« Home | home » | big fork » | quiet » | polebridge » | the eagle » | big sky » | peace and quiet » | wonder » | happy anniversary » | from the journal »

in the news

So I read a pseudo-news story about Bill Clinton this morning - something I do rarely. I stay far away from all that (non-)news in large measure because I get all riled up when I do read it ... ultimately too distracting. Anyway, the last paragraph reads:

"That's what's driving the terrorism," he said. "It's not just that there's an unresolved Arab-Israeli conflict. Osama Bin Laden and Dr. al-Zawahiri can convince young Sunni Arab men, who have (and some women) who have despairing conditions in their lives, that they get a one-way ticket to heaven in a hurry if they kill a lot of innocent people who don't share their reality."
I am reminded: I used to believe that baseball was a hitter's game. I saw it only from the perspective of the guy with the bat in his hand, so to me the game looked like a group of foolhardy adolescents with something to prove. Then I had a couple of kids, grew up a bit, and realized that to a far greater extent than offensive power, baseball is about the partnership of pitcher and catcher, mine against yours. Sure, it's a pitcher's game. Without starting (and relief, witness CWS 2006) pitching, a team is nowhere. But without a smart catcher who knows his pitchers and the game very well, the pitching isn't going to get the job done either. It takes those two guys working together -- the pitcher handles affairs at the plate, the catcher directs the entire effort. I really liked quite a lot of what happened while Clinton was president. But after reading that article this morning, which I read because I thought the former President probably had some insights to offer, I'm thinking of him as more of a batter than a pitcher or catcher. Without an entire administration backing him up, Clinton sounds like an angry aging hippie. He lacks both the finesse to pick the play and the right stuff to get it done. In baseball the situation is pretty transparent: the players take the field and we get to watch folks doing their jobs. Why can't we elect the guys behind these Presidents, the ones with the ideas and the answers and the visions for the future? I'd like to hear from the guy whose idea it was -- the one who said "hey, I know! We'll put it out there that they have weapons of mass destruction..."