Books: The Emmigrants by WG Sebald

The Emigrants by W.G. Sebald is a first person narrative, that reads like a memoir, and told from the point of view of someone who appears to be the author, but it isn’t. There are a couple clues that lead me to conclude The Emigrants is entirely a work of fiction.

First, on page three, the narrator and Clara drove to Hingham. Clara appears to be the author’s wife. According to an online biography, Mr. Sebald’s wife is Ute and they were married in 1967.

Second, on page 29, the narrator moved from the village of W to the small town of S in December 1952. The online biography indicates the author was born in Wertach im Allgu, Germany in 1944, but his family moved to Sonthofen in 1948.

Therein lies the excellence of The Emigrants. It looks and feels like a memoir. The use of photos throughout the novel supports the belief that we are reading four mini biographies: a relative (Ambros Adelwarth), a former teacher (Paul Bereyter), and people he met on two separate journeys (Dr Henry Selwyn and Max Ferber). We are listening to life stories and looking through a photo album at the same time.

The author was born during the latter stages of World War II in Nazi Germany. The author’s father joined the German military in 1929, served in the Wehrmacht, and was a prisoner of war until 1947. Anti-Semitism hovers silently over The Emigrants.

The characters are fictional, but they occupied the real world and the consequences of Nazi rule and the Holocaust. Paul Bereyter is a prime example. Paul, probably, is based on the author’s father. He served six years in the German military, in “the motorized artillery, variously stationed in the Greater German homeland and in several countries that were occupied. He was in Poland, Belgium, France, the Balkans, Russia and the Mediterranean and doubtless saw more than any heart or eye can bear.” (Pages 55-56) The picture of a German soldier sticking his head of a car (page 55) makes the story more authentic.

Paul was one quarter Jewish, or as the Germans referred, three quarters Aryan and he served with others who were not pure Aryan.

In 1935, Paul met Helen Hollaender, an emigrant from Vienna who was visiting the small town identified as S. He was about to start a teaching position, but new German laws prevented him from taking the teaching post. The author does not specify the actual laws, or how the laws were applied to Paul, but our general understanding of history fills in the blanks. Paul was part Jewish and Jews were not allowed to teach in Nazi Germany and not providing the additional details did not lessen the impact of the narration. The lack of specific information strengthens the narrative because we know the history. There is no need for repetitiveness. We don’t have to be told he wants to a teacher, but cannot teach because he’s one quarter Jew.

Furthermore, Paul moved to Besancon to work as a house tutor. While he was away, in 1936, his father, Theodor Bereyter “died on Palm Sunday” because of heart failure, but the underlining reason for the heart attack was that Jewish families were the target of violent anti-Semitic attacks. His mother, Thekla, “fell into depression and died within a few weeks.” (Pages 53-54)

It’s interesting to note Paul had antipathy towards the Catholic Church (Page 36). This could be due to his father dying on Palm Sunday and he is unconsciously connecting his father’s death to Catholism. Also, the Catholic Church is authoritarian in structure, with the pope as the leader of this structure.

Paul’s nightmare worsens when he finds out Helen and her mother were deported “in one of those special trains that left Vienna, at dawn, probably to Theresienstadt in the first instance.” (Pages 49-50)

We don’t have to be told what the “special train” was. We already know Jews were transported to concentration camps via trains. Theresienstadt may not have any meaningful connotation in America, but mention it in Germany and a German and a Jew will understand immediately.

Paul went back to the teaching profession after the war, but his methods were unconventional. He does not follow the curriculum to the letter. This can be interpreted as Paul’s lack of trust in the German government, in the 1950’s. He participated in war crimes as a German citizen on behalf of the German government. Paul rebelled and decided he was not going to let the German Government dictate how he was going to teach. Paul believes he knows what’s in the best interest of his students, not the government.

Paul committed suicide by lying down on a railroad track (Page 27). The choice he made on how he killed himself is very revealing. As a child, he was fascinated by trains (Page 62), but trains played a major role in the Holocaust. The Nazis destroyed that sense of innocence. Perhaps he sought symmetry in death.

Paul shares two characteristics with Dr Henry Selwyn. Both committed suicide. Dr Selwyn choice was a self-inflicted gunshot to the head. Second, Paul and Dr Selwyn cultivated neglected gardens (Paul, page 57 and Selwyn, page 7). This can be interpreted as the characters serving some sort of penance, on earth, for their sins in Germany.

Dr Selwyn’s problem is that he changed his name from Hersch to Henry and Seweryn to Selwyn (Page 20). He changed his name because he wanted to hide his identity, even from his wife, who stopped speaking to him once she found out his true identity, although he is in denial. “I still don’t know for sure what made us drift apart, the money or revealing the secret of my secret origins, or simply a decline in love.” (Page 21)

The author does not need to elaborate on Dr Selwyn’s concealment of his ethic background. Europe had an anti-Semitic streak predating WWII and Jews were forced to change their names in order to integrate into society. Furthermore, marrying a Jew was considered scandalous and shameful.

Dr Selwyn mentions he cannot sell anything, except his soul, and his “only companions” are plants and animals because he doesn’t have to explain himself to them (Page 21). Dr Selwyn is implying he sold his soul, by changing his name and forgetting who he was, in order to integrate.

There is an interesting connection between Dr Selwyn, Ambros Adelwarth, and Max Ferber and that is the appearance of a butterfly net, or reference to butterflies. The narrator saw Dr Selwyn wearing “knee-length shorts, with a shoulder bag and butterfly net.” (Page 15)

Aunt Fini mentioned she saw “a middle-aged man appeared, holding a white net on a pole (page 104). Ambrose missed his last shock therapy session, before dying, and the reason he gave was, “It must have slipped my mind whist I was waiting for the butterfly man.” (Page 115)

In the Ferber chapter, there is a reference “to a boy of about ten who had been chasing butterflies.” (Page 213)

Butterfly nets have been used, in comedies, as a prop to catch people who are mentally ill. There was a thought that made me connect three of the four stories and that is the descent to madness. Dr Selwyn, Ambrose and Ferber have painful memories; due their experiences living in Europe from WWI to WWII and those memories are so painful that these characters not only physically emigrated, but mentally as well. In the case of Ambrose, he missed Cosmo Solomon so much; he chose to have his mind wiped clean through electro shock therapy.

Ferber was a hermit, like Dr Selwyn, but the former was due to claustrophobia, while the latter was due to shame.

Germany is like these four characters. Selwyn and Ferber became hermits and in a sense are afraid to confront reality. Ambrose wiped out his memories because he could not bear to live with them. Paul found closure with his memories when he lied down on the railroad track. Germans, who lived through WWII, want to suppress the memories of the Holocaust because they are too painful. Germans born after WWII find the atrocities inconceivable. But suppression of painful memories can lead to madness, as in the case of Selwyn, Ambrose and Ferber. Not only did they emigrate to other countries. They emigrated from their sanity.

Books: Contempt by Alberto Moravia

“Contempt,” by Alberto Moravia, is an appropriate title because the main character, Ricardo Molteni, is a contemptible human being. He is brutish, arrogant, narcissistic, yet insecure.

Molteni is an aspiring dramatist who is forced, from his perspective, to write movie screenplays in order maintain a lifestyle that would satisfy his wife Emilia who, in his estimation, “was… what is called a born housewife.” She is from a poor family and used to work as a typist. Molteni believes he rescued her from a potential life of deprivation.

Contempt is a first person narrative in which the protagonist is obsessed with the belief that his wife does not love him. Molteni notices slight changes in Emilia’s behavior, for example she wants to sleep in another room because Molteni likes sleeping with the blinds open and he snores, but Molteni does not believe her. To him, these are signs she is falling out of love with him.

Molteni’s petulance over not being loved is manifested in violent behavior. He pulls her hair, chokes Emilia and twists her fingers when they’re in a restaurant. After the hair-pulling scene, he badgers Emilia into having sex. She reluctantly agrees, but just lies in bed. Molteni then compares her passivity to “an inexpert prostitute.”

Emilia is not the only person Molteni regards as inferior. Battista is an Italian movie producer who physically resembles an ape; “with very broad shoulders, a long body, and short legs… his hair… came down rather low in the middle; thick eyebrows… small eyes; a short, broad nose and a large but lipless mouth… and slightly protruding… His hands were short and thick and covered with black hair.”

To Molteni, Battista’s taste in movies is vulgar. The producer is only interested in churning out blockbuster, action movies.

Battista is not the only character that is compared with a lower life form. Luisa Pasetti looked at her husband “like an affectionate dog with its master.”

His co-screenwriter, Pasetti, does not escape Molteni’s disrespect, who the latter thought was mediocre and was unbelievably psychologically obtuse, “a man without imagination and without nerves, but conscious of his limitations and fundamentally modest.”

Molteni’s scorn for the film industry is further illustrated by his perception that the screenwriter is powerless compared to the director and producer of a film. Also, the screenwriter is “forced to work with people he does not care for, people who are his inferiors in culture and breeding, who irritate him by features of character or behavior that are offensive to him.” Molteni is talking in general, but he is really projecting his own feelings about the film industry.

That is why he can’t stand working with Rheingold, the prospective director of Homer’s Odyssey. Molteni makes the mistake of underestimating the director because he judged him on his appearance. Rheingold had “a broad smile, like a half moon, showing two rows of very regular and altogether too white teeth which I at once imagined, I don’t know why, to be false.” Half moon could be interpreted as half-wit and false teeth could be interpreted as Rheingold being a pseudo-intellectual.

But Rheingold is his intellectual equal. He is not content with directing a common action movie. With Molteni’s help, Rheingold wants to make an intellectually stimulating movie, right under the nose of Battista, the producer. Rheingold challenges Molteni, “you’re intelligent and you must use your brain. Try to use it.”

Molteni is mad at Battista because his interpretation of Homer’s Odyssey is vulgar, and he is mad at Rheingold because his interpretation is a form of vandalism, adding an unnecessary 20th century psychological perspective to a timeless classic.

Contempt was written in 1954. In fact the original title was “A Ghost at Noon.” It’s interesting how a novel from 1954, about the constant struggle between film as art and commercialism, reflects current movie trends. Producers want to make money with action movies. Directors want to tell important stories. Sometimes, it feels like there is no middle ground, an artistic movie that makes a lot of money. Although, Molteni would feel more alienated today, writing movie adaptations of old television shows and sequels of mediocre movies.

Underneath the narrative is Molteni’s incredible insecurity. He is the civilized man working with primitives who do not appreciate him, but is terrified of the idea of not being loved. Self-adoration is not enough to sustain him. He needs somebody else to worship him because that would make selling out, writing screenplays for inferior people, more tolerable.

The constant need for verbal adulation from Emilia is irritating. She is right when she said, “you’re not a man, you don’t behave like a man.” Molteni acts like a spoiled child. Towards the end, Emilia is acting more like Molteni’s mommy than his wife.

Molteni is listening to his wife making dinner preparations. After she’s finished, he timidly pokes his head through the door. He wants to talk to her. “Go wait in the living room… I’m not finished with Agnesina yet… I’ll be there in a minute.” This is a role reversal with the physically abused wife taking firm control of the relationship from her abuser merely by admitting that she does not love him anymore and more importantly does not respect him.

Molteni pushed Emilia, with his constant doubts, into despising him, but it was Molteni’s contempt for everyone that left him isolated and alone.

Books: A Sport and a Pastime by James Salter

“A Sport and a Pastime is a first person narrative. The writing style is staccato, but there is a surreal quality to the writing that was distinct from “The Road.” Cormac McCarthy’s writing added a layer of sparseness to his narrative, but James Salter’s writing gave the impression that the situations he was describing were part of a dream. For example, “Perhaps it will snow. I glanced at the sky. Heavy as wet rags. France is herself only in the winter, her naked self, without manners.”[i]

I enjoy and prefer the staccato style of writing. It sounds like music to me because there is a rhythm to this style. The short sentences follow a beat, then there is a break and the writing pattern changes and the author riffs with a seamless longer sentence and then returns to the familiar beat. For example, “Over the crown of the western hills we sail beneath a brilliant sky of clouds shot through with sunlight and begin the descent to town, the road cutting back and forth in deep, blind turns.”[ii] This sentence is quite different from the methodical, staccato style James Salter mostly uses in the novel

“A Sport and a Pastime reminds me of Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises.” Americans are traveling through Europe, sharing experiences, endless parties, savoring European cuisine and lots of alcohol consumption, except that the former is a lot more sexually explicit than the latter.

The narrator appears to be obsessed with sex. It was evident, to me, that there were sexual overtones to even the most mundane descriptions, such as, “At last, with a little grunt, we begin to move. There’s a groaning of metal, the sharp slam of doors. A pleasant jolting over switches.”[iii]

The narrator gives a clue about the content of the story. “None of this is true. I’ve said Autun, but it could easily have been Auxerre. I’m sure you’ll come to realize that. I am only putting down details which entered me… It’s a story of things that never existed although even the faintest doubt of that, the smallest possibility, plunges everything into darkness. I only want whoever reads this to be as resigned as I am.”[iv]

Phillip Dean is a real person. The narrator met him at a dinner party. Dean is with Isabel, a forty-year-old woman. I got the impression Dean was a gigolo, or at least the “boy toy” of a very rich woman. She doesn’t know Dean. He is less than as an acquaintance. Dean was her escort to the party, but she barely remembers his name. He is an object to be desired. She brought him to the dinner party more as a trophy, “You’re the best looking thing in this room.” [v]

During dinner, at a restaurant, Dean tells the narrator that he dropped out of Yale. It wasn’t because he found college to be overwhelming. On the contrary, he is very intelligent, but Yale did not challenge his intellect. “He took an anthropology final when he hadn’t taken the course… His paper was so brilliant the professor fell in love with him.”[vi]

The Yale professor wasn’t the only person to fall for Dean. The narrator develops a man-crush over Dean. “If I had been an underclassman he would have become my hero, the rebel who, if I only had the courage, I might have also become. Instead I did everything properly.”[vii]

Soon, the narrator begins his obsession with Dean. “I am a little jealous of what he might do… I imagine him on a journey to the south of France in the spring. I’m not certain who’s with him. I know he isn’t alone… Perhaps she is the young whore he met in Paris he found so easy to get along with…”[viii]

Anne-Marie Costallat enters the narrator’s fantasy world. She is eighteen and beautiful. She is also the whore he fantasized Dean with. Cristina is gossiping. During the conversation she asks “the town whore?” Billy asks whom the “whore” is marrying, and Cristina says, “Oh, some student. I don’t know. I’ve never seen him.”[ix]

It appears the narrator obsesses over Dean and Anne-Marie. The sex acts he describes are detailed and passionate, “She is so wet by the time he has the pillows under her gleaming stomach that he goes right into her in one long, delicious move. They begin slowly. When he is close to coming he pulls his prick out and lets it cool. Then he starts again, guiding it with one hand, feeding it in like a line. She begins to roll her hips, to cry out. It’s like ministering to a lunatic.”[x]

The last sentence is a clue indicating the narrator is fantasizing about Dean and Anne-Marie. Men do not embellish their descriptions of sex that way, at least I don’t. This is a mind that has run amok. He is looking for language that fits his imagination.

“Feeding it in like a line” is the type of thing a guy would say to his male friends. A guy would not say, “She is pinioned on the bed, her arms trapped beneath her, her legs forced wide. Her eyes are close. The radio is playing Sucu Sucu. The world has stopped. Oceans still as photographs. Galaxies floating down. Her cunt tastes sweet as fruit.”[xi]

The novel hints the narrator is a voyeur. “Some things, as I say, I saw, some discovered, and some dreamed, and I can no longer differentiate between them.”[xii] Voyeurism would indicate the narrator’s obsession with Dean and Anne-Marie “plunged him into darkness.” It’s not enough to imagine the couple having sex. He has to witness it to see if the reality is equal to the fantasy.

There are other clues indicating the narrator is obsessed with the couple. “We walk along together for a way and then, at a corner, part. I can follow them without thinking.”[xiii]

I believe the narrator is in denial about his feelings for Dean. He describes a scene involving Dean and writes, “Of course it never happens. I have invented it all…”[xiv]

Also, “I am not telling the truth about Dean, I am inventing him. I am creating him out of my own inadequacies, you must always remember that.”[xv]

I detected the narrator is embarrassed over his obsession with Dean and Anne-Marie. During a conversation with Cristina, she wonders why he spent the winter in France. “You’re embarrassing me… It’s not that interesting to talk about.” Cristina continues her line of questioning and believes the narrator is in love. He denies it. “I’m ashamed of it, but I don’t.”[xvi]

“A Sport and a Pastime” is the tale of a man’s obsession with another man’s life and sexual potency. The narrator is unhappy with his life and fantasizes about another couple to make up for his own inadequacies. The fantasy also involves seducing the “town whore” and removing her from her trade and taking her to different hotels in France where the sex is not bartered for money.

He envies Dean’s sexual potency, his ability to summon and maintain an erection, “He has a hard-on he is sure will never disappear.”[xvii]

Anne-Marie is not the central focus of the obsession. The narrator wants to be Dean, young, handsome, adventurous, rebellious and sexually potent. The narrator is in denial over his obsession with another man because the obsession “plunges everything into darkness.”


[i] Chapter 8, page 44.
[ii] Chapter 6, page 35.
[iii] Chapter 1, page 4.
[iv] Chapter 2, page 11.
[v] Chapter 3, page 19.
[vi] Chapter 5, page 34.
[vii] Chapter 5, page 33.
[viii] Chapter 7, page 40.
[ix] Chapter 26, page 134.
[x] Chapter 19, page 103.
[xi] Chapter 11, page 64.
[xii] Chapter 9, page 51-52.
[xiii] Chapter 23, page 120.
[xiv] Chapter 21, page 111.
[xv] Chapter 13, page 79.
[xvi] Chapter 26, page 133.
[xvii] Chapter 9, page 55.

Books: Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishigura

“Never Let Me Go” by Kazuo Ishiguro is a first person narrative told from the point of view by the protagonist Kathy H. At first, I thought the last name characterized by an initial, such as H., was an homage to Franz Kafka, but these simple identifications and other clues pulled me into the story.

Kathy is working as a carer and she is taking care of a childhood friend Ruth who was a donor. Kathy reminisces about their lives at Hailsham. Tommy is the third major character of the novel.

I thought it was interesting how Ishiguro used the word “carer” to describe Kathy’s profession instead of health aide, a term I am more familiar with. The term “donor” did not set off any alarms, but the author used the word “guardians” instead of teachers or professors. I started to suspect Hailsham was not a typical academy. This was not Hogwarts, my initial comparison, and these were not average students. Furthermore, the children never left the school grounds.

I also noticed the Kathy, Ruth, Tommy, et al, never had contact with the outside world.

The next word that raised my suspicions was “donations.” Miss Lucy, a guardian, said to Tommy that, “We weren’t being taught enough… about us… What’s going to happen to us one day. Donations and all that.”

The final clue that lead me to think these characters were unique was how Kathy never mentioned her parents. In fact none of the characters mentioned their parents. My first guess was that they were orphans, but Ishiguro discloses later that the children are clones.

I liked the way the author used simple words to create a mood. The words “carer” “donor” “donations” and “guardians,” the absence of last names provided enough clues for me to deduce Kathy, Ruth and Tommy were being raised so that their healthy organs could be harvested and transplanted into individuals with unhealthy internal organs. Hailsham is really a clone farm.

Ishiguro gave enough information for me to put together the narrative thread of the novel. The author was not afraid to challenge the reader.

The disclosure that Kathy and the others were clones did not end the suspense. I was waiting for one of the characters to assert themselves and rebel, or at least walk away from the destiny. It was frustrating, not in the “I hate this book” sense, how Kathy, Ruth and Tommy accepted their fates. I kept hoping Kathy would drive off and start a new life for herself, but she never did.

I found it interesting how the clones were not uber-men. Ruth was internally unpredictable, and very fickle. She could be close to Kathy in one moment, then angry with her immediately after, and then act as if nothing happened to make her angry.

Ruth was also cold, calculating and selfish. She knew Kathy had issues controlling her sex drive. Kathy thought it was because she was cloned from a porn model. Ruth could have told her she had the same problems. Instead, she allowed Kathy to believe there was something wrong with her.

Also, Ruth kept Tommy for herself, knowing Kathy would have been a better partner for him.

Tommy was prone to tantrums and fits of rage. He also could not draw and did not have any artistic talent. He also appeared to be slow-witted. Ruth used to make fun of him and talked down to him.

Ishiguro created a credible dystopian world in which humans decided to create, what they thought, an inferior form of life to exploit in order to prolong their lives and cure diseases. They were inferior because they did not have souls. The clones are called “students” to make them feel like part of society, but Miss Emily and Madame call them “poor creatures.”

The clones were never misinformed. They understood and accepted their purpose. They are taught to believe donating organs is their purpose in society. Society even created a euphemism for their death. If a clone dies in the process of donating organs, then it has “completed,” as in completed its purpose.

The clones were not only exploited for their organs. As children, they were encouraged to draw and write poetry. Their works, the ones that were judged to be exceptional, were sent to the gallery. At first, I thought Hailsham was selling the artwork to fund the school’s expenses. I was wrong. Instead, the artwork was used to promote the quality of clones that were being produced.

In a scene late in the novel, Miss Emily expressed society’s perception of superiority over the clones. “We’re all afraid of you. I myself had to fight back my dread of you almost every day I was at Hailsham. There were times when I looked down at you from my study window and I’d feel such revulsion…”

Notice how the author frames Miss Emily’s hatred in the last sentence, “I looked down at you… I’d feel such revulsion.” Racism is based fear. She is the personification of this dystopian society.

Miss Emily’s contempt for Kathy and Tommy is also demonstrated when she talks about other clone farms and how the “students” are raised in deplorable conditions. Miss Emily’s argument reminded me of the argument rationalizing slavery. Slave masters would argue African American slaves had a better life in the United States than their “uncivilized” native countries.

And that is how I started to see “Never Let Me Go,” as a metaphor for immigrants living in a new society. I’ve never visited England, and cannot testify to the quality of life of recent immigrants.

But I am a child of immigrants in this country. Puerto Ricans are American citizens by an act of Congress, but we are a distinct and separate culture.

My parents came to New York City in the 1950’s and they settled in a Puerto Rican enclave in lower Manhattan. My father’s uncle was married to my mother’s aunt and that is how they met.

This is the first step towards integration into American society, settling in an community with other Puerto Ricans who have lived longer in New York City, like the “veterans” in the novel. Becoming a citizen is a process. The “veterans” teach the new arrivals about the new country, will help them find jobs, and direct the new arrivals to community organizations, like settlement houses, that will teach them how to be American citizens.

But the novel implies there is another aspect to being different from the greater society. The clones do not interact with anyone else, except for anyone who is connected to Hailsham. The “donors” are taken care of by the “carers.”

The clones are invisible. There is a sense of alienation. Society deliberately keeps the clones in the shadows. Kathy and Tommy do not feel alienated because they do not have a point of reference. They have a child-like innocence. They believe society is protecting their best interest, but are not fully aware they are being exploited. Furthermore, they are discouraged from leading normal lives.

Immigrants associate within their own groups, and sometimes are on the periphery of society. Society exploits them for their labor. We don’t notice them until immigrants start demanding their rights. Afterwards, they become a societal problem and a threat.

Even within the clones, there is social stratification. Ruth and Tommy keep reminding Kathy she is not a “donor.” If she was a “donor,” then Kathy would be able to understand them better.

I’ve often read immigrants in Europe have had a harder time integrating, compared to immigrants in the US. I thought the novel was sad, and if the author’s experience growing up in England lead to this novel, then “Never Let Me Go” is even sadder.

Books: The Road by Cormac McCarthy

Having read “No Country For Old Men,” I was familiar with Cormac McCarthy’s writing style. “The Road” was not as disorienting as the other novel because I was already accustomed to reading McCarthy’s style – the absence of quotation marks.

The point of view (POV) in “The Road” is clear. The transition from narrative to dialogue and back to narrative is easy to follow.

“The Road” is a post-apocalyptic novel. Mr. McCarthy does not explain the chain of events that led to the setting, but there are hints along the way as we follow the man and the boy to their destination – the coast.

Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” reinforces the concept that less is more. Mr. McCarthy did not embellish the setting in the beginning of the novel to create a sense of place. He gradually added layers so that the reader had a complete sense of time and place by the end.

There is the constant presence of ash. The atmosphere is covered in ash. The boy was not even born when the disaster occurred, but years later the ash has not dissipated. The disaster was not a local phenomenon, but a worldwide calamity.

The narrator said, “The clocks stopped at 1:17.” Whatever caused this post-apocalyptic world was sudden and powerful enough to disrupt society. The man did not have time to plan for it.

The man and the boy encounter incinerated bodies indicating people were killed where they stood with little time to flee from the disaster. The fully stocked bomb shelter also indicates the suddenness of the calamity. The owner of the shelter did not have enough to time to seek refuge.

There is the complete absence of life, except for humans and the occasional stray dog. No birds, cattle, horses, reptiles, and insects. Either these life forms perished in the disaster, or were consumed by the survivors.

Towards the ends of the novel, the man and the boy walk through what appears to be a major city. The narrator mentions melted glass on a building, and this is a clue indicating the blast originated in the major city. The narrator also mentions melted rubber tires, another indication of extreme heat.

These clues provide a sense of place, where the man and boy lived relative to the disaster. They lived on the outskirts of the blast radius, and were walking through the epicenter of the devastation.

The sparse language added to the desolate environment. The road was deserted. The trees were bare. Life was burned off. Mr. McCarthy did not have to embellish the setting. He let the sparse language define the sparse setting.

The dialogue between the man and the boy also reflected the desolation. They are exhausted, starving, struggling to survive. There is almost nothing left to say except, “We have each other.”

Mr. McCarthy does not give proper names to the main characters. They are known as the man and the boy. They see the world as a struggle between good guys versus bad guys. The good guys could be simply defined as people who will not eat other people. The bad guys are cannibals. In this world, there is no political or economic ideology to fight over, just humans who will resort to barbarism just to survive.

The absence of proper names does not mean the characters lack depth. The boy was born and raised into this post-apocalyptic world. However, he was instilled with values, specifically respect for human life.

The man is mostly concerned with their survival, but the boy is concerned for health of the man who was hit by lightning, the old man and the thief. The man continues on his journey, but the boy tries to remind the man of his humanity.

The boy wants to help the man who was hit by lightning, but the man says, “He’s going to die anyway.” The boy refuses to believe the best course is to walk away from a person who is dying.

The boy wants to share some food with the old man. At first, the man refuses, then he agrees, but says the old man cannot spend the night with them. The man relents and agrees to share a meal with the old man.

Their meager property was stolen and the man and the boy catch the thief. The man degrades the thief by making him undress and turning over his clothes and shoes. The boy protests. He argues that they retrieved their property, and there is no need to take his clothes. The boy is concerned over the safety of the thief.

The man tells the boy they are the good guys because they are carrying the fire. The fire represents the best of humanity. The man said he would not live if the boy dies because his sense of humanity would die with the boy.

In a sense, the ash, the road and death are secondary characters and constant companions. The ash speaks to and reminds the man and the boy about the level of destruction. The road is the only hope they have for survival. Death hovers over the man and the boy because it is the only solution they have if they encounter and outnumbered by evil.

“The Road” is a metaphor of the present. We are not cannibalizing each other in order to survive, but we are consuming ourselves through greed, and sometimes it feels like we are losing our humanity.

But, just as the boy kept his humanity in a post-apocalyptic world, we can be comforted in knowing that as young people expose themselves to different ethnic groups, different ideas, different lifestyles, they will become immune to the various isms that threaten to destroy us as a species.

The ending is controversial. The man mentioned the boy carried the fire, and the fire represents humanity. The man lost a portion of his humanity because of his concern over the boy’s safety. The safety of others is not a consideration.

The boy was born and raised in this world, but the man instilled the value of life into the boy. The man may have forgotten, but the boy constantly reminded him of his lost humanity.

The man is suspicious of others, but the boy has an innate sense of who to trust. It was the boy who told the man not to enter the house where the captives were held. The boy wanted to join the other boy because he wanted to be around someone his own age, someone he could relate to. He did not believe the other boy was a threat. The boy wanted to be part of a community and not a wandering nomad.

In the end, the boy had to make a “gut” judgment call, and go with the other man, based on that man’s word that he had a family of his own. The boy trusted his instincts and joined the family.

Mr. Vives, (my 10th grade science teacher in Quebradillas, Puerto Rico), said there is no such thing as a perfect extinction, a situation everything completely dies out. Something always survives.

The cannibals would eventually become extinct because cannibalism would not be able to sustain itself, but the community the boy sought had a better chance of thriving because community is based on shared sacrifice and burdens.

Maybe that was Cormac McCarthey’s message. Man can survive the apocalypse as long as man retains his humanity.

The question is, can we find our humanity to prevent the apocalypse.

The Flag and the Prophet

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

But freedom of speech is not an absolute right. The United States Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of free speech to a “short list of forms of expression – including obscenity, incitement and defamation – that are not protected by the Constitution.”[i]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example used to demonstrate that not all speech is protected.

In 1984 Gregory Lee Johnson set the American flag on fire to protest the policies of President Reagan during the Republican National convention in Dallas, Texas. He was arrested for “intentionally or knowingly desecrating a state or national flag” in Texas, and convicted. Mr. Johnson was fined $200 and sentenced to a year in prison.[ii]

The case reached the Supreme Court in 1989. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the Texas law. The majority argued the “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or… even stirs people to anger.”[iii] 

Justice Brennan wrote, in the Texas v Johnson, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive, or disagreeable…”[iv]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision “is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson’s is a sign and source of our strength.”[v]

To the majority of Americans, burning the American flag is offensive, even blasphemous, but burning the American flag is protected speech in the United States.

Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. The law stated, “Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”[vi]

The federal law was struck down in United States v Eichman.

I am not a free speech absolutist. Personally, these are rules I try to abide by.

First, I would defend the right of any American citizen to burn the American flag – as political discourse.

But if I was going to attend a political rally, and found out someone was going to burn an American flag, I would use my right of free speech to persuade the individual from burning the flag.

Burning the flag would garner attention to a political cause, and would demonstrate the level of anger, but it would be counter productive because the visceral reaction of burning the American flag would negate the political argument that is being made.

If I were unable to persuade the individual from burning the flag, then I would exercise my right as an American citizen, and protest the burning of the American flag by not attending the rally.

Second, I understand that burning the American flag is painful to most Americans. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, but I would not use that right to offend others. Personally, I would not use my right to speak freely to hurt other people.

Third, speech is used to persuade. I cannot think of an issue in which I can persuade an individual to change his opinion by burning an American flag.

Fourth, I have the responsibility to express an intellectually sound opinion. It is not enough to simply speak. I should be able to freely express a sound argument. However, flag burning is demonstrative speech, not expressive speech.

Unfortunately, respect for flags begins and ends with the American flag. In May 1998, NBC broadcast an episode of Seinfeld in which Kramer accidentally set fire to a Puerto Rican flag, and stomps on the flag to put out the fire. Kramer was not protesting any political issues involving Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican flag was used as a comedic prop.

Americans are ethnocentric and are tone deaf to sensitive issues involving other cultures. The Seinfeld episode was a perfect example. It never occurred to anyone on the Seinfeld show, or in NBC that setting the Puerto Rican flag on fire, and stomping on it would offend Puerto Ricans.

The creators of South Park, in commemoration of their 200th episode, wanted to include all the famous people the show satirized since its inception in 1997. Matt Stone and Trey Parker wanted to include the Prophet Muhammad in the two-part episode. Stone and Parker were aware of Islam’s prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.

Their solution was to have Muhammad hidden in a U-Haul truck, then later in the episode appear dressed in a bear costume, thereby satisfying the prohibition depicting the Prophet. The two-part episode ended with a speech “about intimidation and fear.”[vii]

Comedy Central censored the episode.

This was not the first time Stone and Parker depicted Muhammad in South Park. The Prophet was included in a 2001 episode titled “Super Best Friends.”[viii]

In 2006, Comedy Central censored the episode “Cartoon Wars.” The episode was a response to “the violent aftermath of the illustrations of Muhammad published in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.”[ix]

I used to be a fan of South Park. It was very funny, and there always was a hidden message beneath the outrageousness. I stopped following the show years ago, not because my taste in comedy changed, or the quality of the material declined. I only have four, maybe five free hours during the day, so I ration the amount of time I watch TV.

It is hard to objectively criticize or judge a show I did not watch. I cannot condemn something I did not see, and I cannot speak to the intent or message of the two-part episode.

Furthermore, as a free speech advocate, I cannot, in good conscience, condemn Stone and Parker.

Any depiction of the Prophet is strictly forbidden in Islam. This is Islamic religious doctrine. The depiction does not have to be negative. A benign depiction, such as a painting of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, would also be prohibited. The rationale for the prohibition is that paintings and statues could lead to idol worship.

In fact, Muslims would object to any artistic depictions of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary for the same reason Muslims would object to a depiction of Muhammad. Muslims, as an article of faith, believe in all the prophets mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

Stone and Parker pride themselves on crossing the line of outrageous behavior through the cartoon characters on South Park. To them, there are no sacred cows. Stone and Parker used their freedom of speech to demonstrate against intolerance by depicting Muhammad disguised in a bear costume.

Again, I cannot condemn Stone and Parker, but I wished they had used better judgment. There had to be a better way to demonstrate against perceived “Islamic intolerance,” than depicting Muhammad dressed in a bear costume.

As an American, the best way to protest the depiction of Muhammad in South Park is to not watch the show. Muslims have the recourse to boycott the companies that run commercials during South Park. I can also write Comedy Central to express my outrage, but threatening Stone and Parker with violence is wrong.

I have not watched South Park in years, but if I was a loyal viewer, I could decide to boycott the show. That is what I did following the episode in which the Puerto Rican flag was burned and stomped. I stopped watching Seinfeld.

Americans consider the American flag to be sacred. Burning or defacing the flag is intolerable, but we cannot understand why Muslims would be angered by the depiction of Muhammad dressed in a bear costume. Mocking a religious icon is not the best way to celebrate our freedom of speech.

The war on terrorism has also been depicted as a clash of civilizations. We proclaim ourselves to be a great nation, and try to persuade other countries that our way of life is better, but we will never persuade Muslims of the greatness of our country if we use our freedom of speech to mock Muhammad, or argue Islam is inherently evil, or generalize all Muslims are terrorists.

One of the Danish cartoons that outraged Muslims depicts Muhammad wearing a turban and concealing a bomb in the turban. The theme of the cartoon could be construed as Muhammad is a suicide bomber, or Islam is predisposed towards terrorism. This intellectual argument is false.

First, the argument is illogical. If we follow this line of reasoning: Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Al Qaeda are Muslim. Al Qaeda are terrorists. Muslims are terrorists, therefore Muhammad was a terrorist.

Then we must also say that: Jesus Christ was the founder of Christianity. The Klu Klux Klan are Christians. The KKK are racists. Christians are racist, therefore Jesus Christ was a racist.

Second, the foremost enemy in the war on terror is Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a political movement. Al Qaeda’s goals are political, not religious. Their goal is to force the United States to withdraw their presence in the Middle East. Al Qaeda uses terrorism to achieve this goal. With the United States out of the Middle East, Al Qaeda would instigate political revolutions to overthrow “illegitimate” rulers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

Al Qaeda is not a religious movement designed to force the rest of the world to convert to Islam. Forcing people to convert to Islam is against religious doctrine. In the Holy Quran, it clearly states, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (2:256)

We, as Americans, are blessed to be living in a country where we are allowed to express ourselves without the threat of government intervention. But we also have a responsibility to use our freedom of speech with wisdom and respect. We cannot demonstrate our greatness by mocking others solely for the purpose of demonstrating we can get away with it.

As an American, I have the right to express myself by waving my middle finger. It is considered an obscene gesture. It is rude and childish, but it can be funny under certain circumstances. The gesture can also provoke a harsh response.

To Muslims, flipping the middle finger is the equivalent of mocking Muhammad. It is rude and childish and it provokes a harsh response.

We forget, or choose to ignore, that comedy can hurt.

Americans believe the American flag is sacred, and we become outraged when people in other countries set the American flag on fire, therefore we should not be surprised when Muslims are outraged when we insult Muhammad, and shield ourselves with the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech should be used responsibly.


[i] “The Court and Free Speech,” New York Times, April 24, 2010.
[ii] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[iii] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[iv] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[v] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[vi] Public Law 101-131, 101st Congress, 1989.
[vii] “South Park Episode Altered After Muslim Group’s Warning,” Dave Itzkoff, New York Times, April 23, 2010.
[viii] “Baddest Toon on the Block (Again),” Joshua Alston, Newsweek, April 22, 2010.
[ix] “Baddest Toon on the Block (Again),” Joshua Alston, Newsweek, April 22, 2010.

Yanks Will Not Repeat in 2010

In the 2010 baseball preview, New York Daily News writer Mark Feinsand offers 28 reasons why the New York Yankees will repeat as World Series champions, but I have one reason why the Yankees will not repeat. The Yankees do not have a legitimate number five hitter in their lineup.

The Yankees have penciled second baseman Robinson Cano as their fifth place hitter. His 2009 offensive statistics were impressive. His batting average was .320. He scored 103 runs, had 204 hits, with 25 home runs and 85 RBI. But his numbers did not translate into the post season. He hit .192 overall, and .136 in the World Series.

Cano is an impatient hitter who does not draw walks, but he was practically an automatic out in the World Series. His World Series performance reflected the fact that he is not a clutch hitter in the regular season and the post season.

In 2010, Cano will be assigned the task of protecting Alex Rodriguez in the lineup. Frankly, if I were the opposition, I would dare Cano to beat me in a clutch situation.

Another option to hit behind Rodriguez is Jorge Posada, but he is the starting catcher, and he will only start 110 to 120 games in 2010. The Yankees plan to use Posada as a DH in games he will not catch, but that will disrupt their lineup because their projected number two hitter in the lineup is Nick Johnson.

Nick Swisher is another candidate to bat fifth. He has power. Swisher hit 29 home runs in 2009, and he has a high on base percentage (.371), but he never hit above .270 in his career.

The Yankees were operating with a budget this off-season. General manager Brian Cashman wanted to reduce the payroll to under $200 million. World Series heroes Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui were not resigned. Their 2010 replacements are a significant downgrade.

In addition, Melky Cabrera, the 2009 starting center fielder, was traded to the Atlanta Braves for starting pitcher Javier Vazquez, who will be the fourth starter on the 2010 team.

In a sense, the Yankees traded Damon, Matsui and Cabrera for Curtis Granderson, Nick Johnson and Brett Gardner.

Granderson is an upgrade over Damon only because he is younger, but the Yankees are replacing their last season’s number two hitter in the lineup with someone who will hit seventh.

Nick Johnson replaces Damon as the second place hitter – when he is playing. Johnson is injury prone. Also, Johnson is not a base stealer, in contrast to Damon.

Johnson replaced Matsui, who batted fifth in 2009, and protected Alex Rodriguez in the lineup. Matsui was also a clutch hitter and proven RBI man. Matsui was the full time DH. In 2010, Johnson and Posada will share DH duties. Posada will replace Johnson as DH when Posada is not catching.

Gardner lost the centerfield job to Cabrera after a slow start in 2009. He will be the starting leftfielder in 2010, and hit ninth in the batting order.

The Yankees have a lot of two, seven, eight and nine hitters in this lineup. Jeter is not really a leadoff hitter. He is really a number two hitter, but the Yankees do not have a prototypical leadoff hitter.

Granderson strikes out too much to be a true leadoff hitter, or a number two hitter. With his speed, I would bat Granderson ninth, but Gardner occupies that spot in the lineup.

Gardner could be a leadoff hitter on most teams, but the Yankees have a “must win now” mandate, and do not have the patience to wait for Gardner to develop into a leadoff hitter.

The projected lineup of Jeter, Johnson, Teixeira, Rodriguez, Cano, Posada, Granderson, Swisher, Gardner does not project the length of a championship team. This team will have difficulty scoring runs in 2010.

To overcome this weak lineup and win another championship, the Yankees will have to depend on their starting pitchers. The Yankees added Vazquez to their staff. He will pitch fourth in the rotation behind Sabathia, Burnett and Pettitte.

Vazquez pitched successfully in the National League in 2009, but National League pitchers are not as effective when they switch leagues. National League lineups are easier to maneuver than American League lineups. I expect Vazquez’s ERA will jump from 2.87 to over 4.00.

As for Burnett, the number two starter in the rotation, it is worth repeating that he had virtually the same record as Hideki Irabu in 1998. Irabu was the fifth starter on that rotation. Burnett has the stuff of a number one, but the production of a three or four.

Phil Hughes beat Joba Chamberlain for the fifth spot in the rotation. This is a puzzling move for three reasons. First, Chamberlain was babied in 2009. The Yankees limited the number of innings he pitched because they wanted to protect his right arm.

The training wheels were supposed to come off in 2010, but management was not happy with Chamberlain’s velocity as a starter during spring training. He was throwing in the low 90’s. In contrast, Chamberlain was throwing in the high 90’s as a reliever during the 2009 post season.

The Yankees are mismanaging Chamberlain. They are sending him mixed messages. They were overly cautious with him in 2009, so he was cautious in the games he started. Chamberlain paced himself as a starter. He knew he could not throw in the high 90’s as a starter because he would run out of gas before the fifth inning.

Obviously, Chamberlain will throw harder as a relief pitcher knowing he will not pitch more than two innings. Sending Chamberlain to the bullpen nullified the progress he made as a starter in 2009. The Yankees are being seduced by the possibilities of the high 90’s fastball.

Second, the Yankees will need only four starting pitchers in the post season. As the fifth starter, Chamberlain would have been used in the bullpen during the post season.

Third, it will be Phil Hughes turn to pitch on a leash. The Yankees will face the same problem with Hughes. He will reach 120 innings by July or August, then he will be taken out of the rotation, or limited to three innings per start in order limit Hughes innings pitched to 150, and the Yankees will have to replace Hughes in the starting rotation with another retread.

The Yankees are fortunate there is parity in baseball. The era of the dominant team is over because baseball teams cannot afford to keep teams together. The Boston Red Sox upgraded their starting rotation at the expense of their starting lineup. John Lackey gives the Red Sox five solid starters, but their projected lineup of Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, Victor Martinez, J.D. Drew, David Ortiz, Adrian Beltre, Mike Cameron and Marco Scutaro is not as imposing as their recent championship teams.

The Tampa Bay Rays are probably the best team in the American League East. They are young, talented, fast and have a stable of quality young pitchers, but the Rays are under a lot of pressure to win games early in the season. Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena are in the last year of their contracts. If the Rays are not in first or second place by June, then management will trade Crawford and Pena for prospects.

For the Yankees, winning the American League East, the pennant or the World Series is not improbable, but management’s decisions during the off season and spring training do not inspire confidence. For the first time, the Yankees are operating with budgetary constraints. Are the Yankees scaling back their payroll anticipating next year’s free agent class? As a Yankee fan, I have been salivating at the possibility of Carl Crawford joining the team as a free agent.

Also, Derek Jeter’s contract expires at the end of 2010. Will the Yankees lowball Jeter the same way they offered pay cuts to Pettitte, Damon and Matsui?

Or are the Yankees losing money, and can no longer afford the best players?

The Yankees do not have a viable farm system to replace players as they depart or retire. I wish they did. But the Yankees will have to sign free agents to remain competitive in the future.

What is troubling is that I am seeing a pattern of mismanagement first witnessed after the 2001 season. Players on World Series winners are being replaced with inferior talent. The Yankees were able to win division championships, but did not have the talent to become champions. You just cannot replace players according their position. You have to consider where they hit in the lineup.

This team could repeat, but I am predicting the Yankees will be in third place at the end of the season. The Rays and the Red Sox will finish ahead.

Saints Win Super Bowl XLIV

The New Orleans Saints defeated the Indianapolis Colts 31-17 in Super Bowl XLIV, but the game was closer than final score would indicate. The Saints were leading by seven with 3:12 left in the fourth quarter. Peyton Manning was leading the Colts to a potential game tying drive when he threw an interception to defensive back Tracy Porter, who returned the ball 74 yards for the game-clinching touchdown.

The Saints were 4½-point underdogs going into the Super Bowl. Coach Sean Payton devised a game plan that was reminiscent of previous Super Bowl winners, but added a wrinkle that shifted the momentum to the Saints.

The Saints figured the best way to keep Peyton Manning and the Colts from scoring was to keep Manning off the field. In Super Bowl XXV, the Giants faced the potent Buffalo Bills offense, but neutralized the Bills by controlling the time of possession with a strong running game.

The Saints did not convincingly control the time of possession over the Colts, but did manage the clock in the second and third quarters. In the second quarter, the Saints had the ball for 13 minutes. They only scored six points on two field goals, but kept the Colt offense on the bench – after the Colts scored 10 points in the first quarter.

In the third quarter, the Saints had the ball for 7:33, and scored 10 points. The Colts scored a touchdown with the only offensive possession in the third quarter. The Colts scored on three of their first five possessions, but had the ball for only eight minutes during this crucial stretch.

The Saints started the third quarter with an onside kick, and kept possession of the football. The Colts were leading 10-6 at the time. Suppose the Colts had the first possession in the third quarter and scored a touchdown. The score would have been 17-6. Or suppose the Colts would have scored with a field goal. Any lead half way through the third quarter could have been a safe lead.

Instead, the Saints kept possession of the football, and scored to take a 13-10 lead. The onside kick shifted momentum to the Saints. Remember, the Colts had the ball for only 2:34 in the second quarter, and then had to wait 3:19 for the Saints to score. The Colts were able to score a touchdown with their only possession in the third quarter to take a 17-13 lead, but Peyton Manning must have been frustrated as he witnessed the Saints march up and down the field on the Colts defense.

The Colt defense held the Saints to six points in the second quarter, even stopping the Saints on fourth and goal, but the Saints offense was in complete control throughout the second quarter, and the rest of the game. The Colts did not have a pass rush. Saints quarterback Drew Brees had ample time to find open receivers.

Brees also borrowed from history, and copied the San Francisco 49ers’ game plan. In the early 1980’s, the 49ers did not have a running game. To compensate, Montana used to dump off passes to running backs, tight ends, and Dwight Clark. The 49ers methodically drove the length of the field. Defenses were forced to choose between rushing the passer, and leaving the secondary exposed, or sending three defensive linemen, and having six or seven defensive backs to cover the offense. The latter option allowed Montana to dissect defenses.

Brees completed 32 passes for 288 yards. He completed 29 of his last 32 attempts. He spread the ball around. Eight receivers caught at least one pass. Most of his passes were dumped underneath for six or seven yards, but Brees was able to complete passes for 10+ yards when he needed to. There were several offensive plays in which more than one receiver was wide open.

The Colts were not able to generate a pass rush. Defensive lineman Dwight Freeney was ineffective because he played with an injured right ankle. The Colts defense did not play aggressively, did not make any adjustments, and allowed the Saints offense to control the tempo of the game.

The Colts defense gave up 332 yards and 24 points, but more importantly their defense allowed the Saints to maintain possession of the football during the middle of the game. This really was a case of the Saints offense controlling the Colts offense.

I thought Manning would be able to score at will against the Saints defense. Offensively, the Colts outperformed the Saints, but the Saints offense kept the Colts offense off the field and off the scoreboard in the second quarter. This was the turning point of the game. The successful onside kick to start the third quarter shifted the momentum.

Coach Sean Payton deserves a lot of credit for taking chances, and crafting a successful game plan.

Governing in the Age of Obama

I believe it was film critic Roger Ebert who said, “You review the movie you saw, not the movie you wanted made.” We should use the same approach in judging President Obama’s first year in office.

Candidate Obama ran on hope and change and his inauguration last January stimulated the imagination of his supporters. A year later, the word “disappointment” is often used to evaluate President Obama’s first year in office.

If we work under the principle of reviewing who President Obama is, rather than the President Obama we would like him to be, then his first year cannot be considered a disappointment.

In 2008, the Democratic Party had two distinctive candidates running for president. Senator Hillary Clinton was the candidate who would fight on every issue. Senator Obama was the candidate who would be able to bring people together to solve our problems. It was a choice between a steamroller and a conciliator.

I believed electing Mr. Obama president of the United States would restore our image throughout the world because the election would demonstrate we prevailed over our original sin of slavery and racism.

In that sense, his first year was a success. President Obama perceives other world leaders as equals. He has demonstrated a willingness to work with other countries on various global issues. He listens instead of dictating policy like his predecessors. No wonder he is more popular overseas than he is in the United States.

President Obama has a gift, an ability to listen and work with others. This ability may work well in foreign policy, but it is not working well domestically. It is not entirely his fault. Structural problems within our government have nullified his ability.

President Obama is not a steamroller. It is not his nature to force others to accept his position. He believes in argument and persuasion and he will not make a decision until he has heard and analyzed everybody’s opinion.

The Conservative opposition’s notion that President Obama is a radical who intends to create a Marxist/fascist state is ridiculous. He campaigned as a centrist, and he has governed as a centrist.

Health care reform is an example of President Obama’s centrist tendencies. He did not want to impose a single payer, Medicare for all health care bill. Instead, President Obama wanted a bill that protected consumers. Furthermore, the single payer legislation would have eliminated the private health care insurance industry. He is trying to regulate the current health care system, not overthrow it.

President Obama believes in bipartisanship. He will stubbornly continue to seek support from Republicans in Congress. It is frustrating to watch President Obama constantly reach out to Senate Republicans, trying to coax at least one vote for his proposals. Republicans continue to reject his efforts, but President Obama is keeping his promise to work with Republicans.

President Obama said he wanted an administration that was willing to embrace ideas from Republicans as well as Democrats.

Negotiations over last year’s stimulus package was an example of President Obama’s willingness to consider Republican ideas. Most economists argued the stimulus bill should be a pure jobs bill aimed at so-called “shovel ready projects.” Republicans argued for tax cuts. The same economists counter argued that tax cuts were not necessary. Tax cuts would lessen the impact of the stimulus bill. President Obama listened to the Republicans and included tax cuts in the stimulus bill. President Obama’s concession to the Republicans was for naught because they voted against the stimulus bill.

President Obama does not lead in a vacuum. He shares power with Congress, and the Senate is responsible for government inaction during Obama’s first year in office.

Before the inauguration, Senator Harry Reid said that the Senate was not going to rollover for President Obama. That was a bold statement considering the Democrats in the Senate allowed President Bush to prosecute a false war against Iraq.

For a brief period in late 2009 and early 2010, Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate, enough to defeat a filibuster. Even with this tactical advantage, the Senate was unable to pass health care reform in a timely manner.

The problems in the Senate are structural. Senate Republicans have adopted former First Lady Nancy Reagan’s anti-drug mantra of “Just Say No” as a political tactic, and have colluded to vote against President Obama’s proposals. Republicans are forcing the Democrats to vote as a bloc to stop filibusters and enact legislation.

The Republican Party is acting like the Sunnis in Iraq. The Sunnis initially refused to participate in the new Iraqi government. They wanted to continue ruling Iraq, like they did before the American invasion. Republicans do not want to cooperate. They want to run the country, like they did from 2001 to 2006.

Before President Obama, a simple majority (51 votes) was needed to pass legislation. Currently, bills need a supermajority (60 votes) to pass.

The problems in the Senate are exacerbated by a weak Majority Leader. Current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will never be confused with former Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Democratic senators are not afraid of Mr. Reid. He cannot impose his will on his colleagues. President Obama would be better served if he had a steamroller as Majority Leader in the Senate.

Republicans are betting the economy will not improve in 2010. Voters will blame President Obama. Republicans are gambling voters will punish the Democrats in the fall.

Republicans are aided and abetted by the Mainstream Media (MSM). President Obama’s failures are exaggerated. Republican talking points have a wide platform, greater than Fox News. President Obama’s birth certificate has received an inordinate amount of attention. Several thousand tea-bag protesters are magnified as a vast movement against President Obama. False notions, like death panels in the health care bill, are given constant coverage, thus making it a legitimate issue to cover. A special election in Massachusetts, to replace deceased Senator Ted Kennedy, won by a Republican is reported as a referendum on President Obama’s policies.

The MSM constantly give a platform to the Republican opposition who use the coverage to portray President Obama’s agenda as radical. Republicans use code words to inflame the public, like radical, socialist, and fascist. Big government becomes totalitarian. Repeat code words enough, and President Obama’s approval ratings will drop.

This tired tactic is not even original. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current political pundit Bill Kristol used these tactics against the Clinton Administration.

President Obama is not beyond criticism. He prides himself on considering all options before making a decision, but in two instances he did not consider all the options available to him.

First, the health care reform bill. President Obama did not include the single payer option in negotiations with Congress. Also, President Obama did not include a provision to purchase cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and Europe. Furthermore, he did not include a provision to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs with pharmaceutical companies.

Second, the war in Afghanistan. President Obama limited his choices to no escalation, and escalating troop levels by 20, 40 or 60 thousand troops. Withdrawing troops, the best option in my opinion, was never considered.

President Obama has demonstrated the tendency to limit his policy decisions to a group of second best options while completely ignoring the best options. He tries to build consensus by seeking policy options that are not disagreeable.

Liberals and progressives were expecting another FDR, but Mr. Obama never campaigned as a progressive. He wanted to bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives and he’s trying. It is not his fault Republicans are refusing to cooperate.

He wanted to tone down the rhetoric in Washington. President Obama has not resorted to denigrating the opposition, but the Republicans are.

During the presidential campaign, he figured out independent voters were not interested in ideological solutions. Voters wanted someone who could manage the country and the economy. President Obama is trying to be a nonpartisan manager.

President Obama is trying to be the president he campaigned to be. The problem has been governing. The inability to govern is not entirely his fault. President Obama’s most neglected accomplishment during his first year in office was demonstrating our system of government is obsolete and is in need of repair.

Please go to the enclosed link for a list of President Obama’s achievements during his first year: http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003?lid=1092301&rid=40913829

McGwire Wrong About Steroids

In the summer of 1998, it became obvious that Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa was going to break Roger Maris’ single season home run record. I remember a conversation I had with a friend that summer. I said it was a shame a steroid user was going to break that record. Almost twelve years later, Mark McGwire confirmed “what people have suspected.”[i] He used steroids during most of his career.

McGwire was hired as the hitting coach for the St Louis Cardinals. He had to address the steroid issue before spring training. McGwire released a statement to the media in which he admitted to using steroids during the off season in 1989 and 1990, in 1993, and throughout the rest of the decade, including 1998, the year he broke the single season home run record.

In his statement, and later in an interview with Bob Costas on the MLB Network, McGwire stated he used steroids to overcome a series of injuries that limited his playing time. He thought steroids would allow his body to heal faster. Once healthy, and able to play for a full season, McGwire continued using steroids because he believed steroids helped his body recover after games, and allowed his body to withstand the rigors of a 162 game season.

I have always argued steroids help baseball players recover energy faster. McGwire is the first baseball player to actually admit to using steroids as a method of sustaining physical performance during a baseball season. “I took very, very low dosages because I wanted my body to feel normal,” McGwire said. “The wear and tear of 162 ballgames… and what I had to go through to get through all these injuries…”[ii]

But McGwire did not make the connection between steroids and performance. In his mind, steroids helped him recover from injuries and from the grind of the long baseball season. He believes that he would have hit 70 home runs in a season or almost 600 home runs in his career without steroids. McGwire is wrong.

First, steroids are performance enhancing drugs. That is why steroids are banned from every sport. Taking McGwire’s statement at face value, steroids allowed him to take the field because steroids helped heal his body. “During the mid-90s, I [McGwire] went on the DL seven times and missed 228 games over five years. I experienced a lot of injuries, including a rib cage strain, a torn left heel muscle, a stress fracture of the left heel, and a torn right heel muscle.”[iii]

In the interview with Bob Costas, McGwire admitted he contemplated retiring from baseball in 1996. Without steroids, McGwire’s career would have been shortened due to injury. In that sense, McGwire is wrong about steroids.

Second, McGwire used steroids to get through the 162 game season. Steroids helped his body recover after each game, and he was able to perform at peak physical condition by the end of the season. That created an unfair advantage.

Mike Piazza was a gifted offensive player. He produced great offensive numbers during the early part of the season with the New York Mets, but as Piazza got older, his numbers routinely dropped off in August and September. Piazza was a catcher. He used to get hit with foul balls, errant baseball bats, blocked pitches in the dirt, and was run over by opposing players. The wear and tear of the 162 game season physically drained Piazza. Piazza was a baseball player that did not take steroids. His late season performances are a testimony to that statement. McGwire had an offensive advantage Piazza did not have.

Third, steroids increase strength. McGwire argues his ability to hit home runs was due to hand-eye coordination, but McGwire does not talk about another important factor in hitting – bat speed.

McGwire’s muscle mass increased when he used steroids. He became stronger, therefore he was able to generate greater bat speed after he got stronger. After using steroids, McGwire was able to make contact, through greater bat speed, earlier in the hitting zone, and had better success driving the baseball. Pitches that used to jam him, or he used to hit off the end of the bat suddenly became tape measured home runs – which brings me to…

Fourth, McGwire was a pure home run hitter. He hit over .300 once – over a full season. In 1998, he hit .299. He was a fly ball hitter. Early in his career, McGwire admittedly “hit wall scrapping home runs.”[iv] He attributed his unfathomable home run production in the late 90’s to better technique. But he got stronger through steroids, even if it was low dosages, and he was able to hit the baseball harder. Fly balls that normally would have been caught at the warning track became home runs.

McGwire never got more than 161 hits in a season. Early in his career, the percentage of home runs in relation to hits was in the 30% range. But the percentage increased to over 40% when he was using steroids. McGwire was getting about 145 hits per season during the late stages of his career, but over 40% of those hits were home runs.

McGwire refuses to acknowledge the connection between steroids and performance because then he would have to admit his career statistics are illegitimate. McGwire believes he could have hit 70 home runs in a baseball season without steroids, but steroids helped him stay healthy, improved his stamina, increased his bat speed, and gave him the strength to hit tape measured home runs.

But I do not blame McGwire for tainting some of Major League Baseball’s most treasured home run records. He played during a time when Commissioner Bud Selig, the Major League Player’s Association, the media and fans casually ignored steroid use. They were all caught up in an orgy of tape measured home runs, and refused to acknowledge the infestation of steroids.

I can forgive McGwire for using steroids, but I cannot and will not accept his rationalization that steroids did not impact his performance during his career.


[i] Mark McGwire statement to the media, January 11, 2010.
[ii] “Transcript: McGwire Interview,” MercuryNews.com, January 11, 2010.
[iii] Mark McGwire statement to the media, January 11, 2010.
[iv] “Transcript: McGwire Interview,” MercuryNews.com, January 11, 2010.

If I Had a Ballot

The National Baseball Hall of Fame will announce the 2010 inductees on January 6, 2010. Candidates must appear on 75% of the ballots to be elected. Members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) can vote for up to 10 candidates.

I am not a member of the BBWAA, but if I was, these are the candidates I would vote for:

Roberto Alomar
This is Alomar’s first year on the ballot. He was clearly the best second baseman of his era. He won 10 Gold Gloves. Alomar had incredible range. I never saw a second baseball that could cover as much ground as he did.

He was a career .300 hitter. In 17 seasons, Alomar hit over .300 nine times. His 2,724 career hits ranks 53rd on the all time hits list. He won four Silver Slugger awards.

He was the starting second baseman in nine All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in three All Star Games.

Barry Larkin
This is Larkin’s first year on the ballot. He was the best shortstop National League of his era. He was a career .295 hitter with 2,340 total hits. He was the first shortstop to hit over 30 home runs and steal over 30 bases in the same season (1996).

Larkin won the National League’s Most Valuable Player Award in 1995. He won 3 Gold Gloves and 9 Silver Slugger awards. He was the starting NL shortstop in five All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in seven All Star Games.

I am partial to the American League; therefore I did not have the opportunity to watch Barry Larkin play, but as an avid baseball fan, I read about Larkin, and was aware of his greatness as a player.

Roberto Alomar and Barry Larkin are the definite first ballot candidates of the 2010 class, but there are other first ballot candidates that are not as obvious.

Fred McGriff
This is McGriff’s first year on the ballot. Fred McGriff home run numbers will suffer in comparison to the steroid inflated home run totals generated by other players during his career.

From 1987 through 1999, McGriff hit over 30 home runs 8 times, and a total of 390. By comparison, Barry Bonds hit over 30 home runs 9 times and a total of 445 home runs during the same period.

During this 12-year period, the best player in baseball out homered McGriff by 55. In other words, Bonds hit 4.5 more home runs per year than McGriff.

McGriff was a throw back home run hitter. He consistently hit over 30 home runs each year when 30 home runs meant something.

McGriff yearly totals do not compare favorably with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Jose Canseco, and Juan Gonzalez. But the home run was cheapened during McGriff’s playing career. Hitting 50 home runs in a season became the norm due to steroids.

Hitting 500 home runs was the magic number. It meant automatic induction in the Baseball Hall of Fame. McGriff hit 493 home runs. Steroids have overshadowed McGriff’s career. There are seven players, who were suspected or accused of using steroids, ahead of McGriff on the all time home run list.

Critics will mention McGriff never won the Most Valuable Player (MVP) award, but he was in the top ten in MVP votes six times.

McGriff had the unfortunate luck of playing in the same league as Barry Bonds from 1991 to 1997. Bonds won two MVP awards (1992 and 1993). Ken Caminiti, an admitted steroid user, won the MVP in 1996. Larry Walker won the MVP in 1997. Walker’s offensive numbers were inflated because played for the Colorado Rockies.

McGriff had over 100 RBI’s five times in his career. His 1,550 RBI is ranked 41st on the all time list. He is front of Hall of Famer Willie Stargell and right behind Hall of Famer Willie McCovey on the RBI list. Also, six players suspected or accused of using steroids are ahead of McGriff on the RBI list.

McGriff was the starting first baseman on three All Star Games, and he was selected as a reserve in two other All Star Games. McGriff won the 1994 All Star Game MVP on the basis of one at-bat.

The 1994 All Star Game was played in Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh. The American League was leading 7-5 going to the bottom of the ninth inning. Lee Smith was pitching in relief. Marquis Grissom led off the inning with a walk. Craig Biggio grounded to third base, and Grissom was forced out at second.

Manager Jim Fregosi kept McGriff on the bench because he wanted McGriff to face Lee Smith in the ninth inning. McGriff hit a home run off Lee Smith to left-center, and tied the game. The National League won the game in the bottom of the tenth inning, 8-7.

McGriff was not the most dominant first baseman of his era. He was not the most prolific power hitter of his era, but his reputation as a home run hitter was diminished due to the steroid era.

Edgar Martinez
This is Martinez’s first year on the ballot. He was primarily a Designated Hitter during his 18-year career. It was not due poor defensive skills. He was a third baseman by trade, but unfortunately Martinez was as a fragile as glass. It seemed he got hurt every time he put on a glove and was asked to play the field.

My most vivid memory of Edgar Martinez was during the 1995 playoffs against the New York Yankees. Martinez massacred the Yankee pitching staff. Anything over the plate was hit hard. It felt like he was hitting with runners in scoring position in every inning. His batting average in that series was .571. He hit two home runs and drove in 10 RBI.

Martinez was a late bloomer. He did not become a regular until he was 27 years old. Otherwise his career numbers might be more impressive. His career batting average is .312. He hit over .300 ten times during his career. He won two batting titles. Martinez drove in over 100 RBI’s six times. He ranks 41st on the all time doubles list.

Martinez was the starting DH in four All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in three All Star Games.

Andre Dawson
This is Andre Dawson’s ninth year on the ballot. I have heard that Dawson’s .323 On Base Percentage (OBP) is the statistic that is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. If it’s true, then it is one of the most ridiculous baseball related argument ever made. Andre Dawson is a Hall of Famer.

Sometimes statistics do not tell the whole story. In 21 seasons, Dawson hit over 30 home runs three times. He drove in over 100 RBI’s four times. He batted over .300 four times. These numbers do not appear impressive.

But Andre Dawson was a five-tool baseball player. He could hit for average, hit for power, play great defense, had a great throwing arm, and could run – until artificial turf ruined his knees.

Dawson was a dominant player. He was the best player on the Montreal Expos and the Chicago Cubs.

Dawson won the Rookie of the Year Award in 1977. He won the MVP Award in 1987 while playing on a sixth place team. He was the top ten in MVP votes three times. He was the starting outfielder in seven All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in one All Star Game. Dawson won eight Gold Gloves and four Silver Slugger awards.

Dawson’s career statistics are more impressive. He is 36th on the all time home run list with 438; 45th on the all time hit list with 2,774; 34th on the all time RBI list with 1,591; 25th on the all time total bases list with 4,787; and 48th on the all time doubles list with 503. He stole 314 bases. Dawson is in the top 50 of five all time offensive categories.

Dawson last played over 140 games in 1992. Baseball has changed a lot since 1992. A baseball player who averages 27 home runs, 98 RBI’s with a .279 batting average will not look impressive next to the gaudy numbers produced in an offensive laden, small ballpark, inferior pitching, steroid era. But if you saw Andre Dawson play, you saw a Hall of Famer.

Bert Blyleven
This is Blyleven’s 13th year on the ballot. Winning 300 games is the magic number that gets pitchers inducted into the Hall of Fame. Randy Johnson may be the last pitcher to win at least 300 games.

Blyleven won 287. There may not be another pitcher who will ever approach 287 career wins as well.

Pitching has changed in the time that I have been a baseball fan. Pitchers were expected to pitch complete games and accumulate over 250 innings.

Currently, pitchers are on pitch counts, and are expected to throw for six innings in a game. Instead of innings, pitchers accumulate no decisions.

Bert Blyleven is a dinosaur. Pitch counts did not matter. At the age of 20, Blyleven pitched 278.1 innings. At age 21, 287 innings. At age 22, 325 innings. Compared to pitchers of this era, Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

But is Blyleven a Hall of Famer compared to pitchers of his era? It depends on whom you compare Blyleven to.

Blyleven won 20 games once. He struck out over 200 batters eight times in his career. His ERA was under 3.00 nine times. He pitched over 200 innings sixteen times. An average Blyleven season would be 14 wins, 12 losses, with a 3.31 ERA, 245 innings pitched, and 183 strikeouts. These are not overwhelming statistics.

But compare Blyleven with Hall of Famer Don Sutton. There numbers are similar. Sutton won 20 games once. He struck out over 200 batters five times. His ERA was under 3.00 eight times. Sutton pitched over 200 innings 20 times. An average Sutton year would be 14 wins, 11 losses, with a 3.26 ERA, 235 innings pitched, and 159 strikeouts.

Compared to Sutton, Blyleven’s career statistics and his ranking on several all time lists make him a Hall of Famer.

His 287 career wins – 27th on the all time wins list. Sutton is ranked 24th with 324 wins.

Blyleven career innings pitched is 4,970 – 14th on the all time innings pitched list. Sutton is ranked 7th on the list with 5,282.3.

Blyleven is ranked 4th on the all time strikeout list with 3,701. Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Roger Clemens and Steve Carlton are ahead of Blyleven. Sutton is ranked 7th with 3,574.

Blyleven is ranked 11th in games started with 685. Sutton is ranked 3rd with 756.

Blyleven is ranked 91st in complete games with 242. Sutton is ranked 176th with 178 complete games.

Blyleven is ranked 9th in shutouts with 60. Sutton is ranked 10th with 58 shutouts.

If Don Sutton is a Hall of Famer, then Bert Blyleven is a Hall of Famer.

Jack Morris
This is Jack Morris’ eleventh year on the ballot. He was one of my favorite pitchers during the 1980’s and early 1990’s. He was a horse. You could count on Jack Morris to pitch deep into games and accumulate innings during the course of a 162 game season. He was capable of winning a game 1-0. But Morris won plenty of games in which he allowed over four runs.

Unfortunately, his career ERA of 3.90 reflects the fact Morris pitched to the scoreboard with some disregard for his ERA. In seven seasons, Morris’ ERA was over 4.00. In 18 seasons, he never had an ERA under 3.00.

He won 20 or more games three times. He pitched over 200 innings eleven times. He struck out over 200 batters only three times. For a dominant pitcher that is a low number.

He was the ace on three different teams. He started three All Star Games, and was selected as a reserve in two other All Star Games. Morris never won the Cy Young Award, but was in the top ten in voting seven times. He was the World Series MVP in 1991. He will be remembered for pitching a classic 7th game of the World Series in which he pitched 10 innings and won the game 1-0 over the Atlanta Braves.

In baseball, statistics are a point of reference. The past is compared with the present through statistics.

Jack Morris was a great pitcher in his era even if the statistics do not support my argument. At times, I witnessed greatness when he pitched.

Ron Santo (Veteran’s Committee)
Ron Santo is no longer on the Hall of Fame ballot. His last year on the ballot was 1998. Only the Veteran’s Committee can elect Ron Santo to the Hall of Fame.

Ron Santo’s played at the same time as Hall of Fame third baseman Brooks Robinson. Maybe Santo is being unfavorably compared to Robinson.

Robinson won 16 Gold Gloves. Santo won 5 Gold Gloves. Robinson also played in six World Series. In the 1970 World Series, Robinson displayed his great fielding ability, and was awarded the MVP. He was also the American League MVP in 1964, and the MVP of the All Star Game in 1966.

Santo never played in a World Series. He never won the MVP. But Santo hit over .300 four times. Robinson hit over .300 twice. Santo hit over 30 home runs four times. Robinson never hit 30 home runs in a season. Santo had four 100 RBI seasons. Robinson had 2.

Santo was overlooked because he played on a team that was not as successful as the Baltimore Orioles (from 1966 to 1974), but Santo was one of the best third baseman of his era.