Pitchers & Catchers Report

Hope springs eternal.

The Boys of Summer are back.

If ya know, ya know. The catchphrase where I grew up -- St. Louis, "the Lou," where baseball is religion -- is always about how many days until "Pitchers and Catchers report."

 

To the favorite teenager in your life

Few poets have the ability to make my smile, laugh, cry, and think all at the same time in the way that Billy Collins does. As a high school English teacher for many years, I realized that I could find a Billy Collins poem for practically every lesson, every discussion, every unit, every situation that I covered in the course of a high school year. Just yesterday I was talking with a colleague about just such a thing, as she began a new unit, and I shared with her one of my favorite Billy Collins poems.

To My Favorite 17-Year-Old High School Girl

Do you realize that if you had started
building the Parthenon on the day you were born,
you would be all done in only one more year?
Of course, you couldn’t have done it alone,
so never mind, you’re fine just as you are.
You’re loved for just being yourself.

But did you know that at your age Judy Garland
was pulling down $150,000 a picture,
Joan of Arc was leading the French army to victory,
and Blaise Pascal had cleaned up his room?
No wait, I mean he had invented the calculator.

Of course, there will be time for all that later in your life,
after you come out of your room
and begin to blossom, or at least pick up all your socks.

For some reason, I keep remembering that Lady Jane Grey
was Queen of England when she was only fifteen,
but then she was beheaded, so never mind her as a role model.

A few centuries later, when he was your age,
Franz Schubert was doing the dishes for his family
but that did not keep him from composing two symphonies,
four operas, and two complete Masses as a youngster.

But of course that was in Austria at the height
of Romantic lyricism, not here in the suburbs of Cleveland.

Frankly, who cares if Annie Oakley was a crack shot at 15
or if Maria Callas debuted as Tosca at 17?

We think you are special just being you,
playing with your food and staring into space.
By the way, I lied about Schubert doing the dishes,
but that doesn’t mean he never helped out around the house.

—Billy Collins

From Aimless Love, Random House, 2013.

"To my favourite 17 year old High-school girl" - Billy Collins -- Video of BC reading

The Muppet Show Returns -- and, man, do we need it.

We'll always have The Muppets.

In a world and nation overly focused on negativity, it's important and practically necessary to remind ourselves that there are many places and reasons to find joy in the everyday. And few "institutions" have the ability and reach to provide simple mirth to so many people in such simple ways as Jim Henson's magical world of friends like Kermit and Miss Piggy and Elmo and the Swedish chef and more.

And, in a time of reboots and remakes and rebrands of classic entertainment from the past fifty years, the return of The Muppet Show is a refreshing and comforting bit of news. I can still recall the Sunday evenings of my youth at 6:00 PM with the purest of sketch comedy, entertainment that wholesomely appealed to the kids who watched and their parents who occasionally check in as well. Thus, February 4 this year hearkened us back to those halcyon days through a collaboration of Disney and ABC to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the show. And as the New York Times reported, This Is Your Grandparents’ ‘Muppet Show,’ Fortunately:

Backstage on the new special, “The Muppet Show,” Sabrina Carpenter excitedly greets Miss Piggy, in whom she recognizes a kindred spirit. “I grew up watching you,” Carpenter says. “My parents grew up watching you. Their parents grew up watching——”
The joke, of course, is that Carpenter ends up offending the diva by implying that she’s old. But there’s a truth to it, too: Since the madcap critters lit the lights on the comedy-variety “Muppet Show” in the 1970s, every generation has gotten its own Muppets.

Sometimes we get them more than once. In 2015, ABC — which had aired the prime-time update “Muppets Tonight” in the 1990s — premiered “The Muppets,” an awkwardly edgy workplace mockumentary. (“This is not your grandmother’s Muppets,” the president of ABC promised/threatened at the time.) In 2020, Disney+ gave us “Muppets Now,” a streaming show about Kermit and company producing mini streaming shows, which lacked the original’s theatrical pizazz.

The premise for “The Muppet Show” of 2026, a (for now) single-episode special premiering on Wednesday on Disney+ and ABC, is comparatively simple: It’s “The Muppet Show.” And wocka wocka wocka, that’s all you need.

Washington Post Layoffs -- a blow to news, journalism, media

I have to be honest - I was about to cancel my Washington Post digital subscription this month. It wasn't a political protest about the direction of the paper under owner Jeff Bezos. It wasn't about disappointment in coverage of one story or another. It wasn't a fading interest in the daily news. It wasn't the coming increase in the the price of my subscription for renewal. No, it wasn't anything like that. It was simply because I will be moving in a few months, switching jobs and uprooting for a few months. So, it was just a convenience.

But now, I can't. Not now. Not after this.  The shocking announcement that WashPo is "laying off more than 300 journalists," and eliminating sections and features such as all sports coverage and the esteemed books department is a serious blow to journalism. Writing for The Atlantic, Ashley Parker makes no bones about it. This move is pure carnage, and the layoffs amount to what she calls The Murder of The Washington Post:

We’re witnessing a murder.

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, and Will Lewis, the publisher he appointed at the end of 2023, are embarking on the latest step of their plan to kill everything that makes the paper special. The Post has survived for nearly 150 years, evolving from a hometown family newspaper into an indispensable national institution, and a pillar of the democratic system. But if Bezos and Lewis continue down their present path, it may not survive much longer.

Over recent years, they’ve repeatedly cut the newsroom—killing its Sunday magazine, reducing the staff by several hundred, nearly halving the Metro desk—without acknowledging the poor business decisions that led to this moment or providing a clear vision for the future. This morning, executive editor Matt Murray and HR chief Wayne Connell told the newsroom staff in an early-morning virtual meeting that it was closing the Sports department and Books section, ending its signature podcast, and dramatically gutting the International and Metro departments, in addition to staggering cuts across all teams. Post leadership—which did not even have the courage to address their staff in person—then left everyone to wait for an email letting them know whether or not they had a job. (Lewis, who has already earned a reputation for showing up late to work when he showed up at all, did not join the Zoom.)

The Post may yet rise, but this will be their enduring legacy.

What’s happening to the Post is a public tragedy,

The Super Bowl Prop Bets

 Long before Draft Kings and FanDuel became omnipresent in the sports universe, offering the "chance" to wager on practically any aspect of any competitive sport, I knew a couple guys at school who introduced me to the idea of "prop bets," specifically on the Super Bowl. They had a side-competition every year during the game with the most random of wagers. They bet on obvious game-related details such as winner, final score, MVP, and individual stats like "how many TD passes will Kurt Warner throw in the game." But then they added in a completely random list of fun propositions.

They bet on the color of the Gatorade poured over the winning coach and which team's cheerleaders would be featured first on a sideline TV shot. They bet on whether a beer commercial or car commercial would come first. They wagered an "over/under" guess on the duration of the National Anthem, and tried to outguess each other on songs during halftime, celebrity appearances, and of course, the coin toss. 

That was my introduction to the idea of the "prop bet," which is now a huge business during the Super Bowl. And I have to admit I love it, even as I have become quite uneasy with the ubiquitous nature of gambling in sports and in contemporary society. Each year, I join a prop bet pool, or host one myself. I've done them individually with forms made on a GoogleDoc, and I've used websites that have a pre-established list as well as a scoreboard that keeps score and ranks all players. The prop bet has become another Super Bowl tradition, like watching the commercials, and the Washington Post recently posted some ideas on their "Favorite Prop Bets for Super Bowl LX." 

The Politics of Thoreauvian Punk

Politics is complicated ... and pretty much always has been.

And in my latest project, The Punk on Walden Pond, I am intrigued by the issue of politics in relation to Henry Thoreau and punk rock. Was Thoreau a political writer and theorist? Is punk a political art form? At times Henry Thoreau argued he is not political, and many might say the punk on Walden Pond is above politics. Similarly, while the music and bands of punk rock certainly are anti-establishment and a challenge to the status quo, some musicologists argue that more than 80% of punk songs are not political, and that the bands have no clear political agenda. I'd imagine Joe Strummer, Jello Biafra, and bands like Propagandhi have some thoughts on that.

In my Walden Punk Project, I have a piece-in-progress titled "In the Mosh Pit: the Politics of Thoreauvian Punk." Here are some thoughts from that work.

Chapter 4 of Jane Bennett’s Thoreau's Nature: Ethics Politics & Wild (2002) is titled “Why Thoreau Hates Politics." Thoreau may have hated politics, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t political. In fact, Bob Pepperman Taylor makes a strong case in two books America’s Bachelor Uncle: Thoreau and the Polity (1996) and Lessons from Walden: Thoreau & the Crisis of American Democracy (2024) for seeing Thoreau primarily as a political writer. He believes that even the supposed “nature writings” such as Walden, "Walking," and "Wild Apples" are actually political positions, specifically in how they criticize and challenge America to be what it claims. And that is as punk as it gets, in my opinion. For, Thoreau is in many ways the first true contemporary critic to challenge the national narrative to call out the American dream to pull back the curtain on the ruse that had been perpetuated against the people.

As far as punk is concerned, it's worth noting that much punk is simply about frustrations with daily life, as opposed to large political manifestos. As Legs McNeil says in his comprehensive history Please Kill Me, “... the great thing about punk was that it had no political agenda. It was about real freedom, personal freedom." In the study Rebel Rock, a review of lyrics suggest only 25% of songs are distinctly political. However, a counterargument is that for the music of a counterculture, even when songs aren’t political, they are. 

In viewing Thoreau as combative and political, and punk as a political movement – even when it’s not trying to be, the key elements are personal conscience and a sense of social justice. The goal of Walden is to promote a kind of personal responsibility because, for Thoreau, the fear is that people will succumb to a less interesting and morally deadening utilitarianism. Thoreau insists that we submit to principles which will make us nonconforming in an unjust world. Thoreau urges readers to be rebellious, be a tradition breaker, be civilly disobedient.

Permanent Olympic Sites

In 1972, via a statewide referendum, the people of Colorado rejected funding for the 1976 Olympic Games, becoming the only city ever awarded the games to turn down the chance to host. While that decision shocked the rest of the country, as well as many around the world, it wasn't a surprising move for anyone who knows the taxpayers of the Rocky Mountain state. In fact, knowing what we know now about the structural challenge and fiscal nightmare the Games can be for some cities and countries, it was a surprisingly prescient and prudent move.

Hosting the Olympic Games is an incredible honor and opportunity for a country to shine on the international stage, but it’s also a significant financial and structural investment saddled with huge risks. The Olympics generally cost tens of billions of dollars to stage while providing only a fraction of that in terms of revenue. Host countries must invest heavily in building a vast infrastructure of sites to hold the events, housing for the teams and guests, and transportation and security systems to manage the people. While these can certainly upgrade a city, they are rarely necessary to maintain following the games and often end up in disuse and decay.

Additionally, any benefit from the event is often overshadowed by the corrupt history of the bidding process at the International Olympic Committee and the potential for bloated budgets prior to the event followed by blight afterwards. The scandals plaguing the entire hosting process are extensive, ranging from bribes and extortion to graft and highly orchestrated doping programs which have tainted vast numbers of events and athletes. It often seems the Olympic Games, an international institution intended to honor the individual pursuit of excellence, are more trouble than they’re worth. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Instead, the international community should establish permanent locations for the Olympics, where all countries contribute to maintaining the sites as the premier athletic facilities in the world. The fields and tracks and stadiums could serve as hosts for an endless number of world championships at all levels, and they could also serve as training grounds and research locations to serve all manner of individuals and organizations committed to honoring and promoting the highest levels of athletic achievement.

Choosing permanent locations would obviously be a significant challenge, though certainly not more problematic than the current bidding process. It’s reasonable to have host cities across multiple geographic regions, and it makes sense to consider places which held successful games and maintained some of the original infrastructure. Athens is the obvious choice for one permanent summer location, while Barcelona, Seoul, and Sydney are solid choices as well. Salt Lake City and Lillehammer are good bets for the Winter Olympics, though a strong case can be made for both Vancouver and Turin. Obviously the city and host country must want the honor and responsibility and be willing to trust the rest of the world to support the plan.

This idea is not new, having been discussed for years among commentators, athletic groups, and political leaders. In fact, at the end of the 1896 Games, which launched the modern era, King George of Greece called for Athens to be the permanent “peaceful meeting place of all nations,” and many delegations signed a letter endorsing the idea. Currently, host cities are already established through 2028 when Los Angeles will host its third Olympic Games. And perhaps that’s enough. Before any more bidding happens and planning begins, the public should discuss the idea of permanent host cities. Once the idea is floated to athletes and voters, political and business leaders should take the discussion to the IOC and make it happen. With many future games already assigned and planned, there is plenty of time to develop and implement this logical change to the Games.

Groundhog Day - a time for reflection and renewal

Groundhog Day was once about the annual folk tradition of looking to a small animal for predictions about the weather. But since 1993, the day - or at least the phrase - has become part of the lexicon, describing the boring, monotonous nature of everyday life. The Harold Ramis film that established that idea is actually about the opposite. Here's an essay I wrote a few years ago: 

It’s not about monotony — it’s about re-birth.

Twenty-six years ago, an unassuming little film about a cantankerous weatherman on the most random of holidays became a pop culture phenomenon that ingrained itself in our consciousness. The title became a metaphor for reluctantly acknowledging the dailiness of life. With the silly story of Phil Connors waking up everyday in Punxsutawney, PA, with Sonny and Cher singing “I’ve Got You Babe” on an endless string of February seconds, Groundhog Day entered the lexicon as a way to describe the drudgery and repetition of daily life. But the movie was never simply about the mundane nature of existence. It was always about self-awareness and second chances and reinvention and hope.

Let’s face it, by February 2 the New Year’s resolutions are fading, the fitness centers are back to the regulars, and we’re all bogged down in the drudgery of winter. These moments are ripe for a bit of pop culture existentialism, and the quirky film from Harold Ramis and Danny Rubin puts that long cold winter, the odd little holiday, and the repetitiveness of daily life in perspective. Watching the story of a disgruntled weatherman pondering the absurdity of a weather-forecasting rodent provides a second chance at mid-winter self-reflection and re-invention. The conceit of the film is not only the ridiculous holiday but also the inexplicable weirdness of Phil Connors’ predicament.

The film Groundhog Day is actually a wonderful primer for the wisdom of existentialism, and when I taught the philosophy in my college literature class, I would often lead or conclude with a viewing of Bill Murray’s brilliant portrayal of a man trying to bring some sense of meaning to a life that seems nothing short of absurd. Clearly, the idea of living the same day over and over again in an unfulfilling, dull, mundane place and repeating the seemingly mindless tasks of a pointless job is portrayed as a curse and a cruel joke, and that realization is at the heart of existentialism. Life makes no sense. Phil spends many years in disgruntled fashion viewing his life as exactly that, a cruel meaningless joke of an existence.

Read the rest of the essay here ...

It's the Housing, Stupid

It all comes down to housing, doesn't it?

I am so glad that I moved to Greenwood, Village, CO, when I did in 2003, and that I also sold my house and moved out in 2024. GV is one of the toniest suburbs of Denver, with an average home price of well over $1million. And, that's completely out of range for working middle class people like teachers and police officers. Fortunately, at one time, the area allowed a fair number of townhouses and duplexes, which is where I was able to buy, directly adjacent from the high school. But those days are over, as several years ago, the millionaires were freaked about the possibility of multi-family housing coming to their little hamlet, and a (hysterical) group called "Save Our Village" got on city council, where they effectively outlawed the construction of anything less than single-family homes on quarter-acre lots.

I've been thinking about that recently after reading an interesting substack essay called "The Housing Theory of Everything" and a recent column from Nicholas Kristoff in the NY Times about how to save the American Dream through programs like Hope VI. 

We need some good news now, and here’s some out of left field: An important new study suggests that there’s a highly effective way to overcome one of the most intractable problems in 21st-century America — intergenerational poverty. We like to think of ourselves as a land of opportunity, but researchers find that today the American dream of upward mobility is actually more alive in other advanced countries.

The new study highlights a powerful way to boost opportunity. It doesn’t involve handing out money, and it appears to pretty much pay for itself. It works by harnessing the greatest influence there is on kids — other kids. The study, just released, is the latest landmark finding from Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist, and his Opportunity Insights group, along with other scholars.

The team dug into the long-term effects of a huge neighborhood revitalization program called Hope VI. Beginning in 1993, Hope VI invested $17 billion to replace 262 high-poverty public housing projects around America.

Row Houses & the "vanishing" starter home

I love living in and driving around Old Town Fort Collins, Colorado. The quaint tree-lined streets are filled with a diverse selection of houses that represent the best of how American towns used to be developed. Nearly every street in the area is filled with cozy, comfortable one and two bedroom cottages and bungalows, which are located right alongside beautiful mid-size craftsman and colonials. Those same streets have a pleasant smattering of gorgeous large Victorians and estate-style houses. That sort of mixed-market neighborhood creates a solid community, one which offers a vanishing relic - the starter home.

People tend to have their own understanding, but starter homes are typically perceived as being on the smaller side, in need of renovation, or both. Buyers often go in expecting to stay a few years to build equity, then trade up for something bigger and generally better. But the concept is antiquated given current prices and big floor plans, a dynamic that’s icing out many entry-level shoppers.

Builders have been constructing bigger and bigger homes during the past half-century. Homes with four or more bedrooms made up nearly half of all new construction in 2022, according to Census Bureau data. That compares with 1 in 5 in the 1970s.

More rooms and more upgrades mean more costs. The U.S. median home price is $410,800, up nearly $100,000 since 2019, federal data shows. Layers of local regulations, as well as market dynamics, have pushed builders to go big, rather than catering to first-time buyers with less to spend. “You have zoning requirements that have encouraged large lot sizes,” said Dennis Shea, a housing expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “Home builders, particularly in the wake of the Great Recession, where they were very negatively impacted, find it easier to build larger homes that have higher profit margins.”

The key to the newly-coined "affordability crisis" obviously starts with housing. And finding a way back to the starter home, or a society more accepting of townhouse and rowhouse construction, could be an important key to the national economy in the new era.

David Brooks leaving NY Times for The Atlantic

Even though I taught English for three decades, I still tell people that when I grow up, I want to be David Brooks of the New York Times. Or, I add, perhaps an author like Michael Lewis. As the son of a editor and feature writer, I have been a fan and voracious reader of the "newspaper column" for as long as I can remember. Readers of this blog might recall that I've written about the high esteem I had -- still have -- for the work of legendary Chicago columnist Mike Royko. I feel the same about George Will. 

And, of course, I have always been a fan of David Brooks ... or at least since the late 1990s when I read his work for the Weekly Standard, Wall Street Journal, and eventually the New York Times, where he has been a regular columnist for more than two decades. And, I truly enjoyed and began to follow his writing more regularly after he published a very cool book of pop culture criticism called Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How It Got There. Granted, Brooks definitely has his critics and detractors, and he's by no means perfect, but as an erudite and insightful scholar and cultural commentator, I've always found Brooks to be worth the read.

And, Brooks isn't going away, but he is making a change. This morning Brooks and the New York Times announced that he is leaving his longtime home for a new position at The Atlantic, along with a new podcast and a position at Yale University. Brooks bid farewell to times readers with an extended column, "Time to Say Goodbye." 

It’s been the honor of a lifetime to work here, surrounded by so many astounding journalists. But after 22 wonderful years, I’ve decided to take the exciting and terrifying step of leaving in order to try to build something new. When I came to The Times, I set out to promote a moderate conservative political philosophy informed by thinkers like Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton.

When I think about how the world has changed since I joined The Times, the master trend has been Americans’ collective loss of faith — not only religious faith but many other kinds. In 2003, we were still relatively fresh from our victory in the Cold War, and there was more faith that democracy was sweeping the globe, more faith in America’s goodness, more faith in technology and more in one another. As late as 2008, Barack Obama could run a presidential campaign soaring with hopeful idealism.

The post-Cold War world has been a disappointment. The Iraq war shattered America’s confidence in its own power. The financial crisis shattered Americans’ faith that capitalism when left alone would produce broad and stable prosperity. The internet did not usher in an era of deep connection but rather an era of growing depression, enmity and loneliness. Collapsing levels of social trust revealed a comprehensive loss of faith in our neighbors. The rise of China and everything about Donald Trump shattered our serene assumptions about America’s role in the world.

We have become a sadder, meaner and more pessimistic country. One recent historical study of American newspapers finds that public discourse is more negative now than at any time since the 1850s. Large majorities say our country is in decline, that experts are not to be trusted, that elites don’t care about regular people. Only 13 percent of young adults believe America is heading in the right direction. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say they do not believe in the American dream.

Brooks' column is definitely worth reading for the perspective and insight he brings to "what's happened to America" in the twenty-first century. If nothing else, he is a well-educated and broadly talented writer with enough background knowledge to offer a thoughtful long view on the past, present, and "hopeful" future.

Godspeed, David. Looking forward to what comes next.

Screen Time for Young Kids

Michael Coren, an advice columnist for the Washington Post, believes he has "cracked the code on toddler screen time." I'm a bit suspicious, believing "toddler" and "screen time" really don't go together at all. I'm basing my position about screen time and children on the standards and recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Basically, best practice in raising your kids around "screens" - and that goes back to the anachronism of 'television' for the past fifty years or so - is that children under six months old should have "zero screen time," and up to the age of two, it should be limited to no more than thirty minutes a day. 

How to structure good screen time for toddlers and avoid parental guilt - The Washington Post