Tony Botello's low level of indignation shines a light on some of the absurdity of Kansas City priorities

Tony Botello, when he isn’t testing the boundaries of libel law or propriety, is the king of juxtaposition. His forte is a sort of critical thinking I wish we could teach more often.

In education, unfortunately, we’ve settled on a safe sort of critical thinking to teach – problem solving. Now, I’m not against problem solving, but what we really should teach is the ability Tony has shown to put two things together and – heaven forbid – compare them critically – with the emphasis on critically. Teach kids to take a stand. To call bullshit. To say something is unfair, wrong, needs to be changed, doesn't make sense.

Tony’s work is strongest when he does this. He seems to just naturally see the world this way. That’s the real skill here – seeing the world through this lens. I’m not sure how you teach people to see this way – it may be that life has to teach you to see through things with this lens.

Journalists are supposed to have a bullshit alarm. They’re supposed to possess a really low level of indignation. Supposed to…

Tony struck the sacred with a recent post. He noted the fear some people might be feeling about their safety at the Plaza Art Fair, given the disruptions a few weeks ago by kids with text machines in their hands (and at least one idiot with a gun). Sounds reasonable, eh?

Then Tony did a little genuine critical thinking. Of course, increased police presence would reassure art lovers their annual love fest on the Country Club Plaza would be safe from those people. But what about the safety of, say, a family living east of Troost, enjoying the evening on their front porch? Extra police in their neighborhood?

I'm not sure from reading if these are Tony Botello's words or the words of one of his "awesome" tipsters or the words of the author of the photograph he displayed, but they are words with a lot of power:

"Oh my god will the lily white folk at the plaza art show be safe this weekend with the extra security?? Meanwhile the over/under on young black men being killed this weekend on the east side is 3, and where's that extra security?..."

Now, I’m not sure that argument really holds up. My guess is the East Side already has extra police. A good journalist would check this out. So, Tony only took the argument halfway… BUT AT LEAST HE GOT THE IDEA ON THE MOVE, which may be more than you can say for the gaggle of columnists at the rest of Kansas City media.

A good reporter did find out the numbers. Alan McArthur at the K C Reporter found that each person in the Central Patrol Division is protected by more than two officers for each officer protecting a person in the North Patrol division. In other words, the police department stations one officer for every 320 residents in the 17 miles covered by the Central Patrol while in the 85-mile North Patrol Division the department deploys one officer for every 688 residents, more than double the force.

The department stations one officer for every 564 Metro division residents and one officer for every 474 East division residents, but only one for every 701 residents in the South division and one to protect every 764 residents in the Shoal Creek division.

So, in fact, the department DOES deploy a larger force on the East Side than in other portions of the metropolitan area. But perhaps Tony's argument is that the east side force could use a "surge" of troops given the guns and death there.

Yesterday, Tony Botello’s bullshit alarm went off again, and he landed this nice barrage of punches:

"In Kansas City we don't like making excuses for students caught in a failed school system.

"We don't want to make excuses for people trapped in the desperate circumstances of the urban core.

"We (rightfully) vow that not even women dressed like "sluts" deserve to have their appearance used as an excuse to justify assault.

"We don't like excuses from politicos about increased spending or so many other infrastructure issues that they've pathologically ignored.

"There are some people who still want to make excuses for The Kansas City Chiefs and their pathetic losing streak."

Add something to Mr. Botello’s argument. The fate of the Kansas City Chiefs, or Kansas City Not-So-Royals, isn’t in any league with the serious issues to which he compares them. The fate of any city’s sports teams pales in comparison to education, rape, and crumbling bridges.

But take a look at the list of “most read” stories in the Kansas City Star at 11:08 a.m. Monday morning. Talk about screwy priorities:

· 1. Will Missouri follow Texas A&M out of Big 12

· 2. Cassel’s quarterback play…

· 3. Chiefs lose…

· 4. Two Johnson County residents injured…

· 5. Fatal shooting at car wash…

· 6. Chiefs cling…

· 7. Kicker Succop struggles…

· 8. Royal’s Mendoza…

· 9. Chiefs blitz…

· 10. Olathe drowning victim…

This calls into question the critical thinking skills of Star readers, as well. As teachers, we’ve got our critical thinking work cut out for us, eh?

--Lofflin

Moneyball interview with the real Billy Beane contains a reality shot for local baseball fans to ponder in otherwise baseball empty October(s)

Well, as long as I'm into quoting other people, here's some wisdom from an interview today in the New York Times about Billy Beane. Of course, the interview is about the release of "Moneyball" to theaters nationwide. But this is not Beane talking. These are Adam Sternbergh's thoughts, and they make great sense in the conversation we've been having here the past couple of weeks.

Never fear, I'm not out of ideas. Or lazy. I've got some things cooking in the old noodle for later. But ponder this in the meantime:

.... "A five-year dry spell actually places the A’s among the more fortunate have-not franchises in baseball. The Toronto Blue Jays have not made the playoffs since 1993. The Pittsburgh Pirates have not made the playoffs since 1992. The Kansas City Royals have not made the playoffs since 1985.

"Each year, a small-market team with a midrange payroll, like the Milwaukee Brewers or the Tampa Bay Rays, does make the playoffs, usually thanks to a few canny personnel moves, the judicious allocation of limited funds and, most crucially, a stockpile of young talent, collected through high draft picks that are a result of years and years of being absolutely terrible. Such a team has a few seasons to compete with the big boys — the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, primarily — before its young talent matures and bolts for big money, offered up by the Yankees, Red Sox and Phillies, primarily.

"These occasional breakthroughs by midmarket teams allow those who defend the inherent competitive imbalance in baseball to point and say: “See? It’s not impossible.” Conversely, when a free-spending team like the Los Angeles Angels does not make the playoffs, those same people can say: “See? Money doesn’t guarantee wins.” (These people are, more often than not, Yankees fans.) ...."

Star writer's glass half-full; mine half-empty... prune juice in mine, Boulevard Beer in his

Interesting how two similar ideas can result in completely different arguments. Here is a classic example of the half-empty / half-full glass of water. I hate to be the half-empty glass. This piece about the "new look Royals" by Rustin Dodd from today's Kansas City Star follows the same contours as my more depressing (more realistic?) post Sept. 18, but with a positive spin... to say the least.

As the Royals wind down a season of transition and prepare to enter the offseason, those are the shadows of doubt that follow the franchise.

The Royals are 30-30 since July 19, a steady infusion of youth providing a lift in the season’s second half. But the club has also clinched its 16th losing season in 17 years.

Ratings for Royals telecasts on Fox Sports Kansas City are up 31 percent over last season, including a 65 percent bump in August, according to Nielsen Media Research. But the franchise is still on pace for 90 losses, the 10th time it would reach that mark since 1999.

Attendance at Kauffman Stadium improved over the last two months — the Royals drew 23,980 per game in August and September while averaging 21,289 for the year — even as Kansas City fans were finishing up their 26th straight season without playoff baseball, the longest active drought for a single city in the majors.

“They’ve been waiting a long time,” manager Ned Yost conceded.

Now, the Royals enter their final road trip of the season with a 12-7 record in September, and the numbers suggest that they may have tapped into a fresh source of energy — on and off the field.

Rookies Eric Hosmer, Mike Moustakas and Salvador Perez are hitting. Alex Gordon and Jeff Francoeur are finishing up breakout seasons. And some of Billy Butler’s doubles are finally flying out of the ballpark.

There are still questions.

A few questions, maybe. Like, what the hell are the "new look" Royals? I think everyone who has followed the Royals knows, by heart, the look of rebuilding. The question is, what year are the Royals rebuilding from? 1985?

--Lofflin

For a more sober look at this, try this post from Kings of Kauffman: http://kingsofkauffman.com/2011/09/20/counting-chickens/

Chiefs lose 89-10; Royals lose 958 games in 10 years... why? Because you get what you deserve

Kansas City Chiefs: Forty-eight - 3. Forty-one– 7. Cumulative score for 2011: 89 – 10.

Kansas City Royals: From 2001 to 2010, 958 loses. Average 95 loses per dreadful season. 2011? Eighty-six losses and counting with nine games left in the season. Eighty-seven just an inning and six runs away.

Why are Kansas City football and baseball teams so relentlessly dismal?

Two reasons:

1. 1) Kansas City fans allow them to be.
2. 2) Absentee landlords.

Kansas City fans allow them to be terrible: The reason here is simple. They don’t vote with their feet. They continue to go to the games. They watch the games on television, despite having in the modern age a plethora of choices to watch other, much more interesting, games. They buy the jerseys. They call into talk radio and they continue to dream.

As long as they continue to do these things, management will have no reason to put winning teams on the field. As long as people buy your cheeseburgers, the restaurant brass has no reason to improve the meat underneath the special sauce.

And, in the case of baseball, they continue to believe in next year, to substitute hope for reality. They continue to prefer the possibilities in Omaha to the realities at Kauffman stadium. How do you think Mike Aviles (three-run home run just now for the Boston Red Sox, who say they have had their eye on him for years), Wilson Betemet, Willie Bloomquist, Raul Ibanez, and Zack Greinke (seven innings, two hits today), feel about the Royals'various rebuilding plans?

Pretty damned good, is my guess, since all five are playing for teams leading their divisions and will no doubt be playing ball in October when the Royals’ brass are busy planning for 2012 and the ballplayers are thinking about fishing, hunting and reseeding the lawn.

You can add Johnny Damon, Carlos Beltran and Alberto Callaspo to the happy list since they all toil right now for three other teams still in the hunt.

I've always believed you get what you deserve in life. Better said: You get what you take. You get from relationships exactly what you are willing to tolerate. Jobs always expand to fill whatever space you give them in your life . People treat you exactly how you allow them to treat you.

Absentee landlords: The hard fact is, the Royals and Cheifs live in rental houses. If you’ve ever lived in a rent house, you know the drill. The landlord collects the rent every month and hopes you don’t call in between. Need the toilet fixed? If you don’t want to use the can at Quik Trip for the next two weeks, better do it yourself. Roof leaks? Get out the buckets.

What incentive does a landlord have to make the rent house top tier? None, if the city is full of renters willing to fork over whatever the landlord wants to charge for the house he offers. That’s the drill. Ask anyone who lives in a rent house.

No one in Kansas City has been willing or able to step up and buy these franchises since Ewing Kauffman died. The big money here – what there is of it – is far more interested in the arts. That’s their choice. The social payoff in a cowtown for supporting the arts is much greater than the payoff for owning a baseball team. That sounds backward but it isn't.

Can’t buy a house? Rent houses are how you live.

Wish it wasn’t so, but it is.

--Lofflin

On a Tuesday morning

Ten years ago this morning, I was sitting in a classroom at Park University listening to a professor speak about public relations. A fellow student came into class late and seemed agitated, and while the professor was in mid-sentence the student said, "Do you all realize the World Trade Center is under attack?"

That was the moment our lives changed. But as President Obama said in an interview with ABC News this morning, our lives really haven't changed that much. People still work in skyscrapers. We still laugh and love and cry, just like before (although we may do all those things with a little more feeling now). We still fly on jumbo jets. We still cross bridges and go through tunnels that have been labeled "potential targets."

As I write this, survivors are reading the names of victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Some of the survivors are in their teens; they can't be old enough to remember much from that day. I think back to the 21-year-old kid I saw in the mirror back then. I'm glad I was old enough to remember it. I'm glad it's burned into my brain. And I know I'll never forget.

Joe Posnanski on the value of wins in pitching -- The more you know the less you know

...

This is not a mathematical response to Joe Posnanski’s feeble (on purpose) attempt to resurrect the win as a measure of pitching on his blog and in the Kansas City Star today. I appreciate the power of math as much as the next guy, so don't think of this as some anti-science Republican contender crazy-ass response.

But... I'm trying to wrap my mind around watching a baseball game in which the pitcher is irrelevant. In slow-pitch softball this is very nearly the case but we still spend the winter trying to perfect knuckle balls and teeny dinky little curves and screwballs. Of course these trick pitches don't matter at 20 miles per hour but we simply can't resist. Mentally -- and visually -- it is impossible to take the pitcher out of the center of the diamond. I mean, what if Jeff Francis had not given up four runs yesterday? Would the Royals not have won 6-5?

It seems to me the more we know -- open our minds and allow math to tell us -- about baseball, the more complex and interrelated, and ultimately unknowable, the game becomes. Which is not a bad thing. Just an uncomfortable thing.

Twain wrote that becoming a river boat pilot spoiled the magic of the Mississippi River for him. The river was never the same once he learned its tricks and the mathematics of navigating it.

Like many of my friends, I really like Joe’s blog. Seems to me his writing has improved dramatically across the years. Gone are the cutsie phrases he liked to repeat across the breadth of a column until you yelled ‘Uncle.’ The subject matter is often richer, the writing even more elegant, and the substance enhanced by a lot more interviewing and – yes – more math. I’ve always liked reading him, even before I saw him tip the kid at D’Bronx who made his sandwich.

But I’m wondering why so much of his writing is even better today. Probably getting away from the Kansas City Star is one reason. It would be difficult to shine consistently in that organization – what with the lack of competition among the company he kept (was Jason Whitlock ever really any sort of competition for a writer, let alone a reporter?), the lack of demanding editors, the limit of the small stage. How can you really expect to get up for yet another column for such a small, somewhat unsophisticated audience?

And, you can’t discount the way writing about losing teams must have worn on him. This is a problem many small market writers face daily. Can you really expect his best stuff every morning when he has to write about yet another nine-six loss? Look at what writing about a losing small market team is doing to Lee Judge. He’s been reduced to writing about whether it is better to lose early or lose late.

And, of course, Joe writes A LOT more now than he did in Kansas City. He writes every day in the blog, tweets constantly about what he intends to write, and works on several big takes at once for publication elsewhere – meaning on much bigger stages. Red Smith wrote something about the winning percentages of daily columnists – I think he said he thought two wins a week was pretty good. But he was talking about writing two winners out of five tries. Joe has far more opportunities to win each week (and also to clunk), so you’d expect his wins to be higher but – because you do get better the more you write – you might also expect his skills to improve which means those wins might be inflated by just more practice.

Then again, he writes in the ‘dead bar’ era of newspapering. Whereas most newspapers had their own bars back in the day, and newspaper men wrote a lot more columns on damp bar napkins, you’d just naturally expect Joe to write more winners and less soggy, get-me-over, losers.

But the thing about Joe that is truly stunning is how deep he goes into a column or a post or a story with quality stuff. Many writers – most writers – can knock out a few good graphs at the top of the piece. But, Joe is a finisher. Good to the last drop. Of course, some of that is because he writes – I’m guessing – on very portable computers which – unlike typewriters – can be drug along with you nearly anywhere. So, he doesn’t have to finish in one sitting. And, since he is probably not antsy to get to the company bar in the middle of his column, and because the stakes are higher at the better organizations for which he toils, he has more stamina and better equipment. You’d expect him to go deeper into a column, wouldn’t you?

I mean, how much of how good Joe Posnanski is, can we attribute to Joe Posnanski and how much is out of his control? We’re used to reading one of his pieces and saying, ‘Man, that was well-written. Another winner for Joe.’ But when you really think about it, how much of that winner is really Joe’s doing?

--Lofflin

PPS: In looking around for the Red Smith winning percentage I happened on this wonderful piece by David Halberstam about the Great Walter Smith. It is a book review, but it is much more. Please, if you are a writer -- or reader -- don't miss it.

Beauty in math courtesy: http://www.ct4me.net/math_methodology_instruction_resources.htm

The biggest problem with this country is our inability to educate people to be thoughtful, functioning adults with the ability to think critically

...
I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web. I will not read the comments under articles in the newspaper on the Web.

--Lofflin

Bring back the smoke filled rooms. The silly season of presidential primaries is choking us...

We are almost exactly a year away from the national conventions of the Republican and Democrat parties but the silly season is already in full swing.

From Michelle Bachmann’s warnings about earthquakes and hurricanes to Ron Paul's call to dismantle FEMA in the midst of a national disaster, to Rick Perry’s love affair with America, silliness rules the primary season.

What we need is a return to the smoke-filled rooms of yore. Both parties, or what's left of them.

I'm not kidding.

Smoke-filled rooms became four letter words in the tumult of the late 1960s. Before Chicago Mayor Richard Daley gave them the off-color reputation of certain rooms in houses of ill repute they were where the movers and shakers -- the stalwarts -- of political parties gathered to sort through potential nominees. They were far from perfect, but at least their impulses pointed in the right direction.

The party faithful -- I like to think of them smoking Mississippi River Crooks cigars -- had good reason to choose wisely. Their political futures depended on it. If they chose a loser, the spoils went elsewhere. They were empowered with choosing a candidate who -- first and foremost -- stood a chance of winning.

And not winning just an Iowa straw poll, or just Iowa, for that matter, or even just the Midwest, or just among farmers, or union folks. They knew how many votes it would take to win the presidency and where those votes would come from, and -- generally -- as an act of self-preservation they chose candidates with the best chance of capturing those votes.

To be sure losing coalitions formed and losing candidates accumulated backers in those smoky rooms. And sometimes, as Mark Hanna once said,” there ain't a first rater or in the bunch.” But, by necessity, their view was broad and mostly toward the middle -- as middle as possible in each particular season.

But the debacle that was the 1968 conventions paved the way for a more democratic impulse. Of course it is difficult to argue against a democratic impulse.

So, in 1972, the McGovern Commission rewrote the rules for the Democrat Party and the Republicans followed suit. All things democratic were in order.

The math is simple: before 1972, three=fourths of the delegates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms; after 1972, three-fourths were chosen in primaries. Today the percentage is even higher.

And that's a prime example of a good idea gone bad. Collateral damage included:

• · A greater need for greater and greater amounts of money. We all know where that led.
• · By necessity campaigning had to be done on television. How else can you run in five states in five days? This meant, again, more money, and it also meant more attractive candidates prevailed. In other words, if you want to be president today, you've got to be a looker.
• · Candidates were not forced to be generalists, to appeal to the middle of the country. They could capture the nomination in small bites by wooing smaller and smaller interest groups. But they were in grave danger when they took actual positions on issues. It's one thing to say you are in favor of smaller government. That plays well in New Hampshire, Iowa, Florida, Texas, and California. But if you say, as Gov. Rick Perry said, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, you have doomed your candidacy in Florida, no matter how well that notion plays in the suburbs of Dallas. So, successful candidates learn how to campaign without saying anything. At least they learn how to campaign without saying anything significant. They don't take positions on issues. They make personal assertions about what they believe and who they are. Ultimately, if they are successful, they get elected and no one knows what they stand for, or worse, what they intend to do. To the country. To you and I.
• · Appealing to small interest groups means more fringe candidates emerge. They emerge because it may only take 10% or 15% of the electorate to make a good showing in some primary states, if a large number of candidates are still in the race. They may be able to woo ardent supporters to a particular position in, say, Iowa, or New Hampshire, or Florida, and hope the momentum will carry them into the general election. But they usually fall by the wayside, tons of money and television time and voter angst wasted.
• · Heaven help us if they make it into the general election.
• · Even so, many of the candidates who make it into the general election, are unelectable. Their appeal is to too small. So once they've sewn up the primary season they try to move to the middle. And that move brings fire from the media, because inconsistency is one of the main things the media looks for. It's easy to see and it's easy to write about.
• · So a candidate like a Barack Obama presents himself as a liberal to win the nomination in the Democrat party then immediately begins moving to the middle. And as president, he lives in the middle. His voters are left feeling cheated, and they should feel cheated. After all, the wars he swore he would end have continued. The health system he swore to reform isn't reformed. The influence of big corporate money isn't diminished. Oil Independence hasn't arrived. And no child left behind – or, as teachers like to say, no teacher left with a behind -- continues to make high-stakes testing the point of education.
• · More fringe candidates make it less likely parties will nominate contenders who could appeal to a broad base of Americans. This means the governing cycle, as opposed to the electoral cycle, will leave most of the people feeling impotent as participants in the process.
• · The power of political parties will be further eroded. When the political party is powerless, the press becomes dominant. But the press is ill-equipped to fill the role of the political party. It's like bringing the centerfielder in to pitch. The point of political parties is to pull people together, to find their common ground, to find out which issues unite rather than divide them, to make nice, to build coalitions of different kinds of people. The role of the press is exactly the opposite. The press looks for disharmony where the party looked for harmony. The role of the press is to find those places where people disagree, to identify the places that go bump in the night.

And, in this silly season, everything goes bump in the night. Although it gives the press something to do, and it keeps the rooms smoke-free, the republic suffers.

--Lofflin

B0bby Valentine right, right, right but wrong, wrong, wrong about Starlin Castro. If this was an audition, he sounded like an insufferable bully...

Sunday Night Baseball this week was awful.

It was all the talk during warm-ups for our doubleheader last night. Our softhanded third baseman Jim Dorn brought it up first as he gently coaxed his right arm into playing shape.

What happened was Bobby Valentine turned game commentary into an audition for the soon to be open job of Cubs' manager. The Cubs will have a new general manager next year and it's a good guess whoever fills the role will be looking for a new skipper. Was Billy Beane watching Sunday night baseball?

Not likely. According to Moneyball, he can't even bear to watch his A's.

Valentine was so bad, folks who hated Joe Morgan on Sunday Night Baseball (not me, by the way) might actually have briefly hoped for his return.

Valentine became fixated on Starlin Castro, the Cubs' fine young shortstop who is currently hitting .307. It was unseemly. Inning after inning he offered Castro damning praise while ripping into his inability to focus on the game.

It isn't that Valentine was wrong. He was right. And, right. Right again. Right. Right. Right. Very right. Right. Right. Right.

The producers obviously caught his obsession and focused the cameras on Castro in a way I've never seen before. Throughout the middle innings they had Castro in the lens between nearly every pitch. By some accounts they were focused on him unrelentingly for 10 long minutes.

They proved their point. Castro is young, somewhat undisciplined, and only loosely focused. At one point they showed an amazing replay of a pitch during which Castro was standing with his back to the plate, his glove hand in his back pocket rummaging for sunflower seeds, staring off into the distance beyond left field. Castro, in the bright circle on the screen -- a technique generally reserved for showing terrorists in airport cameras -- never saw the pitch. Thank god it was a ball.

Valentine put the Cubs' current skipper, Mike Quade, in a bind. Over and over he chirped Castro must be disciplined. For his own good, somebody must discipline him. If this goes on unchecked, he'll be ruined.

After the game, the Cubs' skipper did, dutifully, bench Castro for one game.

The thing you have to remember is this kid learned to play baseball in such poverty the only glove he had was made from a milk cartoon, according to fine baseball writer Jeff Passan. This year, at 21, he is making $440,000 which must seem like $4 billion, and soon he will be rewarded with a contract well into the millions. To go from a cardboard glove to the prospect of millions at the age of 21... well can you blame him if sometimes he looks up at the sky in wonder instead of watching the pitch being delivered?

Personally, I love to watch him play. His eyes simply sparkle when he is at the plate waiting for a pitch. He plays with love and he swings with abandon. Bobby Valentine needs to pick on somebody his own age.

And, Billy Beane, that audition should convince you hiring Bobby Valentine to manage what ever club you direct next year would be a huge mistake, something akin to signing Yuniesky Bentancort to play short and hoping he will learn to take a walk once in a while.

--Lofflin

Screen capture courtesy http://larrybrownsports.com/baseball/starlin-castro-benched-day-after-espn-shows-him-not-paying-attention/83567

Tony's hot mess: libel law is one of the great conundrums of free speech and the Internet only makes the dilemma worse

Time to weigh in on the legal “hot mess” Tony Botello at Tony’s Kansas City has gotten himself into.

Despite his bravado, I’m pretty sure I know how Tony feels. As a green reporter I wound up looking down the barrel of a similar threat because of a careless green reporter mistake. Like Tony, my buddies were quick to offer legal advice – the most memorable was that since what I did was clearly stupid I probably couldn’t be sued.

What I remember was my stomach turning over and sinking to the bottom of the lake as I discovered all the air I needed to breathe had been sucked out of the room. It felt, now that I think about it, a lot like drowning.

My whole career, both years of it, passed before my eyes. I had a wife and a kid and a dog... well, no dog, but I might want to have one some day, and I was sure it was all over.

Libel law is scary. It’s meant to be scary.

We have no prior restraint in this country. Only on a few occasions has anyone been legally restrained from publishing. Persuaded not to publish, sure. Ordered by an editor or publisher not to publish, sure. But through legal action… I think you could count the times on one hand.

But, the law does allow punishment instead of prevention, and libel law is one of those punishments. Libel law only infringes on free speech by intimidation.

Libel law is a real conundrum for folks who cherish free speech because it can have such a chilling effect, which those of us who value free speech hate. But it’s a conundrum because, on the other hand, libel law is meant to protect a person’s reputation. And a person’s reputation is the single most important thing he or she possesses. Once a reputation is broken… well, try the old Gerry Spence demonstration. Hold a pencil at both ends and pretend you are standing in front of a jury. Now, snap the pencil in half. Tell the jury if it were possible to put that pencil back together, we wouldn’t be here asking you for money.

Now comes the Internet and suddenly defamation is everywhere. The Internet has let loose tons of good and not-so-good ideas, tons of criticism, tons of free speech. It has truly democratized publishing – if you count venues and not readers. It is a free speech advocate’s dream. And I'm a strong advocate of free speech. I love the way the Internet has made the workings of the human mind transparent. And, as a journalist, I love the way it has made information as plentiful as dandelions in spring.

But what about reputations? You only have one reputation. If you are the person whose reputation has been snapped in half by all that free speech – often cowardly anonymous free speech (this is definitely not the case with Tony) – you might not be so happy about what the Internet has wrought. You can neither deny – for whatever good that does – nor refute. And, in all likelihood – as the Star take on this today points out – you probably have no remedy.

Now, for me, the key to understanding this dilemma is responsibility. In my opinion, censorship and self-censorship are two entirely different animals. I am dead set against censorship. But I am strongly in favor of reasoned and compassionate self-censorship.

Somebody has to take responsibility when a reputation is damaged – actually, before a reputation is damaged. Somebody has to take what anonymous tipsters say and check it out. Everybody in the profession knows that some tips are true and most are not. In either case, the tipster more than likely has an axe to grind. If you are going to publish tips or rumors or scuttlebutt, it is your ethical responsibility to make a conscientious effort to discover the truth of it.

It makes a huge difference, legally and ethically, if the person being libeled is a public person or a private person. The law is much kinder to private folks… and for good reason. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have to make SOME effort where public people are concerned. You still have to demonstrate an absence of malice, and that is pretty easy to do. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding of the law is, bottomline, all you have to do is make some effort to just call the guy and ask him if the rumor is true.

Now, again, I’m no lawyer. And I think anyone who thinks he knows libel law and isn’t a libel attorney, is both naïve and dangerous. So please don't try to take this to the bank... or, god forbid, to court.

I sincerely hope Tony gets through this mess unscathed. I love his “awesome” blog, to borrow one of his more endearing phrases. As a former reporter, I have an unending appetite for rumor and motive and documents not meant for public consumption. I have to admit to dialing up Tony’s Kansas City a couple of times a day because I’m more likely to know what’s going on there than if I read just about any other local source. And, having been a reporter, I have a natural skepticism about what Tony writes.

This lawsuit may put Tony in the limelight for fifteen minutes – maybe even on a national scale. Good. It may turn out to be a great favor to him. But I hope it also shines a light on the great conundrum of the Internet and on the fact that where you have the most freedom, you need the most responsibility.

I’ve was never particularly fond of the editors I worked for as a reporter – on a professional level anyway. But this blogging business has given me a new appreciation for the frustrating, sometimes pedantic, questions they asked. Writing and publishing without an editor scares the living shit out of me. And, frankly, it should.

--Lofflin

Image courtesy: http://activity-holidays.visitwales.co.uk/477/mushroom-hunting-wales/

If you love baseball, play it; the commercial game is just a nasty cup of cold coffee, and the future is just a smoke screen for the losing present

Aggawwwaga!

Allow me to start with a Sunday morning warning.

If you are like me and not always cleaning up as you go, make a rule to do at least this: Rinse out your old coffee cups right after you decide the stuff is too cold to drink.

Otherwise, you may sit down to write, get engrossed in the thoughts swirling in your head, and reach for one of those old suckers from a week ago instead of your nice fresh cup of Cafe Verona. The cup with "No More Mr. Nice Guy" in big letters on the outside. The one with black oil and mold on the inside.

Let me tell you something... the mold that grows in week old coffee is nasty.

Be warned.

Now that I've recovered, on to the idea I promised a few posts ago. I know you've been waiting and thinking you've been hoodooed again. Not so.

I promised a big idea about baseball. Here it is and now that I've built it up it doesn't seem so big.

First, I'm talking about big time commercial baseball. The industry of baseball. Moneyball, but not exclusively in the Billy Beane sense of it. I'm not talking about playing baseball... or softball... for the joy of it. I'm not talking about The Game. This ain't no Annie Savoy soliloquy.

Pardon me while I make sure I have the right cup.

I'm talking about the game people watch, follow, subscribe to, pay to see, comment endlessly on, begin conversations with when the weather isn't interesting, call in to the radio about, write books about, write columns and blog posts about, buy uniform shirts complete with somebody else's name and number on the back because of. Oh yes, and write novels about. I know of only one adult baseball novel not about commercial baseball.

And commercial baseball has always been a reflection of the times in which it was played. This is a trait of commercial baseball that you can even find in the statistics. Look at world war time baseball statistics. Look at statistics in the industrial revolution. Look at statistics in an era when Americans felt thrifty or when they felt expansive.

But you see it as much in the cultural side of baseball. When Americans were enamored with gambling, with rags to riches schemes, you got the 1919 Black Sox. When moguls ruled the economic world -- when they owned the newspapers and the railroads and the oil companies -- they also ruled the baseball world. Look at a baseball card from the 1970s and tell me you don't see the 1960s. At the end and the beginning of the century, when the cult of personality came to rule politics and rock 'n roll, steroids flourished. And when the players were finally trapped, did they not behave just like Bill Clinton, who did not have sex with that woman? I see two lies there -- sex and woman -- Monica Lewinskiy was, in my book, somebody's little girl. And, of course, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Roger Clemens did not take steroids.

So, what does baseball reflect in the teen years of the new century?

The power of big money. Followed by helplessness. Futility. And, finally, acquiescence. And the big hoodoo of the Tea Party and of the United States Congress. The shell game and the suckers.

If you see the economic and political world you live in as a big set up, then you know how baseball fans in many towns feel. If you see economics and politics as a Machiavellian mixture of guile and greed, you know how baseball fans feel. If you feel like you are the sucker born every minute, you understand how baseball fans feel when they see through the smoke screen of the local nine's rebuilding plan or the general manager's beloved "process."

Rebuilding and trickle-down economics are one and the same, in my opinion. Hoodoo. Ways to sell the otherwise unpopular idea that you need to help me get rich. You keep coming to the park and I'll keep filling it with a combination of minor league talent and just enough major league ballplayers to feed your hope for the future. Or, the more money I make and the less taxes I pay, the more likely I am to maybe offer you a minimum wage job in one of my enterprises.

The point, for most of the commercial teams, is to put just enough good players on the field to keep you coming back. To sell you on carnival rides and mustard races, and most of all, on the future down in the minor leagues. To get you talking about trades and firing the manager, and hating the owner, and buying into the process. It is only about winning and losing for teams and fans in a few cities. The rest of us are just there to fill out the schedule.

Coming soon, two months of playoffs. The better to sucker you in.

Just as the political world we live in is primarily smoke and mirrors, big time manipulation, slight of hand, public relations to the ninth degree, so is baseball. We are, in Neil Postman's seminal words, entertained to death. Does the score of yesterday's Kansas City Royals game really matter? Not if winning is how you measure a baseball game. Does the score of the Iowa Straw Poll really matter? Not if you care about the economy or the quality of life in this country. Barack Obama knew how to organize, how to win straw polls and primaries and even the White House. He didn't know shit about governing. And I'm one who voted for him.

Heck, I've voted for two mainstream candidates in my lifetime: Bill Clinton once and Barack Obama once. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

So, maybe that's why I've grown so cynical about commercial baseball and presidential politics. Both drink from the same cup. As I said at the top... be warned. Make sure you reach for the warm cup of fresh coffee on your table. The alternative is nasty.

I promise some lighter fare next time I hit the keyboard. Just needed to get this rant off my chest. Until two weeks ago I had been thinking happily about how much softball I could play when I retired. Now I'll have to work until I'm 90.

By the way, if it is baseball you like, my advice is simple. Quit watching and start playing. No matter what age you are. If you love the game, play it. You'll get that bad taste out of your mouth real quick if you do.

--Lofflin

BTW: That southpaw guarding the No More Mr. Nice Guy cup is my little Lucy. From the look in her eyes, she knows nasty when she smells it...