked chickens with collapsed chests and boney shoulders because they don't exercise any other parts of their body.

So to distract myself from my miserable reps, I end up observing serious weightlifters and their routines. And I've never seen a weightlifter not do millions of arm curls to build up excessive mass in their guns. Many have skinny legs, under-developed hips and narrow forearms--but they all have great guns!

Of course they also do a lot of work on their chests, belly and shoulders, but the overall effect is a mismatch of bloated arms and torso and broomstick legs.

But about guns--what good are they? How often do you really use over-developed biceps, unless you move a lot of furniture. Maybe it's the influence of the old Popeye cartoons in which he'd pop open a can of spinach and down it in a gulp, resulting in the appearance of battleships on his guns firing away and propelling our hero into the latest demolition of Bluto, his Nemesis.

Do you need great guns to get through your daily activities? I don't. But still I find myself doing several reps of bicep curls with 30-lb weights, just like everyone else. It's what guys in weight rooms do.

So do I have great guns? No, not really, I'd put them in the water pistol category. But maybe they'll help me type better, or run a little faster.

Why It's Called Climate Change

So we're getting another six inches of snow as I'm writing this and then tonight another arctic freeze will be swooping in, further blackening my mood.

Another winter of record cold and drifting snow in the East. We haven't hit the so-called average normal high for this time of year in weeks. Same as last year. Is this proof that global warming isn't happening? Unfortunately for this warm-blooded guy who despises winter cold, it is not.

While planet-wide 2014 was the warmest on record, that was not really the point. The point is change. While many parts of the U.S. were cooler than usual, many other parts were and are hotter and drier than usual. Extremes are becoming more extreme. Rains have come harder, snow falls are deeper, and droughts are lasting longer.

Some may protest that what we're experiencing is just a cycle in nature and not an outcome of man-made causes. But whatever the case, it seems pretty clear that weather patterns are changing--and not for the better.

Why Must We Age?

I have a hard time figuring out the logic of aging and how the aesthetics can be so cruel. How beautiful young and middle-aged people become shriveled grotesques as they achieve the far reaches of mortality.

It's especially striking for those in which photographic evidence exists of the vast changes superannuation incur. Old photos of Bridget Bardot contrasted with how the 70-year-old-plus former actress looks now; similar transformations for so many others.

Former starlets of outrageous delectability devolving before our eyes unto haggard monstrosities. (Same with guys of course, but they tend to die earlier and the deterioration does not make it as far.)

What is the point, why such decay? The scariest of all are the especially thin ones (myself?!) who in their 80s wander the countryside as animated corpses.

While I do not believe that we are on this earth for any particular reason or that some "God" has a purpose and plan, I do believe that most biological functions serve an evolutionary role. Pretty girls attract pretty men to make pretty babies. Aviary plumage is nothing but a carnal display as well. Makes sense. But what is the point of the ravaged faces and bodies of the aged--to what purpose is nature served?

Is it to remove the temptation to seek impregnation of  an impossible womb? That seems outlandish to me. How can we passively accept the concept of "natural aging?" Why should it be natural? By making the formerly beautiful physically repugnant, are we also devaluing them in other ways? 

Most still have robust minds, active imaginations, and physical vigor, yet their appearance betrays them. What is behind the optics of old people and the aging process...what is the evolutionary rationale? 

Stop Hating on Obamacare

In today's NY Time, guest columnist Steven Rattner, a Wall Street exec. and occasional government troubleshooter who was instrumental in the GM rescue presents a scorecard of sorts for the first two years of Obamacare. In a nutshell, despite its many imperfections, the ACA has sucessfully met its three prime goals:

1. Created insurance exchanges that has led to a larger-than-expected drop in uninsured Americans.
2. Prevented insurance companies from capping benefits or denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
3. Has helped reduce the increase in cost of health care in the U.S.

Get the full story here with some compelling graphics.

Of course all these positives could go by the board if the Supreme Court rules against premium subsidies for states with only Federal exchanges. Such a decision would pretty much destroy the viability of Obamacare and we'd be back to the bad old days. 

I for one wouldn't put it past the present SCOTUS.

How the State Should Execute People

First off, I do not believe in state-sanctioned killing. I think the death penalty is medieval, immoral, and a non-deterrent. Basically, the death penalty is all about punishment and vengeance by the state, which to me is a bit too fascistic for my taste. Plus, from an economic standpoint, it costs far more to society in terms of court and legal costs to litigate a death sentence through the appeal process than warehousing a killer for life.

However, the main reason I don't believe in the death penalty is because I don't have the stomach as a citizen to condemn another human being to death. Since I'm not convinced of the existence of an afterlife, I couldn't be the one to usher another person into the eternal void, no matter the heinous nature of his or her offense. So if I can't accept that responsibility, then I have no right to expect others to; hence, my opposition.

With that said, capital punishment is still legal in many states and many states are having a hard time finding merciful ways of murdering criminals. We've seen stories of strapped-down convicts writhing in agony for minutes on end because the executioners couldn't get the drugs quite right. Or how about Mr. Sparky and the tendency in some past executions not to get the voltages right, resulting in badly scorched, though not quite dead, electric chair occupants.

And there is also the problem of gaining cooperation from the medical community and drug companies to provide expertise and reliably effective materials for killing purposes.

Even with those concerns, my sympathy doesn't lie with the perps so much, but with the poor souls who are tasked with administering the coup de grace. Would you want to be the one responsible for injecting the deadly dose, throwing the switch, turning on the gas? I know it would cause me some sleepless nights.

So what I propose is a blameless procedure that is nearly foolproof and merciful. It's called the firing squad. Five professional marksmen, four bullets and one blank. In that way, each shooter has plausible deniability that he didn't commit murder. And, the likelihood that anyone could survive four professionally delivered rounds to the head is extremely remote.

Sure, it could get a little messy, even if the guy is wearing a dark hood, but why shouldn't it be messy? Even when carried out by the state.

It's a ME ME ME ME World!

In the end, we really are all about ourselves. And the ugly truth about social media is that now we can publicly demonstrate that obsession to the world. It's not like we're more narcissistic than past generations, it's just more in our face given the 24/7 me me me outlets of Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, Instagram, etc.

Are we really so interesting that every utterance, thought, idea, and activity must be somehow cataloged and validated in multiple social media outlets? I most certainly am not! 

How many likes, followers, and friends must we have to salve our egos and nurture our self-worth? Are selfies ever appropriate?

The overall effect is just so much noise. So many people screaming at the top of their social media lungs to be noticed and loved by strangers, no matter how fleeting the moment. Outshouting each other until attention spans become a joke and communication is nothing more than frazzled fragments of headlines and images whose impact vanish in seconds.

Go ahead, call me a hypocrite. I have this blog and a Facebook account, but not because I am just another ego-driven shouter. My excuse is I'm just promoting my books, and social media is a necessary evil required of today's self-published indies.

In my defense I'll say it did take years of careful writing and editing to execute my literary efforts and, based on feedback and reviews, many think they're worthy of some fleeting attention from the teeming masses.

Otherwise, I'd wrap myself in the comforting cloak of invisibility. While everyone's manically bouncing like pogo sticks for more attention, nothing would suit me more than to be unseen, unheard, and unnoticed.

Except for my books, of course!