The Hound Of Ulster

THIS is (sadly) par-for-the-course nowadays, isn’t it?

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about “landing under sniper fire” in Bosnia, she was accused of “inflating her war experience” by rival Democrat Barack Obama’s campaign. 

But the campaign has been silent about Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, telling his own questionable story about being “shot at” in Iraq. 

…

The rest of the press ignored the flap at the time because Biden was viewed as having little chance of ending up on the Democratic presidential ticket. But even after Biden was selected to be Obama’s running mate last month, his claim to have been “shot at” drew no scrutiny from the same reporters who had savaged Clinton for making a similar claim that turned out to be false.

I know it seems like I’m picking on Ol’ Joe, but that’s because it’s so easy.  “Taking candy from a baby” is just about the level of political commentary my current time constraints will allow me.  And he’s practically throwing the candy at my head, anyway.  I’m just putting up my hands to protect myself.
 

Jayson Stark has a fun PIECE on the crazy scheduling tribulations of the White Sox.  Lots of interesting stuff, but this is the part that really caught my attention:

How’s this for a bizarre plotline for that game? The two starting pitchers – Gavin Floyd (White Sox) and ex-White Sox star Freddy Gacria (Tigers) — were traded FOR EACH OTHER a mere 21 months ago. Garcia has won two games since then — one for the 2007 Phillies, one for Detroit this month. Floyd has won 17 times since then — 16 of them for these White Sox.

One more goofy plot twist: Garcia is married to Ozzie Guillen’s second cousin. So if Garcia beats his old team, we don’t like his chances of being invited to the Guillen family Christmas party.

Aw, let’s throw in one more: It was just nine weeks ago when Guillen was asked if he thought Garcia would pitch at all this year. His answer: “I doubt it.” Whoops.

Ozzie makes Biden look gaff-free.
 

Fresh off the spectacular success of his Four Seasons violin concertos, Antonio Vivaldi decided to adopt a new (and controversial) business approach for marketing his compositions.  Rather than writing and publishing works for public consumption, as was common with the well-known composers of his time, he would offer the exclusive rights for the owning and performing of a piece to the highest bidder.  Remember all those wealthy noblemen who enjoyed having their court orchestras playing his works?  Think they’d be interested in their very own masterpiece from the red-headed priest?  You bet!

This strategy, while it may have assured Vivaldi some measure of financial security, had an interesting (and yet unfortunate) side-effect.  Many of Vivaldi’s more mature works were no longer made available to the public, and some of them are only now being discovered in the family coffers of rich, secretive, music loving noblemen from that era.  For many Vivaldi lovers who have long battled the claim that “Vivaldi didn’t write 500 concertos, he wrote one concerto 500 times,” the seeming lack of creative growth has been a severe stumbling block.  But now, thanks largely to the fervent efforts of a group of Italian musicians and historians, a number of these more aggressive, progressive pieces are being brought into the public eye (or is that “ear?”) for the first time.

The Violin Concero in D Major, RV 222, is just such a work.  It features Vivaldi’s traditional orchestration and balance, but the melodic material is quite a bit more complex than his more well-known works.  (I make an exception for the Four Seasons, which are as complex and rewarding as anything written at that time, even if they are treading dangerously on the edge of overexposure.)  The first movement is a perfect example, opening with Vivaldi’s trademark “repetition,” but using some unexpected, brief key changes to keep things from being too formulaic.  And when the soloist comes in, it’s almost difficult to recognize the “stodgy” Vivaldi at all: double-bowing extravagance, changing keys and tempos at the drop of a hat, and generally wreaking havoc with the notion that he was unimaginative.  The entire second half – from the 2:00 point on – is particularly inventive when it comes to key changes, at times even flirting with dissonance.  This is not your grandfather’s Vivaldi!

The second movement, an Andante that rivals some of the finest slow movements of Handel and Corelli, has three particularly interesting features.  The first is the subtle and unusual lute continuo, which plays such a prominent role that it nearly becomes a second solo part.  The second is the “theme and variations” form; highly unusual in Vivaldi’s earlier compositions, but highly effective here.  The third (and perhaps most interesting) feature is the tight rhythmic, thematic and melodic connections between this middle movement and its two counterparts.  In his early works, Vivaldi’s movements can seem a bit disjointed, almost as though he wrote each part of the piece independent of its fellow movements.  But here, the connections are very strong, and one of the last variations, in particular, comes across as nearly a direct quote of the opening movement.

The third movement is the real gem in the entire work.  A sprightly Allegro that employs all of Vivaldi’s trademark melodic momentum and vigor, it dashes boldly ahead, featuring a memorable main theme and displaying some of the most unusual virtuosic material he ever wrote.  It’s a perfect finale to a wonderful concerto, and while I’m sure the technical and artistic abilities of the performers play a large part in its charm, the robust dance-like quality will have listeners toe-tapping in no time.  Just enjoy it.

The recording I particularly recommend is that featuring conductor Andrea Marcon, soloist Giuliano Carmignola, and the Venice Baroque Orchestra.  It is truly spectacular.  I’ve always been a major Pinnock fan when it comes to Vivaldio – his Four Seasons are the definitive interpretation in my mind – but the Marcon version deserves to be considered in the same category of excellence.  It spotlights the world premiere of several of the “Late Concertos,” and is filled with a vigor and enthusiasm rarely heard in the period instrument field.  Their willingness to deviate from “accepted” tempo practices is occasionally a bit extreme, but proves successful far more often than not.  And it seems consistent with their public efforts to revive the long-lost improvisational aspects of the Baroque era.  Sure, they give up a bit of the “control” for which the genre is famous, but the “extravagance” they reap as a result is a fine pay-off.

Steinbrenner works to STRENGTHEN his position as “Lover of Tradition, Just As Long As It Wins Me Games and Makes Me Money.”

“The biggest problem is the divisional setup in major league baseball. I didn’t like it in the 1970s, and I hate it now,” Steinbrenner wrote. “Baseball went to a multidivision setup to create more races, rivalries and excitement. But it isn’t fair. You see it this season, with plenty of people in the media pointing out that Joe Torre and the Dodgers are going to the playoffs while we’re not.

“This is by no means a knock on Torre - let me make that clear-but look at the division they’re in. If L.A. were in the AL East, it wouldn’t be in the playoff discussion. The AL East is never weak.”

Not quite as absurd as his DH MUSINGS, perhaps.  But I highly doubt we’d have heard anything about the “divisional setup” if the Yankees had “nosed out” Tampa Bay or Boston.  Sour grapes are unappealing, Hank.  Stop getting upset about rules you’ve known about (and been willing to play with) for years and years and years.

THIS is really the nail in the coffin, though.

Also, not only are Hank’s comments ill-timed, but they’re also hypocritical. Last I checked, the Yankees’ brass still counts at least two World Series titles that were won despite being contrary to Hank’s current logic. 

1) As the New York Daily News points out, the Yankees’ last championship team in 2000 won only 87 games, yet finished atop the AL East standings and took advantage of that berth to win the World Series. Meanwhile, four teams had better records and the 90-win Indians missed the playoffs entirely.

2) The problem of “better” teams being excluded from the title hunt was not invented with the advent of divisional play in 1969. Even when only the American League and National League regular season champions met for the World Series, there were still teams in one league that had better records.  For example, both the Dodgers (102 wins) and Reds (98) had more victories than the AL champion Yankees (96) in 1962, yet missed the postseason because they played in the same league as San Francisco (103). The Yankees beat the Giants in the World Series in seven games that year. 

(Mostly unconnected: THIS is a strange story.  Not quite sure why you’d say you were from Colorado if you were actually from Wyoming.  Luckily, that particular moniker was not his INVENTION.  Nice work, reporters.)
 
Oh, and the Dodgers are IN.
 

The DUCK passed this on to me.  It is invaluable information at a time like this, which I am reminded of pretty much every time I see a news article about the election:

1.  The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2.  The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3.  The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don’t really understand The New York Times.  They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5.  The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn’t mind running the country — if they could find the time — and if they didn’t have to leave Southern California to do it.

6.  The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.

7.  The New York Daily News is read by people who aren’t too sure who’s running the country and don’t really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8.  The New York Post is read by people who don’t care who are running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9.  The Miami Herald is read by people who are running (from) another country but need the baseball scores.

10.  The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren’t sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for.  There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist gay dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

11.  The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

12.  The Seattle Times, Nashville Tennessean, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Atlanta Constitution are read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.

The Corner’s Kathryn Jean Lopez had some sad NEWS yesterday:

A brother of a friend of mine (Pia) was killed by an IED in Afghanistan this weekend, along with two Afghan interpreters. A fellow soldier was injured.

His father says Bruno wasn’t even supposed to be on the MISSION:

Mario de Solenni says his son wasn’t even supposed to be on the mission in Afghanistan that ended in the deaths of three people last week.

Capt. Bruno de Solenni, 32, had been sick and was told to rest, but he volunteered to go work with a counter-narcotics training team, his father said. He and two interpreters were killed when a roadside bomb went off Sept. 20 on their way to the Kandahar airfield, according to the Defense Department.

…

Family and friends described the deeply religious young man as someone who often led and inspired his peers. He always faced danger head-on, even when working as a timber faller and ocean fisherman, his parents told the Triplicate.

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he felt he needed to do something for his country, loved ones said.

“Bruno really believed in what he was doing,” said his sister, Pia Conway. “He died a hero’s death.”

The letter refrenced by K-Lo is HERE in its entirety.

Upon my return from Iraq, I was positive about what was going on there but very resentful at the way the media was covering the war over there. In my own view, I personally feel that some of the media deliberately fueled that war based on their own biased political views and I still hold them accountable for their actions.

Something that still upsets me is the fact that they exploited some of the crimes soldiers committed over there as a reflective view to the rest of the world of what our armies stood for. I am not saying that we didn’t make mistakes, we did make them and we have painfully corrected them.

His brother-in-law has a BLOG up in memory of the Captain, along with a couple of other news articles about his time in the military.  It’s important to have faces and stories with the casualty names, and having it be someone related to folks I’ve actually known and talked with brings it much closer to hom.

May he rest in peace.
 

Lots of chelpful lips from Ol’ Joe today.

THIS one involves all the AIG/financial turmoil:

Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout — saying he opposed it one day then announced he supported it the next day.

But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, “in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question: ’should the federal government bail out AIG?’ And he said, ‘No, the federal government should not bail out AIG.’”  “And I think that, in that situation,” Obama said, “I think Joe should have waited, as well.”

Lauer pushes the issue, though, and receives a “vintage Politicaspeak” response:

“But it’s the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics,” Lauer said. “It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words.”

“No, hold on a second Matt,” Obama said. “I think what drives people crazy about politics is the fact that somebody like John McCain who, for 26 years, has been an advocate for deregulation, for 26 years has said the market is king and then starts going out there suggesting somehow that he’s a populist who’s been railing against Wall Street and regulation — that’s what drives people crazy about politics.”

Actually, the “trying to score political points at all costs” thing does drive people crazy, Barry.

He and his potential VP continue to disagree on POLICY ISSUES and CAMPAIGN STRATEGY, though Biden’s not opposed to changing his mind.

But as the moment went viral, hitting the internet traffic engine the Drudge Report, Biden revised and extended his remarks in a statement — saying he hadn’t even seen it when he condemned it.

“Having now reviewed the ad, it is even more clear to me that given the disgraceful tenor of Sen McCain’s ads and their persistent falsehoods, his campaign is in no position to criticize,” he said, “especially when they continue to distort Barack’s votes on an issue as personal as keeping kids safe from sexual predators.”

Great.

THIS is definitely my favorite, though.  Sure, there are probably plenty of perfectly reasonable explanations, but it says so much in such a short clip.

Joe Biden’s denunciation of his own campaign’s ad to Katie Couric got so much attention last night that another odd note in the interview slipped by.

He was speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis.

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

As Reason’s Jesse Walker footnotes it: “And if you owned an experimental TV set in 1929, you would have seen him. And you would have said to yourself, ‘Who is that guy? What happened to President Hoover?’”

Oops.  My bad.  I had forgotten about this FAVORITE.
 

Hard to believe, isn’t it?
 

First, he gets taken to task by a lot of bishops for his stance (and recent comments) on abortion, and now THIS.  It was published in major newspapers on Friday, including USA Today, the Washington Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The ”Robbed Chargers” story from this past weekend has generated a lot of attention for Ed Hochuli.  A lot of attention he surely didn’t want.  Still, as a “stand-up guy,” he’s meeting it HEAD-ON.

I’m getting hundreds of e-mails — hate mail — but I’m responding to it all.  People deserve a response. You can rest assured that nothing anyone can say can make me feel worse than I already feel about my mistake on the fumble play. You have no idea … Affecting the outcome of a game is a devastating feeling. Officials strive for perfection — I failed miserably. Although it does no good to say it, I am very, very sorry.

Mike Pereira, the NFL’s Supervisor of Officials, wants Hochuli back on the job STAT.

He is a consummate professional who’s refereed in this league for 17 years and he hates to make any mistake. So when you add a mistake of this magnitude, at this particular junction of the game, it’s been really hard on him. We’ve talked probably seven or eight times since that game, and my whole goal is to try to get him back to get on the horse and work again this weekend. He’s too good of a guy, too good of an official to keep off the field over this critical mistake he made. I think he’ll be all right, but he’s really been affected over this mistake he made.

The “controversy” has fueled the perennial “Why doesn’t the NFL have full-time refs” debate, which makes no sense to me.  The real problem with this particular play was that, even after Hochuli had seen on the replay that he was in error, the rule book clearly states that he could not award San Diego the ball.  That’s a rule-book problem, not a ref problem.  (Sure, I realize that he got the call wrong originally.  But we can’t just have him arbitrarily going against the rule book once he sees his mistake, right?)

As for the whole “full-time ref” thing, I’m generally for it.  That might be a bit tricky for Hochuli to do, though.  I’m not sure he wants to quit his day JOB.

(Awesome Ed Fact #3,497: He has his own WEBSITE.  In fact, now that I think about it, he’s sort of like the NFL’s answer to PIERLUIGI COLLINA.)