Book Review: Seizing Destiny, by Roger Kluger

Kugler has produced an epic that explains not only the how but the also the why of America's geographical growth. Beginning with colonial times, Kugler describes how the thirteen colonies came to be and how the royal crown apportioned additional lands to them, and how even these apportionments were not without controversy and disputation. This was probably the roughest terrain to cover while reading, but if you make it through, you emerge upon a lush land of dramatic exposition of America's development from a country of 895,000 square miles, located on the Atlantic seaboard to one of over 3.5 million square miles covering territory in the Caribbean, near the arctic, and in the Pacific Occean. Kugler covers in dramatic detail all the various forces - economic, religious, political - that pushed our country's frontiers to its current boundaries. There are fascinating details, like Franklin's initial demand for all of Canada to settle the revolutionary treaty with Britain, fro example.

Kugler's skillful use of dramatic metaphor brings to life what in other hands could be a dry recitation of events. Key players abound, from the well-known like Franklin and Teddy Roosevelt, to lesser lights like Robert Livingston, and especially many of the players from France, Britain and other countries. Each chapter on expansion is like a mini-drama with its own cast of characters, and its peculiar forces shaping their motives and actions. Read this book to take a quantum leap in your understanding of how and why this country came to be geographically how it is today.

The Clemens/McNamee Steroids Hearing

The hearing was pathetic, really. McNamee did not endear himself to anyone. He came across as the low-life slime-ball he is. Yet, low-life slime-balls have a way of telling the truth when their necks are on the line. It’s an honored tradition among defendants turned government witness.

Clemens, on the other hand, wants us to see him as the new Forrest Gump - a naive, innocent individual caught in the midst of others’ wrong-doings and foibles. Clemens would have us believe that those dearest and closest to him - his wife and his best friend - were being injected with HGH by his personal trainer while all along Roger just kept innocently pumping iron and jogging, wrenching Cy Young Awards from his aging body the way Forrest Gump pulled injured comrades out of a Vietnam marsh. It’s a tall tale and one that, I believe, he’ll have to make stick to federal prosecutors.

The Never Ever Ending Clemens Steroids Saga

The soap opera gets worse: Congresspeople pander to Clemens; Clemens' team may have tried to influence their nanny’s testimony; Debbie Clemens received HGH shots from McNamee without her husband’s knowledge. All-in-all, I still believe McNamee more than Clemens. Like OJ, Clemens will say til his dying day that he never took steroids, even if sent to prison for lying about it.

To believe Clemens you have to believe the following:

That he received lidocaine and b-12 shots from McNamee which were administered in the wrong area;
That his wife secretly received HGH shots from McNamee;
That Andy Pettite received HGH shots from McNamee, but not Clemens, even though McNamee was Clemens’ personal trainer, not Pettite’s;
That Andy Pettite has a poor memory and a hearing problem.

Even More on the Clemens Saga

I don’t think McNamee started out with a vendetta. I think he cleverly, and surprisingly, maintained that evidence “just in case”. Why would he? Because other than Debbie Clemens, he of all people probably knows Clemens better than anyone else. Remember, Clemens deceived thousands of fans years ago when he said he was retiring. He soaked in the adulation and the gifts during his farewell tour, never even remotely suggesting he might reconsider. Then he reneged on his retirement and took a bundle of money to play in Houston. A major reason he gave for his change of mind was that he did it only because he remained close to home. Then his definition of home expanded years later when he signed a contract to play againfor the Yankees, a second deception as far as retirement went.

And let’s not forget his responses to beaning Mike Piazza and then throwing a piece of a bat at him in the 2000 World Series. He was never forthright in his answers. If he though the bat was a ball, why didn’t he “throw it” to first, instead of at Piazza?

The guy is cut from the same cloth as Pete Rose: his narrow needs are all that matters, and if the truth gets in the way, the truth loses.

McNamee has seen Clemens’ character up close and personal, and probably sensed that Clemens would not back him up if trouble ever surfaced. How could a personal trainer win against a larger-than-life persona like Clemens?

Well, the “just-in-case” scenario has appeared, and, as I mentioned in my last post, it seems that Andy Pettite’s testimony will, indeed, corroborate McNamee’s accounts and end Clemens’ charade. He has one last chance tomorrow to make amends. Don’t hold your breath.

The Continuing Clemens Steroids Saga

This whole thing is getting weirder and weirder. McNamee apparently held on to the syringes and gauzes that he allegedly used to inject Clemens with steroids and HGH. Some have said this was a forward thinking precaution by a former cop who thought he might need evidence were he ever hung out to dry. It does seem odd that he would hold on to something like this for so long, but if the evidence proves to be credible, maybe the guy is not as dumb as he appears.

Here’s one thing that gets me about this case: A lot of people are attempting to dismiss the case against Clemens by pointing to McNamee’s personality, suggesting that he is a person of bad character with serious issues. My thought is: how many people of high character who are stable get involved in what McNamee did? He was at the center of proliferating illegal drugs to professional athletes. I think this removes him from candidacy for Mr. Good Guy.

Clemens, on the other hand, with his lawyers, is going around conducting what I feel are equally bizzare one-on-one interdictions with individual Congressmen, as if getting his message across in that manner will make it true.

This has become a contest of two questionable personalities: Clemens, the arrogant, money hungry ballplayer and McNamee, the weak, disreputable trainer. Hopefully, it won’t be character that wins, but the facts.

Mcnamee had no reason to turn on Clemens. I think a key to this might be what Pettite and other Clemens teammates say they knew about Clemens. For a guy who only used HGH a couple of times to recover from injury, Pettite’s depositon seemed incredibly long. The hearing next week will be a meaningless circus, unless something solid, one way or the other, comes out from someone.

Book Review: PowerPoint: The Dark Side

The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within, Second Edition, by Edward Tufte

Edward Tufte insightfully tells us how PowerPoint corrupts the communication process by forcing its format on content. For me, this is just another example of dumbing down in general. No longer do managers communicate via reasoned analysis through narrative. No, all communication must be as brief as possible and to the point. Unfortunately, sometimes the point needs more than just a multi-bulleted slide. Tufte's argument is highlighted by the PowerPoint parody of the Gettysburg Address. I too experience the constraint of expressing important detail, context and relationships when the expectation is to fit it into a Word table or a Power Point presentation. Now, this is not a call for wordiness. Unnecessarily long and tedious papers will do just as well in stifling communication. The point is to learn to write well and communicate well, without surrendering to the allure of the promises of new technology that may actually provide the opposite. Read Tufte's treatise and get a good idea of what not to do and why.

Book Review: Getting Started as a Freelance Writer, Robert Bly

This book seems to cover absolutely all the ins and outs of succeeding as a freelance writer. (I have one reservation, which I'll discuss later.) Bly is a very successful freelance writer, sometimes earning as much as $600,000 per year and apparently routinely earning at least $100,000 per year, so he is an author who knows what he's talking about. He includes chapters on everything from the freelancer's administrative logistics, how to get leads and market yourself, and a signifcant number of resources to help the novice writer. If you follow his advice with diligence, and put in the necessary time, there is probably a high likelihood that you will make a good and possibly a very good living as a freelance writer.

Here is my concern: In the introduction Bly says, "Even a writer with average abilities and modest ambitions can get published and make $800 to $1,000 a week or more as a freelance writer." But on page 11 he says "Writing, on the other hand, is a field in which the average practitioner does not make much money (of course, there are many exceptions) And so money is not the primary motivator to go into writing; you should become a writer because you love to write." Yet, the rest of the book is about how you can earn a great deal by becoming a freelance writer, although more specifically he means commercial freelancing - writing copy for businesses large or small. So which is it? Will the average writer "not make much money" or will he "make $800 to $1,000 a week"?

Here is another inconsistency: on page 60, where he is describing how you can't make the big bucks by writing for magazines, he says "you can make $36,000 to $48,000 a year, provided you are paid $1 a word - a rate most markets no longer come close to." Hey wait a minute, you buttered us up in the intro that us average joe writers could make $800 to $1,000 a week (or $41,600 to $52,000 a year). Where did all that bounty go?

There are other inconsistencies about how much you have to earn per hour and how many hours a week you have to put in to reach Bly-like levels of earnings. For example, page 61: "If you want to make $100,000 a year and work 50 weeks a year, you must gross $2,000 a week from your writing. If you work 5 days a week, you must earn $400 a day." On page 158 he says, "If you follow the advice in this book you will soon be earning $50 to $100 an hour" but previously, on page 156 he revealed to us that 7 hours a day (9 to 5) "won't cut it" if you want to earn more than $100,000 a year; in fact, his suggested number of starting weekly hours is 45, but it could be 50, 55 or even more.

So stay with me here: $400 a day/7 hour day equals $57 per hour to earn $100,000 a year, but Mr. Bly just told us that we probably need to work at least 45 hours a week, so we are now down to $44 an hour and if we go to say 55 hours a week, our hourly earnings drop to $36 an hour. The problem here is that $50 per hour seems to be Bly's threshold for living the good writer's life, and is the benchmark he refers to when suggesting outsourcing your time for tasks that cost less an hour than you earn.

Now, having said all that, the message reminds me somewhat of the get rich via real estate/day trading sales pitches. In other words, Bly should have included the disclaimer "results may vary" because I believe that any one individual could apply Bly's lessons and actually reach the level of income he says you can. So these criticisms are not a wholesale refutation of his claims but more of a wish that more clarity and consistency were present. That's why I still give Bly four stars.

Now, if want the other end of the spectrum, see Real Success Without a Real Job: There Is No Life Like It!, where Ernie Zelinsky tells us how to make a comfortable living by writing for four hours a day, with comfortable redefined as a level of income chosen by you which provides you with the things you need, plus a little more.

Book Review: In a Sunburned Country, by Bill Bryson

I wish I had discovered Bill Bryson's writing much earlier. I already have another of his books on order (A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail). Bryson's writing is witty and at times hysterical, as he takes us across the mysterious, engrossing and never ending source of gripping, tragic, tragic-comic, and comic stories that are Australia's history, people, land and unimaginable numbers of flaura and fauna. He is self-effacing but is willing to "efface" others when justified, not holding back when his encounters leave something to be desired.

He explores the Australian character via anecdotes of personal experience and history, and gives a comprehensive perspective and understading of this most unusual and mostly ignored continent/country. If you are interested in a voyeuristic experience that goes beyond the standard American's knowledge about Australia of kangaroos, Steve Irwin and the Bee Gees, and want to be laughing and enthralled at the same time, read this book.

Barack Oprah!ma

So what do you folks think of the Oprah phenomenon (and I'm not referring to how television seems to add sixty pounds to Ms. Winfrey, while only ten to the average pundit)?

Is this the beginning of a new trend? Will celebutards, rather than party politicians, choose our candidates in the future? What is the demographic that is attracted to a Winfrey-endorsed candidacy, and how will this affect the future of electoral debates? On a gut level (and gut-levels are the most appropriate when referring to a public persona like Oprah), I am uncomfortable with a television personality having this kind of impact and potentially affecting the outcome of the presidency. In my view, Obama is a marginal candidate, offering much style, especially charisma, over substance. You can only take his schtick so far, and he's not my number one candidate to deal with all the pressing issues faced by this country.

Book Review: The Age of Lincoln

Sometimes well written history is more dramatic and impressing than well written fiction. The Age of Lincoln is a great examlpe of this. The book reads like a historical dramatization at times as Burton weaves personal accounts, letters and other documents from the main actors in the drama and other sources into the narrative of the antebellum, Civil War and postbellum events. It is a sobering account of the reality of war, which was romanticized by the opposing sides as they preapred for the inevitable struggle that would follow secession. Burton also brings to life the deep passions that possesed both sides, including the sincere belief that their side was favored by God. You are left with an understanding of how these 40 to 50 years in American history profundly affected multiple aspects of America's future, some issues which remain unresolved to this day. It's a must read if you want a deeper understading of Lincoln, southern and northern mindsets, the role of African Americans, states rights, immigration, southern and northern economies and the many other components that made up the complex historical landscape of this period of our nation's history.

The Bonds Indictment

Bonds has created a conundrum out which we will never emerge. Even if a jury finds him innocent, the court of public opinion has already rendered its judgment. Unfortunately, that judgment is also divided. So we will be left with people believing that he used steroids but it doesn’t matter because a) they don’t really help your performance or b) when he used them they were not banned (so how could he have cheated); others will believe he used them and feel that radical measures such as erasing Bonds' name from all the record books should hold, or that the records should employ asterisks freely, or that Bonds' stats should be adjusted to reflect a steroid-free career. But none of this will matter because in the end we will all lack the purity that we all seek from our game, that the game was played fair and square from beginning to end, that accomplishments are not marred by facts or rumors of cheating, that careers were made and built out of mental commitment and fortitude, and pure physical prowess.

I wrote earlier about one of the overlooked aspects of the steroids scandal: Assume that steroids do improve performance. How many times did a juiced at bat give an unfair advantage to a team? On how many occasions did warning track power become a game winning home run? How many times did a short fly out become a long fly out that drove in a go ahead run? Of course, the answers to these questions can never be found. And that’s the point. Because the “cheating” involved is as masked as can be, and it’s mixed in with all the nuances and intricacies that involve the team game of baseball, we will never find the smoking gun that can then be used to reconstruct the past.

How much of this has to do with changed morals? Who knows? But if the Bonds saga were a remake of Chariots of Fire, there would be a dramatic scene where Bonds would be sitting in his locker room, looking at his vial of flaxseed/clear or whatever it was, considering the ramifications of even appearing to cheat, and then tossing it into the trash and walking out into field triumphantly. What we’ll have instead is endless punditry on ESPN and Court TV. Stay tuned, or not.

Book Review: The Science of Influence: How to Get Anyone to Say "Yes" in 8 Minutes or Less! by Kevin Hogan

Kevin Hogan is probably a great public speaker and his fees are justified. He is at best, however, a mediocre writer. This book appears to have a lot of useful information that could probably help someone become excellent at influencing others. The problem is that the writing is very choppy and somewhat unstructured. As you read there is no sense of flow or how one section ties in with another. An influence tip is often given without a good example on how to apply it, with the burden of extrapolating the idea left to the reader with a series of questions. The influence "gems" are lost in a writing style that makes it hard to get the point of each bit of advice. This leaves the reader with a sense of needing to go back and put the pieces together on their own, which is ironic because Hogan, in addition to being a teacher of influencing techniques is also supposed to be an expert communicator. One glaring gap is the promise in the books subtitle about influencing someone in 8 minutes or less: nowhere is it spelled out exactly how this is accomplished.

Hogan makes no bones about marketing his online products, particularly tapes which cover the same subject. Is his style meant to leave you hanging and wanting to purchase a DVD set?

Some of his material is taken, and duly credited in the bibliography, from Nobel Lauretes Kahneman and Taversky, as well as the influence expert Robert Cialdini. I would recommend reading these original sources as well.

Book Review: Whose Freedom?: The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea, by George Lakoff

First off, I tend to be conservative on most issues but I like to keep an open mind. I thought I might be persuaded to re-think some issues by a book written by a cognitive scientist who might lay out knowledge and insights backed up by research and scientific experiment. Lakoff's thesis is that people's political, ideological and other perspectives are ultimately shaped by on of two metaphors: the strict father family or the nurturant family metaphor. As I think back about the way I have developed my own views (coming from a strict father family background) and my often times knee-jerk reaction to some issues, I feel that there is a lot of credence to his model. However, I don't believe that the metaphors always trump logic and reason. Many of his statements and claims sound to me like standard left-wing slogans and cliches. Do I see them as that because that is what they are or am I filtering them through my strict father metaphor? I don't think one can assume that the latter is always or predominantly the case. I also wished that Lakoff would come out and state his premises clearly, rather then leave them to be inferred from the text. For example, he states that we humans are animals. Well, this premise obviously has a lot of implications for the arguments that follow, and the conclusions that derive from this premise have nothing to do with a strict father or nurturant family metaphor. This is where I think his arguments get seriously jumbled.

In the end, I find Lakoff's argument that the progessive idea of freedom is equal to the original idea of freedom that built this country unconvincing. His book says, basically, that any desire or want that liberals in general or the Democratic party specifically have, is a freedom tied to the real meaning of freedom. For example: socialized medicine? That's a "freedom to" have access to health care.

I also noted at least one major factual error: the United State's infant mortality rate is nowhere near what he claims it to be. I knew this immediately because I am familiar with that subject matter. Where else are there similar errors?

To be fair, there were some views that I found intriguing and valid. One was Lakoff's description of corporations as functioning in many regards outside the realm of public oversight and regulation, while having as much or greater impact on individuals' lifes than any government agency, in some cases.

It's an intersting book to read but far from the well-reasoned argument one would expected from someone of Lakoff's intellectual and academic caliber.

Random Musings on Baseball and the 2007 Post-season

The temperature at the start of one the games at Colorado was 50 degrees. Game time temperature in Phoenix was 93 degrees. Probably the largest temperature differential ever.

The Rockies regular season was supported in part by Tony Gwynn, Jr's key hit against Trevor Hoffman of the Padres. Hoffman is the all-time saves leader and the Padres were Gwynn, Jr's Hall of Fame father Tony Gwynn, Sr's old team. Interesting how these things happen.

There are enough side stories in the drama that is taking place in the post-season to make all the Yankees-Torre-ARod coverage excessive. For example, the Rockies ascendance from September til last night, when they won the NL Pennant. My favorite sidebar is the return of Kaz Matsui to a level of play and contribution that begins to reflect the kind of player he was in Japan. He went to the Rockies last year from the Mets. Met fans could not have gotten rid of him sooner. He was embraced by Clint Hurdle and went to the minors. Came back in late August and hit well. He has been a key part of the Rockies’ success this year. He scored 84 runs in 104 games, and also stole 32 bases and played solid defense. As a result, Kaz Matsui will get to the World Series before his more famous namesake Hideki Matsui. I’d like to know more about how his resurgence came about, particularly the role that Clint Hurdle played in reigniting him as well as the rest of the team. Of course, you won’t hear about any of this.

Why haven't the big spending teams made it all the way to the World Series? The Yankees didn't and it looks like neither will the Red Sox. Basically, everything changes in the post season because in essence, the post season consists of a second season of at most 19 games for any one team, assuming the Division, League Championship and World Series each go their limit. This second season consists of three mini-seasons comprised of a potential five, seven and seven games apiece. In a five game season, anything can happen. Teams can go 0 and 5 or 5 and 0 and everything in between. The same applies to a seven game season. But to advance to the next round, each team has to basically play .500 ball, plus win one more game. During the course of any 5 or 7 game stretch, virtually any team can accomplish this, from the lowly Devil Rays to the mighty Yankees. Ultimately, the series lengths are great equalizers. Statistically, one could assume that the shorter the series, the greater the equalization factor. Thus, the 1973 Mets beat the Big Red Machine, but were unable to handle the Oakland A's in seven games. The Yankees have similarly been defeated in the first round each year. And, I suppose, that's part of the beauty of the post-season, where the underdog has a decent chance of overcoming the favorite, simply because you are playing a microcosm of the regular season.

If the Rockies and Indians both go to the World Series, their combined payrolls of $116,097,267 will be significantly less than either the Yankees $189,639,045, or the Red Sox $143,026,214, and only slightly above the Mets $115 million plus payroll.

Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony Visit PS 36 in the Bronx

On September 25, 2007 JLo and hubby Marc Anthony visited PS 36 in the Bronx to kick off their new tour and to promote healthy living for kids. The Bronx, in addition to being attached to the mainland, being the third poorest county in the country, and having an avenue named Hoe, is also known as the most obese borough of the City of New York. It was good to see JLo back in the neighborhood, especially encouraging young kids to stay healthy. She and Anthony were greeted by a joyous, screaming mob of elementary school kids, their parents, and neighborhood residents. As an amusing aside, when Marc Anthony met the prinicpal, Ms. Nilda Rivera, he immediately recognized her as one of his elementary school teachers when he was a youngster in Manhattan. The emotion of the day peaked when JLo and Marc Anthony were serenated by the children's choir and both broke into tears. I must say that since the visit, the spirits have been high in the school and I am sure that there will be positive long term effects from their appearance. Kudos to the couple! (See the video clips from their visit to the left of this post).

I Have Discovered Another Irresistible Force

I should be receiving a Noble Prize for this one soon, if not at least a KFC discounts booklet. There is an irresistible force in the universe, stronger than gravity and probably comingling with quantum energy. This irresistible force draws every human who's ever walked by a display cannon to stick his or her head in the barrel. See the incredible photo below for evidence!












As you can see, neither the diameter of the cannon nor the size of the human head can overcome this irresistible force. This chap was outfitted with anti-stickheadincannongear (see small knapsack on back) and was still unable to resist The Force.



















In my early study of this phenomenon, I had presumed that the ratio of height of cannon to height of person would reduce the strength of the Irresistible Force. I was indeed surprised to find that I was wrong, despite the strong mathematical predictions suggesting the opposite.













I had been toiling for over three years studying this freak of nature, as I called it when I initially encountered it, though my mother-in-law thought I was referring to her, which I was, sometimes, when I was informed that an obscure amateur scientist had begun a similar investigation years ago, when the earth was black and white, but failed to proceed further in his studies since he used himself as the cannoneed subject, and furthermore was unawares that the cannon depicted here was not a display cannon but rather a live one that was shortly thereafter employed to distract the enemy's flanks, leaving behind only shreds of experimental notes and an old buy one get one free Dairy Queen coupon.

New MTA Rules Do Not Go far Enough

We are occasionally reminded by the MTA of their new rules of proper subway conduct. Personally, I don’t think they go far enough to address all the serious issues of discomfort that afflict New Yorkers on a daily basis. According to the MTA’s new rules, it is a violation to:

• Jump the turnstile or enter the system improperly, even if your MetroCard is not working properly. Author’s note: there are proper ways to jump a turnstile, the most encouraged one being the Fosbury Flop.

• Refuse to present special fare card to police officer or transit employee. Telling the officer or employer he has three guesses is also a violation.

• Straddle a bicycle, wear in-line or roller skates, stand on a skateboard or ride a scooter. You are, however, allowed to do all five at once.

• Move between end doors of a subway car whether or not train is in motion, except in an emergency or when directed by police officer or conductor (emergencies do not include removing one-self from a malodorous condition because the rider next to you had one too many Gorditas at Taco Bell).

• Place one's foot on the seat of a subway, bus, or platform bench; occupy more than one seat or place bags on an empty seat when doing so would interfere with transit operations or the comfort of other customers. You can place other people‘s feet on a chair so long as it is not inconvenient to them and you agree to meet for drinks at the next stop.

Clearly, these rules do not begin to address the myriad discomforts encountered by subway riders. For starters, the MTA should consider adding the following rules:

• Any idiot playing a computer game at a high volume will have his or her subscription to Loud and Idiotic Video Games cancelled.

• Business people will not be allowed to “talk shop” just because they happen to run into each other on the Number 6. We do not need to hear about how “Bob is clearly not in charge” or how “Jen is in way over her head”.

• Tourists will be banned from acting as if they are on a high speed roller coaster every time a train pulls out of a station.

• Conductors will not be allowed to say that there is a train “directly behind this one” unless they can prove that a train once snuck up on this one from above.

• Conductors will not be allowed to embellish in any way, shape or form the indication of a stop except at the last stop when they will be required to say “Baddee, baddee, baddee, that’s all folks.”

I think these rules are reasonable and should be adopted post-haste by the MTA board or pre-haste before the next threatened strike deadline.

What Would You Do?

The Cardinals are in the heat of the pennant race near the end of the season. They're getting their butts kicked a la Texas Rangers/Baltimore Orioles recently. To get to this point in the race, LaRussa has relied extensively on his bullpen. The bullpen is exhausted, and every reliever has been used at this point. There are two innings left to play. In other similar situations, managers have brought in position players to pitch the final one or two innings. If you are Tony LaRussa, do you bring in Rick Ankiel for the last two innings?

A Dubious Distinction?

About two weeks ago Tom Glavine of the New York Mets joined the 300 wins club. There was a lot of media attention, and the pressure showed on Glavine, the usually stoic-faced starter who played for the Braves before coming to the Mets. Among the issues raised by Glavine's achievement was the possibility that he may be the last 300 game winner. Only a few other pitchers have a slight outside chance of getting there - Randy Johnson and Mike Mussina among them - but given their age and recent downslides probaly won't. After he reached the 300 win milestone, the Mets had a special day at Shea for him, showering him with kudos, including video congratulations from other members of the 300 win club, as well as a variety of gifts, all well deserved for a pitcher who never threw hard but won mostly with guile and intellect.

No one has really paid attention to another "milestone" that Glavine is likely to reach this year: he is 3 wins shy of becoming a 200 game loser. What's just as striking about this "achievement" as the 300 wins is that, along with becoming the last pitcher to win 300, he may also become the last pitcher to lose 200. The next two in line are Roger Clemens at 183 and Jaime Moyer at 174 but it's unlikely that either of these two will pitch long enough to catch up to Glavine, especially Clemens who now only pitches two-thirds of a season after he is lured out of retirement by a record-breaking financial offer.

Will the media trail Glavine from stadium to stadium after he loses number 199? If he loses 200, will the Mets hold a special day at Shea, where he returns the gifts he got for his 300 wins? Will Tom Seaver give a speech and be the first to welcome Glavine to the 200 loss club? This is tongue in cheek, of course, but it's interesting how one pitcher can become the symbol of the way starting pitching has changed in the majors, such that Glavine may become the last man to have enough decisions, i.e. pitch enough good innings for a sufficently long time, to have both 300 wins and 200 loses.

Subway Platform in Need of Repair

My station on the train is the number 6 at Castle Hill Avenue. Over the years, trucks above the clearance limit have banged into the bottom of the platform, at the intersection of Castle Hill Avenue and Westchester Avenue. The pictures below show the damage that the supporting beams under the platform have sustained: many are bent, some are entirely missing. You can also notice the signifcant rusting of the beams. The trucks continue to bang into or scrape along the supporting beam, probably on a weekly basis. I've witnessed this many times myself.



I was told by an MTA worker recently that the whole line in the area is scheduled for major repairs. Perhaps they should begin sooner. I'm not an engineer, but after what happened in Minnesota, I think it would be prudent to quickly inspect the platform and make necessary repairs as soon as possible.