The Red Sox are on a Tear

As a die-hard Red Sox fan, this season has been as thrilling as it gets.  The Red Sox looked like a hapless case featuring several one run game losses in combination with fielding errors.  In addition, they could not score runs when they had men on base.  They were playing so poorly that Alex Cora their manager, who had been regarded highly by Boston’s owners in the past, was fired.  When Chad Tracy took over as interim manager, they still continued to lose most of all the close games they played with their record being pitifully 10 games below a .500 average.  That is to say they lost 10 games more than they had won. By then, they were in the cellar of the division they played in, the American League East.

The end of the season seemed apparent when the Sox played the Colorado Rockies, one of the worst teams in the major leagues, in Denver.  Going into the 9th inning of the first game of the series, Boston was winning 2 to 0 with their star closer, Aroldis Chapman, coming in to pitch the bottom of the 9th inning.  Confident that the Sox were going to win the first game of the series and actually beat the Rockies at least two games out of three if not sweeping the series, I eagerly watched.  But then the unthinkable along with the unbelievable occurred when Chapman could not get one Colorado batter out.  Four batters in a row got base hits with the fourth batter driving in the winning runs.  As I saw this ugly spectacle, I gasped for breath realizing the situation was so bleak with little hope for a team that played like minor league bush whackers.  The Sox managed to lose two out of three games to the struggling Rockies.

Their next four games they played would be at Fenway Park against the Yankees.  Upon starting the series, the Red Sox’s record at home was worse than their record for away games.  Fans were giving up on them as the attendance at Fenway was far below sell outs in the past when the team had been winning.  Confident that the season had ended for Boston, the Sox incredibly pulled off a four-game sweep of the Yankees, a team that had beaten them three in a row at Fenway earlier in the season.  Moreover, they won a thriller in the last game: With the Yankees ahead 4 to 2 going in the bottom half of the 10th inning, the Sox managed to get three runs winning a one run game.

Had the wheels of fortune for the Bosox changed?  Following the Yankee sweep, they lost 2 of 3 games to a mediocre team, the Washington Nationals.  They now were about to start a schedule of 9 games away from their home park in playing the Los Angeles Angels, the Chicago White Sox and the New York Mets.  I saw the first of these games at Angel Stadium in Anaheim, California.  What was encouraging is they were beginning to win one run games.  However, how close those games were, suddenly the Red Sox were getting the clutch hits so necessary to win them. 

Facing the Mets in New York for the final game of the series, the Sox had now won 8 in a row.  It certainly looked like the last game they played the Mets was certain to be a loss.  But then, most abruptly the tables turned on the Mets.  In the top of the 9th inning, Mets shortstop, Francisco Lindor, regarded as an elite and premier fielder, booted a routine ground ball.  Then Mets relief pitcher, Devin Williams, could not find the plate and walked two batters.  This in combination with the Sox getting two hits after being held for 8 innings with a total of two hits, gave the Sox 2 runs with the score now tied 2 to 2.  Chapman did his job in the 9th leaving the Mets scoreless.  So, the game proceeded to the 10th inning with the Red Sox winning on little ball, that is a bunt getting the phantom runner to third base and a sacrifice fly producing a run.  Garrett Whitlock retired the Mets in the bottom of the 10th giving the Red Sox the 3 to 2 victory over the Mets and a 9-game winning streak while on the road.  As the game ended, I began to think that the Red Sox were magically turning a dismal start into an amazing run of success.

Returning to Fenway Park, the Sox then went on to beat the Tampa Bay Rays, the best team in the American League East, 4 games in a row.  They then beat the Baltimore Orioles the first 2 games of the series giving them a total of 15 consecutive wins.  This matched, the longest winning streak in franchise history set in 1946, when the Sox won the pennant but lost to the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series.  But it didn’t stop there.  Shortly after the 15-game streak ended, they had a 9-game winning streak.  Included in that last streak was 3 consecutive games in which they beat the team regarded as the best club in baseball, the Los Angeles Dodgers, in Los Angeles.  It should be noted that Boston was the fastest team to go from 14 games under .500 to seventeen games over .500.  They went on to win 9 series wins (that is winning the best of three games), the second longest streak in franchise history trailing only the 11 series streak by the 1912 team that went on to defeat the New York Giants in the World Series.  Finally, the Bosox had a 21 – 4 record in July (21 wins and 4 losses) that turned out to be their best calendar month in franchise history.

If I had written this blog a week earlier the above would have been the end of the story.  However, baseball has its many uncertainties and vicissitudes.  This past week the Sox reverted back to their early season performance losing 5 games in a row all of which arguably could have been won.   Some costly errors were made along with hitters being unproductive with men on base and their best relief pitchers, Garrett Whitlock and Aroldis Chapman, suddenly unable to record three outs.  What ensued were consecutive losses to the mediocre Oakland Athletics at home followed by 3 straight losses to the Toronto Blue Jays in Toronto.

But alas, today the Sox came back to score a victory over the Blue Jays in the final fourth game of their series.  Behind the excellent pitching of Payton Tolle and a grand slam hit by Caleb Durbin, the Sox posted a decisive 7 to 0 win over the Blue Jays.  Let us hope that the win will bring back the mojo this team had throughout the month of July.

Noone can explain how a team without their best pitcher, Garrett Crochet, who suffered from a left shoulder inflammation and has been out for several months, could pitch and play so well.  Moreover, several of those on the squad that were available were utility players, some of whom were called up from the minor league.   Perhaps the unexpected premium performance of the Red Sox is what makes being alive so fascinating.  The unpredictable results in sporting events just like the ironic twists in our own lives is what makes human existence both so interesting and precious.

A beautiful poem by Wallace Stevens, The Poems of Our Climate, very much reflected this sentiment when he wrote in this poem: “The Imperfection is Paradise.”  Long ago, my father put it another way, in a letter he wrote me how he felt proud of my having learned how to handle the “vagaries” of life.,

Reflections on America’s 250th

This Saturday on July 4th, as we all know, is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.  That day on 1776 marked the birth of a democracy never quite experienced by other countries.  When asked about the meaning of this document and its aftermath, former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, stated that the founding of America was an idea more than anything else.  Perhaps the sentence of greatest impact on the way the framers saw America is embodied in the following: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Key to the above, the word unalienable signifies that these Rights are natural. that is rooted in human nature and cannot be legitimately taken away or given up.

  The American Revolution was the only revolutionary war in modern times where the people came out ahead.  The French Revolution, two Mexican Revolutions, and the more recent Iranian Revolution and Cuban Revolutions all failed to improve the status of the majority of its citizens.   The French Revolution, for example, resulted in a bloodbath of chaos where a large number of its own people were killed in producing Napoleon, a dictator.  As I pointed out in an earlier blog, the founders were well versed in both Stoic philosophy and more modern philosophers, such as John Locke and David Hume.  This knowledge enabled them to establish the principles that led to both the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent Constitution that would serve as a framework as to how they wished to be governed.

When Ms. Rice describes the shaping of America as an “idea,” I believe she is saying the idea composed by the words was there in writing but not in practice.  Blacks and women were neither treated equally nor in possession of their unalienable Rights until well after the Declaration of Independence had been written.   But those words remained, not to be deleted, and they would be instrumental in delivering to minorities their God given Rights as stated in the above. It would take almost two hundred years for the transformation of these principles into an everyday practice in the United States.

Granted there are still prejudices and discrimination but such practices are no longer backed by law.  The greatest cynic cannot undue the idea expressed by the Declaration of Independence.  As Paul Johnson, observed in his scholarly tome, A History of the American People, Jewish people like myself and our ancestors realized on a certain level, even in colonial times, our existence was fundamentally different than the life of those Jews who lived in Europe.  In those countries, Jews had their own legal status, had their own courts and schools and usually lived in ghettos that comprised their own community.  Because all religious groups had equal rights in America, the Jewish population did not need to have their own community of laws and norms.  Rather Jews were considered equal citizens who could participate in the community without being barred from it.  Consequently, Jews in America were organized on congregational rather than communal lines.

In a recent podcast, Coleman Hughes, asked Douglas Murray, a British conservative political commentator, why he preferred life in America or in his native country, Great Britain.  The latter responded by saying that in America people cheer for the success and prosperity of others whereas in England, the hereditary influences play a big part in the way people see one another.  Murray stated that the English tend to see themselves as stuck in their roles.  In America, viewed by many as the land opportunity, those who get ahead are seen as an incentive for others to do the same.

On the other hand, according to a recent newscast featuring Fareed Zakaria and David Brooks, 53% of Americans view their fellow Americans as having bad morals.  America had the highest percentage of disapproval of their neighbors of the twenty-five countries surveyed.  Furthermore, another survey found now only 30% of Americans say they trust their neighbors. In their discussion, Fareed pointed out that in the past, candidates for the presidency in the U.S.A. all delivered optimistic messages.  He cited FDR, JFK, Reagan, Clinton and Obama as examples.  Reagan, for example, often referred to America as “the beacon of hope” emphasizing the nation as a symbol of liberty and opportunity.  Similarly, Obama, referred to the audacity of hope as an optimism Americans could rely on to bridge partisan divides.

But as Zakaria pointed out, Trump’s message was the opposite as in his first inaugural speech, he spoke of “American carnage,” and how poorly we are doing as a country.  In campaigning as a pessimist, Brooks believed that Trump tapped into the “dark passions and pessimistic mood” of America.  Social media has reinforced the lack of trust we feel toward one another by encouraging extremists on both sides of the political fence to slander one another without revealing their identities. A friend I spoke to the other day said anyone he learned was a Trump supporter he would cease seeing.  It as if we are living in a land of political tribes dominated by fear and mistrust of one other. 

However, bad things look, I agree with Brooks when, despite it all, he remains optimistic.  We need to drop our political guise and sit down and talk with one another as humans confronting real problems.  If it’s more affordable housing, let’s brainstorm with one another to in coming up with ways to accomplish this.  George Orwell, the famed English novelist, once mentioned that he did not want to sit down and meet his opponent or foe because then he may come to like her/him. Hiding behind a social media screen is not a way to bring us all together.  One example in my community that captures my imagination: Some Cal State Long Beach faculty are currently working to head up an interfaith community.  I went to their first meeting.  I invite those who live in the area to become a part of this or efforts similar to the Cal State initiative.  I think people are tired of the negative energy so much a part of Trump’s rants.

 We have been torn before as a nation.  Think of the Civil War.  But somehow the idea that Ms. Rice referred to when America first became a nation has managed to exist for 250 years.  Our DNA as a country has been defined by the pursuit of dreams that immigrants have had when they arrive in America.  They come with the hope of bettering their lives.  A nation divided by extreme political factions will never be able to foster such a dream.  My hope is that the politicization of life that we have experienced most recently changes to a world where our other selves, the ones that carry the DNA of our many ancestors replace the hate and anger generated by social media.

A 53 Year Drought Comes to an End

The N.B.A. finals between the San Antonio Spurs and the New York Knickerbockers held the attention of much of the country and the greater part of New York.  As a native of New Jersey, I had an early connection with the Knicks having gone to Madison Square Garden to see them play in the late ‘50’s and early ‘60’s.  But truth be told the majority of my enthusiasm and fandom went to the Boston Red Sox, who like the Knicks, had been perennial losers.  The Sox had not won a World Series in baseball since 1918 until the magic of 2004 arrived breaking an 86-year dry spell. 

The Boston Celtics and the Minneapolis Lakers, before moving to Los Angeles in 1960, dominated pro basketball in the 50’s and 60’s.  However, when the Knicks started winning, like so many others, I became a much more ardent fan.  Much of my zeal was rooted in how the Knick players spawned an aura of charisma when they won their first N.B.A. championship title in 1970 and their subsequent one in 1973. I became most familiar with the players, notably, the captain Willis Reed, Walt “Clyde” Frazier, Earl “The Pearl” Monroe, who they acquired in 1971 and “Dollar Bill” Bradley.  The latter earned his moniker of Dollar Bill because whenever he took a shot it was most likely going in the basket.  The announcers would say: “Another shot by Dollar Bill on the money.”

A point of interest is that I did not always like Bill Bradley.  He was the rich kid that played for the Tigers of Princeton University. During the time Bradley played for Princeton, the Tigers would dominate the Ivy League, of which I was a part, having attended the University of Pennsylvania.  I remember seeing a game Bradley was in where he scored over 50 points with his teammates scoring a total of 10 or 20 points.  It was almost as if Bradley was the only player on the Princeton team inasmuch as each time, he had possession of the ball he seemed to score.  But my opinion of Bradley changed radically when he chose to further his studies as a Rhodes Scholar for two years rather than signing a contract with the Knicks.  Moreover, I was most happy when he did join the Knick squad in 1967 and helped contribute to their two N.B.A. championships in 1970 and 1973.

The player that reminded me most of Jalen Brunson, the Knick current Knick captain and star of the series against the San Antonio Spurs, was Walt “Clyde” Frazier.  After a slow start adjusting to the N.B.A. in his rookie year playing with the Knicks in 1967, Frazier lifted his spirits by buying a wide-brimmed hat that he began wearing regularly.   Teammates initially laughed at the look, but when the 1967 film, Bonnie and Clyde became a cultural phenomenon, people noticed that Frazier’s hat resembled the one worn by Warren Beatty in his portrayal of the outlaw Clyde Barrow. The Knicks’ trainer started calling him Clyde, and the name stuck. Observers also connected the nickname to Frazier’s uncanny knack for “stealing” the ball on defense, reinforcing the association of the slick character portrayed by Beatty.  During the title championships won by the Knicks in 1970 and 1973, Frazier, as point guard, was central to these victories.

Jalen Brunson’s play making and scoring equaled if not exceeded that of Frazier’s efforts.  The Knicks, as we now know, beat the Spurs in five games.  In the fourth game of the series, the Knicks accomplished what no team had ever done in tournament play by coming back from a 29-point deficit to win at Madison Square Garden by a score of 107 to 106.  In fact, the Knicks came from behind to win each of the four games in defeating the Spurs 4 to 1.  In the last game, Brunson, whose height is only 6’ 2,” considered small for a professional basketball player, outwitted and out played the Spur’s Victor Wembanyama, who stands at 7’ 5.”  Goliath finally had met his David in the name of Jalen Brunsen.  Brunsen went on to score 45 points in the Knick victory of 94 to 90 in the final and determining win of the series.  He had fearlessly proved his mettle in dribbling past defenders and scoring, a task not easy to achieve when you are going against opponents who are both fall taller and have greater wingspan than you do.

The Knicks’ role of underdog throughout the year, winless in 53 years, attracted many outside of New York to their side.  But New Yorkers were clearly in rejoice mode and it was fun to see such celebrities as Larry David, Taylor Swift and Spike Lee, among many others, heartily cheering for the Knicks.  I remember only too well when Boston fans could at last celebrate winning a World Series after so many defeats that came so close to victory.  Now the Knicks were in that same place at last.  For a couple of weeks, the ecstatic frenzy of the fans generated by the New York Knicks had spread throughout New York and other parts of the country.  It is the beauty of sports that allows us all to momentarily forget our own and the world’s travails and to thrill at the phenomenon skills exhibited by the players of our favorite team. 

     You Got to Have Friends

The other day, while at the periodontist, the hygienist, Kelly, who I have known for a number of years, mentioned how she could not understand how people that live alone with no friends or family survive.  I agreed with her intuition by explaining that connections with others are a lifeline.  Her comment reminded me of the Bette Midler song:  You Got to Have Friends.  The song points to the fact that friends are essential to bringing us joy and helping us deal with the uncertainties and difficulties that life might bring.

D. H. Lawrence’s classic novel, Women in Love, devotes a chapter to a wrestling match that the two male protagonists, Rupert and Gerald have.  In the context of the story, the match does not represent an act of violence, but rather a way to explore closeness, trust and vulnerability without relying on language.  Although the physicality between the two may be an innuendo of a homoerotic relationship, that is not the intent of Lawrence.  Instead, the author communicates to the reader how the two men, through the intensity of the match, share a special form of bonding that is physical, emotional and existential at once.

During my adulthood, my mother told me I always had managed to make friends from the time I was a child.  I still am in contact with some of the kids I have known since childhood one of whom I have stayed in regular contact with throughout the years.   However, my closest friend, Jack Trachtenberg, I met in college while at the University of Pennsylvania. 

I have a clear memory of our first encounter.  Before we came to know each other, a few weeks into my first semester as a freshman in 1963, I had observed Jack in McClelland Hall, a place where people living in the dorm could study.  His small stature sitting next to a heavy set, borderline obese student gave them the appearance of the odd couple.  They would be sitting together strewn with textbooks at their table both in intensive study.  At about the time I saw them together, I was experiencing some difficulty in my math class and asked around if anyone knew someone proficient in math.  A fellow student pointed to that same overweight student telling me his name was Arnie Klein, and he was excellent in math and quite generous in helping others with math.  Sure, enough Arnie was willing to answer some of the questions I had; I had yet to even talk to Jack. 

Shortly after, while walking to my dorm room after seeing a show at Irving Auditorium from a show at Irvine Auditorium, I spotted Jack walking alone on Spruce Street.  I approached him, introducing myself explaining how I had observed studying with Arnie, and then with freshman zeal I rambled on discursively about the latest research done on the convolutions of the human brain.   The theory had been generated some years before after a postmortem investigation of Albert Einstein’s brain had shown it to have a vast network of convolutions that may correlate to human intelligence.

As luck would have it, Jack was a pre-med student and was actually interested!  Our shared values and commonalities outside of our studies nurtured our relationship, and we quickly became close friends.   The term “Grok” first employed by Robert Heinlein in his bestseller sci-fi work, Stranger in a Strange Land, I believe best describes our bond.  When an individual groks with another, there is a profound and intuitive understanding that the two share with each other.  The term grok reminds me of the Black vernacular use of “digging one another” that implies going so deep in another’s skin that you can feel that person’s pain.  Digging connotes something much deeper and more significant than understanding.

          Because of the mutual trust we shared, we could confide in one another in the best and worst of times without fearing the loss of our special bond. I will not elaborate on the many circumstances in which we supported one another, but as many, if not all of you have experienced, it’s wonderful to have a friend that you know will always be there, through thick and thin for you.  Because we knew we could contact one another at any time, the barrier of distance did not separate us or weaken our bond.  We have utilized that ancient communicating device called a telephone as a means of maintaining our connection.  When I came East to visit family and relatives, we always would take time out to see one another in person rather than some form of digital not in person meeting.

  When you are growing up you have little choice who your neighbors or classmates are.  With age and breadth of experience, you begin to develop your own interests and likes that may gravitate you to certain types of people.  However, by the time one is older taking on deep and meaningful relations with another such as my solid relationship with Jack, is not a likelihood.  This is why I consider my connection with Howard Bricker, who was in his ‘70’s while I was in my ‘60’s when we first met, so rare.

How we met remains crystal clear in my mind.  I had read about the card game bridge and, though unfamiliar with it, knew it required skill and mastery beyond mere luck.  I had been curious about it for some time so Lisa and I took a class offered for seniors.  In the class, the teacher divided us into groups of four and, conveniently, we were sitting next to another couple, Howard and Noreen, who became our learning partners.  As we introduced ourselves to each other, all four of us felt comfortable sharing who we were.

Bottom line was that Noreen, Lisa, and I gave up on becoming experts in bridge.  Howard, on the other hand, honed his skills in gaining some expertise in playing bridge. More importantly, Howard and I formed a connection based on our diverse backgrounds rather than any love for the game of bridge.  As an example, we shared a love of language.  While serving in the U.S. Navy, given his high language aptitude, Howard was chosen to study and become fluent in Russian.  A feat he accomplished quite well.  The Navy employed him as a decoder of Russian messages in Okinawa.

 Howard was a biblical scholar who had studied Hebrew.  In fact, he was so knowledgeable in Jewish customs, that a rabbi that knew him suggested he convert from Catholicism to Judaism.  He let me know that he jokingly responded to the rabbi informing the latter that that wouldn’t be possible because he could not give up bacon.  I knew from the start that Howard was not your typical “Joe,” but a person with such broad knowledge that I Iikened him to be a polymath.  After I had told him of my own successful and unsuccessful ventures in life, we began to form a strong bond.

In addition to the bridge lessons, we started playing golf together on a regular basis where, on the links, our relationship developed.  As our relationship grew, Howard confided in me about a tragedy that had occurred in his and Noreen’s life, when several years before his oldest son had drowned trying to recover a boat that not been moored correctly.  Subsequently, we shared our religious beliefs as he attended my temple when I was leading the services one Saturday, reciting my original bar mitzvah when I was 13.  He invited me to his church during Lent where we would talk and share fish dinners with the other congregants.

Lisa and I went to Howard’s 80th birthday and met all of his family.  About a year later, Lisa and I received a phone call from Howard’s son, Andy, who gave us the sad news that his father had died of a heart attack.  When I heard this, I felt the pain of sorrow take over my body.  It just seemed so unfair that such a wonderful friend was gone. I went to the memorial service, gave a eulogy to Howard with his family letting me know that Howard really cared and liked me.  I let them know both how sad it was that he had died, but also how glad I was to have the opportunity to have met him and become his friend.

The late Arnold Lazarus, my former major advisor at Rutgers University, where I received my doctorate in psychology, made an interesting comparison between marriage and friendship that I agree with in his excellent book:  Behaviorism and Beyond.  He pointed out that insofar as friends do not live under the same roof year in and year out their shared intimacies are intensive rather than extensive.  In a marriage, each partner shares the responsibility of what life is like under the same roof:  Cleaning diapers if there are children, doing the laundry, taking care of necessary repairs, and doctor’s appointments etc.  These shared burdens require the need for some degree of emotional privacy for each partner. 

Unlike in some countries, marriage does not imply ownership, but rather a place where each partner allows the other his or her individuality to pursue their own contacts beyond the marriage.  My wife Lisa spends a great amount of time as a local President of The National Council of Jewish Women.  I am proud of the work she does.  She like I has many friends and acquaintances outside our marriage.  Our mutual understanding allows us both the necessary psychological movement to pursue our own interests and not encroach on our partner’s rightful territory.  Lisa never short circuited neither my very intense relationship with Jack nor the relationship with Howard that blossomed late in my life.   A lesson I have learned through these important friendships and within my marriage are both of extreme value to us humans who as Aristotle stated are “social animals.”  I believe they are the nutrients of life that assist in both our enjoyment and longevity of life.  

Baseball’s New Rules

Major League Baseball has encountered difficulty in maintaining its appeal to younger people who have appeared more inclined to view either professional football, hockey or basketball.  Unlike the latter three sports baseball is not a sport divided by quarters or halves where the end of the game occurs when time has expired.  Baseball beats to a different drum than to the rapid movements displayed in either of the other three sports.  Cell phones along with social media in replacing slower more contemplative habits, such as reading from hard copy news, have increased the pace of life.

To confront the challenges of the sound bite generation, the stewards of baseball understood they had to, in some way, quicken the pace of the game.  Until some recent changes became agreed upon by the league, many ballgames lasted well over three hours.  After incorporating the changes I will discuss, the length of the average game dropped to 2 hours and 36 minutes.  I am quite sure shortening the duration of a baseball game has helped with overall attendance at games.

In the past batters and pitchers could call time out without being penalized.  For example, at any time during an at bat, hitters could step out of the batter’s box and call time out.  The new rules curtailed this habit by only allowing hitters to step out of the batter’s box one time per at bat.  Likewise, pitchers could step off the rubber at any time when pitching and take some time to refocus on the batter.  Now pitchers are required to throw a pitch to a batter within 15 seconds when bases are empty and 18 seconds with are runners on base.  If a pitcher exceeds the time limit, an automatic ball is added to the count of the batter.  Furthermore, with a runner on base, a pitcher is only allowed to check the runner two times or two throws to whichever fielder is covering the runner (usually first base).  If the pitcher exceeds two throws without picking the runner off, the runner is automatically allowed to go forward one base.  For example, if a base runner is on first base and a pitcher throws over to the first baseman more than two times, the base runner goes to second base.  This would be similar to a balk made by the pitcher in which the player on base advances one base.

The size of the bases have been increased from 15 inches to 18 inches to make the base more visible with the hope of reducing injuries to players attempting to steal a base.  This rule has encouraged more attempts at base stealing that I feel adds to the excitement of the game.  The new regulations restrict the infield shift by making it necessary for two infielders to stay on their side of second base.  In the past, infielders could shift where they played their position toward the side where the batter was most likely hit.  In 1946, Lou Boudreau, player manager of the Cleveland Indians employed what was labeled the Boudreau Shift when Ted Williams, the Boston slugger came to bat.  Subsequently, when the Red Sox faced the St. Louis Cardinals in the 1946 World Series, the Cards utilized this same shift on Williams.  Williams, a pull hitter by nature, could not beat the shift, batting .200 in the Series, as he went 5-for-25, well below his season batting average.

To reduce the length of games that are tied, thereby going into extra innings, the player making the last out for each side in his part of the 9th inning is placed on second base to start the 10th inning.  If the game goes beyond 10 innings the same rule applies for further extra innings.  Finally, the latest revision in baseball is the automated ball-strike rule (ABS).  Here the player, be it batter or catcher-pitcher, has the right to review the umpire’s call whether it is a strike or a ball.  Each team is allowed two such reviews, per 9 innings, that remain in place if the player’s challenge corrects an umpire’s mistake.  However, if the umpire’s call was correct, whichever team challenged the call, loses one of the two chances.  Two such errors in judgment by a club ends that team’s opportunity to question an umpire call.    To date, batters are more likely to err in asking for a recall than catchers. This could be due in part to the fact that batters are more emotionally involved in the decision making than catchers.  Moreover, catchers probably have a better angle than batters in deciding whether to challenge a call made by the home plate umpire.

A rule enforced earlier allowed teams to challenge plays on the field with the same proviso: If the team was incorrect upon review of the umpire’s call on two occasions, that team was disqualified for the remainder of the game from any further challenges of close plays.  The result of these changes has lowered the anger volume of managers and players toward umpires with whom they have disagreed.

I like all of the above baseball revisions with the possible exception of the infielders not permitted to shift to guard against a hitter’s strength.  I believe that batters need to learn how to use as much as the field as they can rather than a hitter always hitting to his strength by pulling the ball.  However, because pitchers have dominated batters for the past several years, I am ambivalent about this rule.  Batting averages have significantly dropped in the last 10 years or so where today the compiled average of hitters is only .247.  The era of .300 hitters has disappeared.  The number of player strike outs is at an all time high.  When the pitcher on your team is hurling the strike outs, that fan is happy.  But when both teams are striking out at ridiculously high rates, the game becomes less interesting.  The resounding crack of the bat hitting the ball is key to the thrill of baseball.  So, if the infield rule helps batters, I would keep it.

There are a few reasons why baseball currently appears to favor the pitcher over the batter:  1) Hurlers are throwing the ball with greater velocity; 2) Breaking balls are used more frequently with more spin on the ball; 3) Starters no longer pitch the entire game but give way to bullpen specialists. 

Because hitters’ averages had dropped to .237 in 1968, that year was designated the year of the pitcher.  The action of runs and hits was on the decline.  In an effort to assist baseball hitters, MLB reduced the height of the pitcher’s mound from 15 inches to 10 inches.  Some of the pitcher’s leverage was reduced due to less downhill angle causing less velocity and movement.  This allowed hitters to see the ball more clearly resulting in higher batting averages.  In short, by simply changing the configuration of the pitcher’s mound, the game allowed for better hitting and more excitement.

 Given the above, why not consider reducing the pitcher’s mound from 10 inches to 5 inches. The Atlantic League provides another option where it was decided the mound would be moved back 12 inches from home plate.  The result was fewer strike outs, more balls in play, higher batting averages, and more walks recorded.  Rather than move the pitcher’s mound 12 inches back from home plate, MLB might consider a smaller distance, such as 6 inches, so the mound would be 61 feet rather than 60 feet, 6 inches from the batter’s box.

In conclusion, I view the recent changes related to a player’s chance to challenge umpire calls along with increasing the tempo of   the game as positive ones.  However, I believe the current imbalance of pitchers dominating hitters needs to be addressed.  I have proposed two possible revisions in baseball to aid batters in confronting pitchers:  1) Lower the pitching options would increase fan interest by adding excitement to the game.  mound or 2) Move the pitching mound back 6 inches away from home plate.  I believe employing either of these two options would increase fan enthusiasm and add excitement to the game.

War in Iran

Lisa and I just finished reading The Pursuit of Happiness by Jeffrey Rosen.  The book discusses where the founders of America obtained the knowledge to create the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.   Most important was the manner in which they went about their everyday lives in pursuing what they considered virtue rather than pleasure in guiding their political decisions and the institutions that they built.  They learned many of their ideas by reading stoic philosophers in addition to more modern philosophers such as John Locke and David Hume.

 President Washington provides one of the best examples of how they applied this idea in their everyday lives.  Washington embodied republican virtue that modeled restraint, duty, and public service.  Although Washington had been known to have a temper, he understood that letting his anger control his emotions was not a suitable way of leadership.  As opposed to other heads of state, Washington had no interest in being president of the United States for more than two terms.  Washington set the stage for his successors by employing the power granted in his role as president for the good of the people and not for his family or for himself.

During the President Trump’s first term in the White House, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal outlining the way he went about making decisions when he was becoming a real estate mogul.  His style of decision making was based more on instinct than deliberate thinking.  The type of behavior is the antithesis of the stoic template embraced by the founders who understood the importance of restraints and moderation.  They recognized that these latter characteristics needed to dominate their way of thinking rather than decisions coming from their impulses that might result in unplanned and unruly consequences.

One current example of “unruly consequences” is the manner in which President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu initiated attacking Iran.l  Trump may have believed that the ease and rapidity with which he went into Venezuela and captured Nicholás Maduro would be similar to his ridding Iran of Ayatollah Ali Khomenei.  Although Israeli and American forces successfully assassinated the Irani leader, Iran’s dictatorial government did not vanish.  Rather, it appeared that the Irani leadership hardened becoming more rigid and ironbound tightening its hold on dissidents.   But the bigger surprise to both Trump and Netanyahu came when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz not permitting any ships delivering oil to pass through.  Because oil carried through this Strait represents 20% of the world’s oil, this has caused a lot of pain to the many countries supplied by this oil.  Although the United States produces its own oil, Americans have seen the price of gasoline going up significantly caused by Iran’s power to close the Strait of Hormuz to vessels carrying oil.  This has resulted in an increase in inflation that has affected the pocketbooks of American consumers.

The global crisis that the Iranians have caused by closing off the Strait of Hormuz affects Europe in an even greater way because before the conflict, EU countries were already grappling with high energy costs and declining industrial competitiveness. The bloc’s energy system will become more vulnerable with the price spikes resulting in the fuel shortages.  

Thomas Friedman, columnist for the New York Times and no-Trump fan, recently published an editorial:  NATO, Please Help.  Trump Has No Strategy for Iran.  Friedman points out he understands both Europe’s resistance in assisting in a war they had no part in initiating, and the fact that Trump has not been particularly helpful in supporting NATO against Putin.  I agree with Friedman in seeking European assistance in view of the fact that the whole Western alliance is in dire “straits” due to Iran’s actions.  Furthermore, In ignoring Trump’s pleas for help, I believe European leaders are cutting their nose off to spite their face.  This lack of unity in the West occurred because of Trump’s egoistical views of himself in the world.  They have caused a rupture in the alliance that the United States has had with its Western allies.  But whereas Trump is both pompous and a fool, Iran’s leadership is repressive and evil.  I ask you, Europe, put away your anger and hurt you have toward Trump and do what’s right for both you and the world.

.

      On Antisemitism

My wife, Lisa, and I recently saw, Giant, a play on Broadway, featuring John Lithgow, the American actor, playing Roald Dahl, the truculent children’s book author from Great Britain.  We had previously seen Lithgow recite by heart some stories by Ring Lardner while playing the roles of the characters in each story.  Quite a performance.  Lithgow performed admirably as the embittered Dahl adapting a British accent in playing this part.

The core of the play, written by Mark Rosenblatt, was an event that took place in August of 1983, when Dahl wrote a book review in reference to Israel’s invasion of Lebanon saying the following: “Never before in the history of man has a race of people switched so rapidly from being much-pitied victims to barbarous murderers.” Subsequently, he underscored his comments in an interview with Michael Coren of the New Statesman when he stated: “I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere, even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on Jews for no reason.”  Despite the fact that Dahl never apologized for his antisemitic comments, his books sold millions of copies during his lifetime.

  In approaching the age-old problem of antisemitism, I have begun my discussion with Dahl to illustrate the complexity of this issue.  Dahl was in Britain’s Royal Air Force during World War II, had been married to the American actress, Patricia Neal, and had found fame and success as a story book writer for children.  He was educated and quite bright so why did a man of such background become not only anti-Israeli, but also by his own admission, antisemitic?

Of course, Dahl is only one person so he represents a mere microcosm to the vaster popular antisemitic tropes heard with much greater intensity presently.   Much of the current anger toward Jewish people started after October 7, 2023 when Hamas led an attack on Israel killing 1200 people and took around 252 hostages into the Gaza Strip.  This act resulted in subsequent bombings by Israel in an attempt to destroy Hamas.  What everyone was seeing on their television screens, however, appeared to be the deaths of many Palestinian civilians with little accounting of how successful Israel had been in wiping out Hamas.  The repeated broadcasts of Israel’s bombing the Gaza Strip resulted in world outrage and condemnation of Israel.

Particularly painful for many Jews like myself was that former progressive groups that many Jewish people had supported were now condemning Israel’s actions.  Younger people, such as college students, were chanting: “Free Palestine from the river to the sea.”   The meaning of this, whether understood or not by those that shouted it, meant abolish Israel as the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea are the geographic locations encompassing Israel.  The irony of this, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, is that Israel more than any other country in the Mid-East treats women with respect and does not persecute those that people that are not heterosexual.  Suddenly, Israel along with being Jewish no longer received the support of young people that could be classified as progressives.

Although President Trump is not an antisemite, a reaction to his refusal to accept the election results of 2020 when he was defeated by President Biden, spawned conspiracy theories that some of his past followers have integrated into their thinking.  Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes and Candace Owens are some high-profile people that have taken on far Right positions with their commonality being in denigrating Jews.  Many influencers of their ilk without any evidence to support their claim, believe that Jews were responsible for the murder of Charlie Kirk.  The consequence of all this is that both extremes of the Left and Right, although polar opposites, have come down strongly against Jewish people.

When it comes to antisemitism, social media has added gasoline to the fire spreading messages to their followers that don’t have a vestige of truth.  Podcasts say all sorts of things such as the Old Testament is about genocide and violence.  But going beyond social media, according to Yoram Hazony, in an interview with the American author and columnist, Ross Douthat, enlightened rationalists have dropped God and tradition that represent particularism.  They oppose the Jewish Bible in seeking out a universal truth that is accessible to everybody.

The distinction between being critical of Israel and being an antisemite is one of utmost importance.  Jews in both America and Israel are critical of the manner by which Benjamin Netanyahu is leading the Israeli government.  The view of Jewish congregations toward the conduct of Israel has been polarized pretty much throughout America.  I have witnessed this with my own two eyes.  But though many may detest Israel’s behavior, for the most part, they have not forsaken this Jewish Homeland.  But the reaction to these people is similar to Roald Dahl when he claimed to not only hate Israel but also to be an antisemite.  Here the disdain for a Jewish State, as manifested by Zionism, extends to anyone of the Jewish faith.  If one disagrees with Trump like so many do, that does not make that individual an anti-American.  Foreigners that dislike the way Trump is running the American government would be foolhardy if they were to hate all Americans.  But somehow that same type of judgment has created ill feelings by many, both from the political left and right, toward Jews.  Consequently, in various places from in the Western world, there have been attacks on individual Jews or their temples.  Unfortunately, this ubiquitous atmosphere of hate toward anyone calling him/herself a Jew has necessitated congregations in hiring security to protect the real possibility of an attack.  Those that belong to temples have incurred an additional expense, that of security, as part of their membership to these houses of prayer.

In his interview with Douthat, Hazony saw antisemitism is much more far reaching than Israel’s battles with its neighbors.  Hazony stated that antisemitism runs far deeper than foreign policy. Rather, foreign policy is one of the tools that antisemites employ to denounce those of the Jewish faith.  He told Douthat that a small group of people with a lot more influence than their numbers would indicate is an irritant to many people.   Foreign policy may have ignited the smoldering hot ashes but those ashes were there prior to the attack by Hamas that precipitated Israel’s reaction.  

Perhaps most disturbing about antisemitism is that it comes from both those that are educated as well as those that are not.  Mr. Dahl represented the educated when he made his disparaging remarks about Jewish people.  It did not appear to matter to Dahl that his British publisher, Tom Maschler, was the child of Holocaust survivors.  A recent article in the New York Times, pointed out that Jewish officials, whether supportive of Israel or not, throughout America have been confronted with a wave of antagonism.  Unfortunately, as the Times article stated:  “For some, the line between anti-Israel protest and antisemitism feels increasingly blurred.”

Childhood Play

To my delight, upon shopping for a toy for my grandson, Noah Bernard, who just turned 2 years old, I discovered several board games for children.  In locating the game, Candy Land, the cover indicated it was for children 3 years and over.  But because Noah already shows signs of being gifted, I believe he will be playing the game before his next birthday.  As a very young child, I have fond memories playing Candy Land with my brothers.

 I recently read an article in the New York Times about the woman, Eleanor Abbott, who created the game.  Ms. Abbott was among the many who were afflicted with the disease of polio when it hit the city of San Diego in 1948.  While recuperating in the hospital that year, she observed the many sad faced children who had been stricken with the same illness.  The sight of these children motivated Ms. Abbott to design a game in 1948 that would bring the joys of childhood into their homes.  The rules of the game were quite simple:  There was a trail of colored spaces leading to the end of the path with a picture of a Candy Castle.  A player would draw a color-coded card from the deck and then move to the nearest space matching that same color.  There were sweet stopping points:  Peppermint Stick Forest, Gingerbread Plum Tree and Gum Drop Mountain.  If a player drew one of those pictured cards, she would advance her piece to the space marked by the picture.  As a young child playing the game, the candied path of this game remains etched in my mind

Ms. Abbott created the game for young children that did not know how to read or juggle with numbers.  All they had to do was match the color of the card they drew with the nearest space on the board with that same color.  Because Noah already not only understands the difference in colors but can also name the different colors, I am confident that he will soon be an expert in playing Candy Land.  I am happy to say, not only for the sake of children like Noah and myself, but also for Ms. Abbott, who received handsome royalties when the game of Candy Land gained the novelty of television advertising to become wildly popular in the market of children’s toys and games.

As Noah becomes older, I hope to instill in him the great fun I had as a child playing other board games such checkers, chess, monopoly, clue and scrabble with my brothers and friends.  I hope Noah will be able to enjoy these games in the company of his peers in the future.  Playing games like these teaches young people how to socialize with their peers along with learning to follow the rules and regulations that are a part of any organized play.  The social skills developed by children in participating in activities that require engagement with their siblings and friends are invaluable to their upbringing.  When they are in front of a board game, children need not obsess with an iPhone or iPad.

  Groupthink

My colleague and friend, Chuck Sooter, asked me to write a blog about Groupthink.  Because I consider this both a most important and relevant topic of discussion today, I agreed to do it.  Noting the origin of the term, it was first used by William H. Whye Jr., the author of The Organization Man, who coined the term “groupthink” in a 1952 Fortune magazine article to describe a “rationalized conformity” in corporate and government decision-making.  Subsequently, Irvin Janis popularized the term in 1972 in an article appearing in Psychology Today when he analyzed past foreign policy disasters.

Both Whyte and Janis borrowed the term from George Orwell, who first used the term “doublethink” in his classic work, 1984, that was published in 1949.  Doublethink maintained the dictatorship, described in 1984, by forcing party members to believe in opposing ideas and accept them both as true.   Groupthink pressures people to suppress doubts and align with group members even when the group’s position may not be rational and unable to support the extant data.

Well before the term groupthink existed, Abraham Lincoln, as president of the United States, understood the peril of homogenous thinking underpinning excessive loyalty.  Lincoln recognized the danger of advisors echoing their leader resulting in decision-making without dissent.  In her book, Team of Rivals, Doris Kearns Goodwin points out how Lincoln intentionally appointed cabinet members who openly disagreed with him.  In this context, Lincoln encouraged debate rather than unilateral support of an idea a cabinet member may have  had.  Lincoln could do this because he was secure enough within himself to accept criticism.

The problems inherent in groupthink manifested themselves when President Kennedy, who had maintained past President Eisenhower’s military advisors, led him astray into the Bay of Pigs disaster in Cuba.  It became obvious that the mission with its potential disastrous consequences was not addressed.  The Cuban expatriates were left hanging with no support when U.S.  forces abandoned them.  The Bay of Pigs fiasco has been attributed to groupthink insofar as all of Kennedy’s advisors saw the Cuban problem the same way without contemplating consequences.  

Kennedy changed his view of decision making when he took on advisors who no longer saw things alike but were able to discuss their differences.  Kennedy’s ear was open to alternative approaches.  This tactical way of seeing problematic issues helped him make what subsequently was seen as the right move in the Cuban missile crisis that occurred later.  His confrontation with Khrushchev, in 1962, forced the latter to remove his missile bases, an existential threat to the United States, from Cuba.  Because I lived through the intense nerve ending of this period, I very much remember those scary days when we were all seating at the edge of our seats awaiting a tragedy.  Because Kennedy had the wherewithal to no longer employ likeminded advisors, what could have been a disaster was averted.  

Of the many flaws Trump has, I believe the most serious one is the way in which his advisors act as followers in placating him rather than, on occasion, disagreeing with his intuitions.  He chose cabinet members, not by looking at their competence, but rather by seeing whether they agreed with the views he held on to various issues.  This has created the confirmation bias Trump has had in his decision-making that has disallowed the give and take of further rational discussion. Listening to people that agree with you rarely leads to a thoughtful analysis of worldly issues related to the complicated issues of governance.    If this is how Trump made his decision when Netanyahu and he initiated war against Iran, let us hope and pray that the fragile situation in the Mid-East does not unravel and worsen. 

Apparently, unlike Lincoln and Kennedy, who were secure enough within themselves to accept criticism, Trump does not appear able to accept rebuttals, and that can result in unexamined alternatives that can lead to unintended  consequences.

The Contagia of Social Media

When I was teaching psychology in Bangkok, Thailand over 10 years ago, I attended a classical concert there.  Before the show I purchased some food at a café inside the concert hall.  To my surprise I observed several couples more engrossed with their cell phones paying little attention to whomever may have been their partner.  The smart phone. along with its extensive overuse, had spread to Asia.

The smart phone and social media are the consequences of the progress in technology.  Most products of technology have benefited us all.  Everyday life would not be the same if we were without electricity or automobiles at our disposal, once the case over a few centuries ago.  But unbridled use of technological innovations, such as the smart phone and social media, can lead to deleterious outcomes.  Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist and professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business, has conducted several studies that have shown the ill effects of social media on Generation Z (Gen Z), the age cohort born between 1997 and 2012.  Social media, such as TikTok and Instagram, emerged around 2010 when those born during that time frame became adolescents.

Haidt’s investigations have shown an increase in anxiety, depression and social withdrawn, first in 2010, with this trend continuing in subsequent years.  Some critics of his research have complained that he is merely showing a correlation between the increase in mental health issues and the onset of social media.  However, his studies have revealed that other age cohorts have not manifested this sudden increase in psychiatric symptoms.  Moreover, the data Haidt displays in his book illustrate a sudden precipitous rise of these symptoms in the year 2010 and afterwards.  He has done multiple studies of different groups and different locations with similar results that suggest the widespread nature of the negative impact of social media on teenagers.

Haidt’s work has demonstrated how female adolescents, especially, can suffer from social media when they compare their looks to other females their age that have posted photos on these platforms.  There is a self-imposed competition these adolescent females engage in based on physical appearance.  Often these teenagers do not realize that their peers “doctor” their photos to falsely improve their appearance.  Young females are more conscious of the way they appear vis-á-vis their peers than male teenagers are. This leaves them more susceptible to this type of disinformation often found on algorithmic social media.

Attempts to mitigate the ill effects of social media are now being considered in the United States and other countries.  Australia already has enacted a law disallowing youth under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account with social media.  This is probably not a coincidence in that this is the same age suggested by Haidt to prohibit the use of social media by youth.  America, unlike Australia, has not enacted national laws forbidding the use of social media by adolescents until they reach a certain age in part due to the 1st Amendment.  This Amendment prohibits government from censorship; also limiting the federal government’s reach on this matter is the   propensity to allow individual states to make these decisions on their own.  Accordingly, with the help of parental backing, different states have begun to adopt measures limiting social media use to adolescents in educational settings.  Thirty-five states have implemented smart phone bans in schools with some of these schools not allowing students to have access to their smart phones the entire school day. 

The rate of change caused by technology has never been as fast as it is currently.  The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will only accelerate the rate of change societies will face throughout the world.  This is why it is imperative that the leaders of these countries begin to address the consequences of AI before it becomes a technology gone amok.  We waited too long to rein in social media.   Hopefully, we will not make the same mistake with AI, a technology that can offer a vast amount of improvement in our daily lives but also has the potential to be ruinous.