Good Versus Evil
by Tom Piatak
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
The upcoming American League playoffs represent as clear a case of good against evil as we generally get. On the side of good, there are the Cleveland Indians. On the side of evil, there are the New York Yankees (whom the Indians will play in the first playoff series), the Boston Red Sox, and the Los Angeles Angels. In fact, the Indians might be seen as the paleoconservatives of the postseason, with the other teams akin to the neocons or the left.
First of all, like The Rockford Institute, the Indians are thrifty, stretching the dollar far more than the other teams they will or might face. The Indians total payroll is $61,289,667, the seventh lowest in the majors. Since the Indians (along with the Red Sox) lead the American League with 96 wins, that means the Indians have spent $638,434 per win. By contrast, the Yankees’ bloated payroll of $195,229,045 means that they have paid $2,079,905 per win, the Red Sox $143,123,714 payroll translates into $1,490,872 per win, and the Angels $109,251,333 payroll translates into $1,162,248 per win. The three highest paid Yankees make $72,737,096 per year, more than all the Indians put together, and the top four Red Sox make roughly what all the Indians do. In fact, the Indians’ Fausto Carmona, who is second in the American League with 19 wins and a 3.06 ERA, makes a comparatively modest $387,000 per year. Unsurprisingly, the Indians roster is devoid of prima donnas or jerks.
Second, the Indians are, like The Rockford Institute, firmly entrenched in the heartland. By contrast, the Yankees hail from the home of the UN and Rudy Giuliani, the Red Sox from the land of Harvard and the Kennedys, and the Angels from the depraved precincts of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
Third, the Indians, like all paleoconservatives, annoy the media. You can bet the TV commentators and executives will be rooting for the big market teams to win the American League, not the Tribe. Indeed, if you go to many sports websites, or even political ones like NRO, you get the impression that baseball begins and ends in New York and Boston. Certainly, baseball chatter at NRO is devoted almost exclusively to the Yankees and Red Sox, with an occasional mention of the Mets.
Finally, there’s the matter of tradition. Paleoconservatives believe in tradition, and so do the Indians. The Indians rely far more on their farm system and less on pricey, arrogant free agents, as good baseball teams used to do. And they have clung to their politically incorrect nickname and mascot, despite the pressure of leftist agitators who ludicrously described Chief Wahoo, in the Michigan Daily during my law-school days, as a “snarling Native American head.” So put on your Chief Wahoo cap and root for Middle America’s team in October!
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by R.Scott on 2 October 2007:
Mr. Piatak’s argument may have some merit, but baseball loyalties are and should be based on childhood affinities. I spent a good part of my younger days growing up in New England, and though I despise the ridiculously corrupt and immoral political climate there (I left N.E. years ago) I will always be a Red Sox fan. Sorry Tom, but I’m putting on my BoSox cap and rooting for another Red Sox/Yankee championship series.
2 Comment by robert reavis on 2 October 2007:
Give’em hell Tom !! Money can’t buy’em love. Another thing I admire about them Indians is that Stan Waite and his folks fought right along side General Sterling Price and Rooster Cogburn over here in the hills of Pea Ridge Arkansas a long long time ago when them damn Yankees was snoopen around way back then. Go Indians whip them Yankees agin. rr
3 Comment by Tom Piatak on 2 October 2007:
Mr. Scott,
I agree about the importance of childhood loyalties, which is why I root for the Indians. But for all Chronicles readers without childhood loyalties to the Yankees, Red Sox, or Angels, I think the choice should be clear.
4 Comment by Daniel on 2 October 2007:
Sorry, but they are still from Cleveland.
The Pirates will do it next year though!
5 Comment by Bernie on 2 October 2007:
The Indians also start a mostly white team while the Yankees only start 2-3 whites (because of racism).
6 Comment by CanadianObserver on 2 October 2007:
“the Angels from the depraved precincts of Hollywood and the entertainment industry.”
When the Anaheim Angels were in the World Series they tried without much success to get fashionable Hollywood-types to go to the games. Apparently Anaheim was handicapped due to an unhip suburban white middle class image. Maybe that’s why they now have ‘Los Angeles’ in the team’s name.
7 Comment by Art Oberbeck on 2 October 2007:
Ever since I can remember, I wanted to see a great game, and didn’t usually have a “favorite” team. Unless it was baseball. I grew up in New Jersey in the ’70’s and played little league, and somehow my one childhood loyalty was with the Yankees. I can name the starting ‘77 team, and cried when I heard Thurmon Munson was killed. They became the only team, in any sport, that I have become an unrelenting fan of (except USA in the Olympics).
Two years ago I relented. They were not a team to be loyal to, and I cheered when they lost to Boston. I had enough. I am no longer a Yankee fan.
8 Comment by Phil E on 2 October 2007:
I’m with Mr. Scott. I grew up in the Bay State, but I make no apologies for it: it would be desperately unconservative to cleave (hah!) myself from the land of my upraising and to wish to have been born somewhere else. Good for Mr. Piatak, though, to point out the absurd and disgraceful economic disparities in the game. The Yankees are so far beyond what everyone else spends, but when you bring this up in polite company it’s like talking about race or some other Unmentionable. On another note, if the Yanks do make it to the World Series, they will have done it with a bullpen that for much of the season was the worst in the league. “Good pitching beats good hitting”? Well, often, but when you can buy the best bats in baseball, the assumptions break down a bit.
9 Comment by robert reavis on 2 October 2007:
Mr. Oberbeck,
That is a sad story you posted but I understand it. Mick Mantle grew up around here and I played little league and Babe Ruth baseball with two of his cousins. Billy Martin would make visits back to Oklahoma in his older age, and was still a handful in any local bar he visited. But there isn’t anything left to honor when the Faustian bargain is not only tolerated behind the scenes, but is now foisted upon the fans and promoted however un–gloriously as “America’s real past time.”
10 Comment by Harry Wisniewski on 2 October 2007:
Mr. Piatak,
While I would be much happier to have the Detroit Tigers back in the playoffs, I do find myself hoping your Indians win.
A few interesting tid bits.
Only one Tiger lives in the metro Detroit area all year long. About 10 players who have played for the Tigers this year live in Venezuela or the Dominican Republic – so as we complain about imported cars we import players.
After Magglio Ordonez won the battle title Sunday Venezuelan strong man Hugo Chavez called our outfield to congratulate him.
We’ve gone from having the wonderful Georgia Peach (Ty Cobb), the Mechanical Man (Detroit area native Charlie Gehringer), the wonder of Baltimore (Al Kaline), to someone Hugo Chavez calls. Are these still my Tigers?
11 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 2 October 2007:
Sadly I grew up in Rochester, New York, and if I did not root for the Yankees, I would not be allowed to claim that as my home.
But I do agree with the mercenary factor. The Yankees do not deserve much of the success they have had–even if I am glad that they have it–and I would definitely welcome a restriction of recruitment to universities within geographic territories. That would be a small step toward restoring a shred of integrity to professional sports.
12 Comment by Jimmy on 3 October 2007:
I also dislike this narrow minded approach of good vs. evil. It’s unintelligible.
However, let’s look at the deeper source of it all. Why did neoconservatives wanted to distinguish so sharply between these two forces?
I think it was a reaction to the extreme relativism of the nihilists and the postmodernists, who could never see good or evil in anything. Neoconservatives did not agree, they argued that there was such a thing as real evil and therefore it must be resisted and fought. In my opinion, neoconservative absolutism is in part a reaction towards relativism. A sort of a counter-’ism’, to correct an ill ‘ism’ for a better one — Rand’s objectivism is another example.
They hated communism and totalitarianism quite justifiably. However, when these things disappeared from the world in their former threatening way, they focused upon new enemies to fit their neoconservative ideology. The constant need and hunt for evil, to distinguish themselves as ‘the good’. They saw evil in Milosevic, Saddam, now Iran and God knows who else. Just look at the book titles “Good vs. Evil”, “The terror masters”, “WWIV”, on and on.
Like all ‘isms’ and ideologies, neoconservatives stumbled upon reality. If the neoconservative ideology should learn us anything, it’s two things; 1) relativism breeds countermovements like absolutism and therefore dangers of narrow mindedness and 2) all ‘isms’ fail sooner or later. Too bad they never fail without softly.
The only people who can explain neoconservatives the philosophical shortcomings of their worldview are the paleocons (and maybe the libertarians.) The paleocons don’t believe in ‘isms’ of any kind.
13 Comment by Kevin on 3 October 2007:
The Red Sox have valiantly waged war against the Evil Empire for generations and are the chosen team for all reactionaries. The Indians on the hand are the team for lefties that love rooting for
p.c. victims.
14 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 3 October 2007:
“The paleocons don’t believe in ‘isms’ of any kind.”
Then I’m not a “paleocon,” because in some languages the Christian religion is described with an “ism” rather than “ity.”
Some things are good and some are clearly evil. Where the neocons were presumptuous was in demanding they be seen as righteous against the clearly evil communists, when in fact they were only less evil.
15 Comment by Jeff on 3 October 2007:
I will root for the Indians this time in the playoffs, although I’ve never rooted for them before. My boyhood teams were the Dodgers and the Angels, but after moving to Dallas 15 years ago I feel no connection to them. When in doubt, I do usually root for the sports team that is farthest away from New York, but I will make an exception this time with the paleo Indians.
16 Comment by Robert on 3 October 2007:
An amusing tongue-in-cheek piece gets promptly pounced on by a humorless fanatic (pun intended) hell-bent on mangling it to his own purpose. Thanks a lot, Jimmy
17 Comment by Red Phillips on 3 October 2007:
Real men prefer football and ultimate fighting. Baseball is for girlie men who weren’t good enough to play football, but had too much self-respect to play soccer.
18 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 3 October 2007:
Yeah, football is for real men who can’t stand to play rugby without slapping on a whole load of pads.
19 Comment by Steve Berg on 3 October 2007:
Down with Yankee Imperialism!
20 Comment by Harry Wisniewski on 3 October 2007:
Baseball is game of patience, subtlety, and some intelligence and refinement. Football is a missed named game full of undisciplined dullards.
21 Comment by Tony Wawrzynski on 3 October 2007:
From the vantage point of this rather casual fan, it seems that the Indians are somewhat more decent than your average professional sports team. One example: several weeks ago, the third basemen , Casey Blake, apologized to the opposing team for what he felt in retrospect might have been a somewhat over the top celebration after hitting a game winning homerun. Neither the manager, nor anyone else thought his enthusiasim was excessive in the least. It is a small matter, perhaps, but probably indicative of an admirable trait.
Go Tribe!
22 Comment by John Willson on 3 October 2007:
All of the American games are worthy and honorable sports. Baseball, football and basketball were also all invented in New England, which should say something about where the loyalty of conservatives should lie. This debate about the (Latin) American League playoffs should include a couple of facts: the Indians have more south-of-the-border players than the other three teams (by a considerable number, the Yankees being second), and almost all professional athletes, coaches, managers, owners, etc. are whores–they play for the money, and go where the money is. Likewise, most Americans are migrants, and change loyalties as they change jobs and change cities. I grew up in western New York rooting for the Brooklyn Dodgers (I still hate them for moving) and the St. Louis Cardinals (because the Rochester Red Wings were a Cardinals farm club); later I lived in St. Louis and became a devoted follower of Bob Gibson; for thirty-two years I have been a Michigander with a great appreciation for old-timey managers Sparky Anderson and Jim Leyland. It’s the real baseball guys we should like–which is one reason the Indians are so effective: the Latins play fundamental baseball, the way the game should be played. But for them to represent the paleos in this post-season? It’s a big stretch, even if the stretching is the tongue doing the cheek.
23 Comment by Red Phillips on 3 October 2007:
“Football is a missed named game full of undisciplined dullards.”
Envy is such an ugly emotion.
24 Comment by robert reavis on 3 October 2007:
Coach Parcell, Super Bowl football guru both girth and accomplishment, has admitted publicly to his friend, Bob Knight, that basketball is king of amateur sports in America.
No time outs between plays, no huddles, no grown men running the sidlenes with electronic head gear shouting at each other over the wire, just gymnastic art in motion. Intelligence vs athletic skill at the collegiate level of basketball ( the semi- amateur level ) is what 4 is to 1 in mathmatics. Witness Pete Carroll and the Princeton offense, Bob Knight and the motion offense or man to man defense. The closest thing that sport has raised to the level of a musical art, that we Americans possess. THE NBA is not a sport , it’s a nest of jackels parading as hollywood actors that only attempt playing the game after the play offs begin. Baseball is a close second . Rugby and soccer are beautiful but not really american sports, although soccer may be in another generation ot two. Cheers and Pace to my otherwise admired blogger –Red ? –I’d Rather Be Dead — Phillips.
25 Comment by Teresa in New York on 3 October 2007:
LET’S GO, YANKEES!!!
26 Comment by Jimmy on 3 October 2007:
@Robert
Sorry…
27 Comment by Aldebanlohoperaldi Huffghaffson on 4 October 2007:
George Will or as I like to call him George Willing wherein selling out to establishment of neocons and their cousins the leftists is concerned – presumed to write a book about baseball which i hope no one bought. That would be like asking George to comment about beer. Hard liquor is enjoyed by the wealthy and over-educated (which means brainwashed in all the wrong ways) because it makes them feel like God or in other words blasphemous. Whereas beer is simply proof God loves us. Perhaps, let’s hope – in this regard a Christian virtue, God loves the Indians this year as well! … On the other side of the proverbial fence ironically are all the heathens taking their scalps…especially the heathens of the Monolithic media.
28 Comment by Boyan K. on 4 October 2007:
17 Red Phillips
Real men prefer football and ultimate fighting. Baseball is for girlie men who weren’t good enough to play football, but had too much self-respect to play soccer.
___________________________
___________________________
Real men do prefer football, no doubt. By “football”, I mean that wonderful, globally recognized team sport of great tradition and legendary status. Not the North American misnamed game
(the rest of the world calls it “American football”, FYI) where two groups of funnily dressed grown-ups are jumping onto each other 
PS No offense, please. I’m completely clueless on American football, and would not have interrupted the conversation of the home team by any chance. But, someone just had to defend the real football’s honor.
.
Anyway, loyalty to a sport team is an important part of every man’s life. It’s interesting to learn (on this thread), that supporting one’s favorite team hardly differs anywhere. It’s only that we (the football-supporting world) are playing the real thing
, that’s the difference.
29 Comment by Jimmy on 4 October 2007:
Socces is way cooler then football. Topsport #1 in the world.
30 Comment by Tom Piatak on 4 October 2007:
Prof. Willson is right that all the American games are worthy and honorable sports. In fact, as I argued in my Chronicles review of a book on Notre Dame football, attachment to these American games is part of the American identity. (Football is actually my favorite spectator sport, owing largely to the fact that the Browns of my youth were competitive and the Indians were not. And northeast Ohio has historically been prime football country, which is one reason the Pro Football Hall of Fame is in Canton)/
It may interest Prof. Willson to know that Jim Leyland of the Tigers had this to say about the Indians, during the last series between the teams this year, after Casey Blake pumped his arm running the bases after a crucial home run: “Casey Blake and the entire Cleveland team is a class act,” Leyland said. “I don’t have any problem with that. I’d have celebrated, too. Nobody on the Cleveland club I’ve ever seen be offensive to the other team, ever. That doesn’t bother me at all.”
Leyland is right about the Indians being a “class act.” Let me give just one example of why I like these Indians: C C Sabathia is having a tremendous year, and should be a leading contender for the Cy Young Award. He’s won 19 games, but he could have easily won 25 if the Indians had not been pathetic offensively for an extended part of the season. But Sabathia has never complained about the lack of offense or whined about how the hitters were hurting his stats. He just kept doing all he could to help the team win, and has made it clear he is more interested in team victories than personal ones.
As for the Red Sox, though, we must part company. I loved the Red Sox of Carl Yastrzemski and Carlton Fisk, and rooted for the Red Sox against the Mets in 1986. But today’s Red Sox, with their bloated payroll, are just like the Yankees, and their fans’ sense of whiny entitlement is, if anything worse. Having to listen to all the Red Sox fans whine about the”curse of the Bambino” the year they won the Series–ignoring all the Super Bowls, NBA Championships, and NHL Championships Boston has won–turned me against the Red Sox and their fans permanently.
31 Comment by rick on 4 October 2007:
Tom,if you think about it the Red Socks are the real “yankees”
32 Comment by Harry Wisniewski on 4 October 2007:
C.C. Sabathia – the Tigers radio announcers have suggested he change his name to C.Y. Sabathia (Cy Young Award). I am most impressed that he has pitched so many innings – a rare accomplishment in baseball today.
33 Comment by Red Phillips on 4 October 2007:
Boyan K.,
It is perfectly acceptable for men to like soccer … as long as they are not from America. Preference for soccer among red-blooded American males is a sure sign of subversive tendencies. Similar to prefering extra crispy to original recipe. That just ain’t right.
34 Comment by CanadianObserver on 4 October 2007:
By “football”, I mean that wonderful, globally recognized team sport of great tradition and legendary status. Not the North American misnamed game (the rest of the world calls it “American football”, FYI)
‘Football’ includes rugby union, rugby league, association football (soccer), Aussie rules, Gaelic football, and North American gridiron. All these football codes of the English-speaking world have the same roots. I wouldn’t expect a non-Anglo-Celt/Saxon to know much about our sports – what sports have Serbs/Croats invented? – but it is only fair that if we invent sports we can call them what we like in our own countries. The sport of American football is not misnamed as it is one of the football codes played on foot as opposed to horseback, using just a ball, no racquet or bat. I believe the sport originally involved more foot and ball contact but that changed as it evolved.
Given how dominated baseball is by foreign elements maybe Americans should return to their Anglo-Saxon roots and start playing cricket again as George Washington is said to have done with his troops at Valley Forge.
35 Comment by Tom Piatak on 4 October 2007:
Red,
Soccer is the metric system in short pants. It is being promoted in this country by the same sort of globalists who tried to foist kilometers and centigrade on us, until patriots started filling all the signs in kilometers with buckshot.
I can tolerate soccer (barely) as a participant sport for little kids, but as a spectator sport it is an abomination and a threat to all that is good and true.
36 Comment by Red Phillips on 4 October 2007:
“I can tolerate soccer (barely) as a participant sport for little kids, but as a spectator sport it is an abomination and a threat to all that is good and true.”
Amen! Preach it. If you think about it, there is a reason soccer is a sport often played by little kids. Because kids can easily understand it.
I trust you are an Original Recipe man as well. Extra Crispy is a Communist plot.
37 Comment by Tom Piatak on 4 October 2007:
Yes, it’s Original Recipe for me.
38 Comment by Boyan K. on 4 October 2007:
@ Red Phillips
Hear ya
. It is funny that I just recently discovered that there is such a thing as the American football in (non-English) Europe, where my country is being represented through the national team. And the whole scene is doing fine, the matches and everything. They’ll hardly make it a full-time job over here, though, at least in a forseeable future; there’s nothing wrong with any discipline, of course, it’s just that the widely recognized team sports have already fulfilled the role of becoming the part of nations’ “athletic worldviews”. As for those subversive elements of yours 
, you might be interested in hearing that they are doin’ just fine, internationally. The US football team has been one the greatest surprizes of the last two world championships (2002 and 2006). Until then, they used to be mostly the joke, as far as I can tell.
Seriuosly, my “complaint” was just an (benevolent, of course) answer to your reference on football (or “soccer”) as a “girly” sport, which it most certainly is not. Anyhow, football is as opposed to “girly” as anything can be. Heck, our women can’t even stand the thing
PS And if there is anything like a common ground between Europe and America in sports, it would un doubtedly be the basketball.
39 Comment by Boyan K. on 4 October 2007:
@ Red Phillips
Hear ya
. It is funny that I just recently discovered that there is such a thing as the American football in (non-English) Europe, where my country is being represented through the national team. And the whole scene is doing fine, the matches and everything. They’ll hardly make it a full-time job over here, though, at least in a forseeable future; there’s nothing wrong with any discipline, of course, it’s just that the widely recognized team sports have already fulfilled the role of becoming the part of nations’ “athletic worldviews”. As for those subversive elements of yours 
, you might be interested in hearing that they are doin’ just fine, internationally. The US football team has been one the greatest surprizes of the last two world championships (2002 and 2006). Until then, they used to be mostly the joke, as far as I can tell.
Seriuosly, my “complaint” was just an (benevolent, of course) answer to your reference on football (or “soccer”) as a “girly” sport, which it most certainly is not. Anyhow, football is as opposed to “girly” as anything can be. Heck, our women can’t even stand the thing
PS And if there is anything like a common ground between Europe and America in sports, it would undoubtedly be the basketball.
40 Comment by Boyan K. on 4 October 2007:
@ ConcernedCanadianCitizen (#34)
Oh, come on now, you’re not being serious, are you? I jokingly referred to the longtime controversy on football/soccer, to a participant who got the point. No offense-non taken. And here you are, ready to hamper me in an utterly subversive act of linguistic rip-off, wisely counting my (non-Anglo-Celt/Saxon) erythrocytes and leukocytes
. Relax, man, both “foot” and “ball” are safe and sound as far as I’m concerned. As for the Serbs/Croats-didn’t-know-how-to-throw-the-ball-prank, what in the world can I tell? Witty as it is, it’s just screaming for some (equally pointless) answer, like “if there wasn’t for my fellow Serb, Nikola Tesla, you’d be freezin’ in the dark tundra now, so there wouldn’t be any Superbowl-watchin’ for ya”. So, there you have it. Sounds stupid, right? Now, one serious question, if I’m permitted: according to your theory (“Anglo-Celt/Saxon”, “foreign elements in baseball”, etc.), that wop Joe DiMaggio could go back to his (non-Anglo-Celt/Saxon) greaseball land, right? Not to mention that Rusky (or Polak, or whatever he is) Wayne Gretzky. So, what would happen to all those members of second, third, fifth or sixth generation of, say, Serbian (Croat, Italian, Turkish, Polish, Japanese…whatever) Americans, who are, as the rest of their compatriots, clueless about any form of non-American sports (admired in the country of their forefathers’ origin), but, alas, they evidently lack the proper amount of Anglo-Celt/Saxon drops in their blood? Would they be allowed to watch or play, say, baseball, or the daily share of soccer in the ghetto is the best they could expect, in that cute little utopia of yours?
And, for the record: I wasn’t correcting anyone’s English. Even if the participants here were not so articulate in written form as they evidently are, I (a foreigner, a guest and an occasional participant) would be the last person on Earth to do such an insulting thing on foreign language-forum, for cryin’ out loud. So, please, don’t accuse me for something I haven’t done.
41 Comment by CanadianObserver on 4 October 2007:
Boyan, my reference to ‘foreign elements’ was in reaction to news that baseball is increasingly dominated by presumably non-white Hispanics from Latin America. (Despite cricket’s popularity with over a billion on the Indian subcontinent Australia with fewer than 20 million people and even smaller white South Africa have consistently wiped the floor with the Asian teams for decades. The US didn’t even make the semi-finals of the World Baseball Classic.)
As for ‘wops’ and for that matter Serbs and Croats in North America, as long as they don’t embrace multicultural victimology and respect the heritage of their Anglo hosts I have no problem with them. They are white and Christian and thus preferable to most of the immigrants we get these days.
Since Toronto got its own soccer team – Toronto FC, as in ‘Football Club’ – and with soccer taking off in North America I’m bored with foreigners telling us how the rest of the world calls it football (which, incidentally, is not exactly true) and that the rest of us should follow their example. They also keep telling us that because soccer is the most popular sport in the world we should (apparently) ditch our own sports and conform. That’s a bit like saying because Hollywood makes the most popular movies and McDonald’s is the most popular restaurant, the rest of the world should give up their own movies and cuisine and embrace Brad Pitt and Big Macs! Soccer is to sport what McDonalds is to food.
I say the more popular something is and the more international its appeal the more likely it is to be worthless trash.
BTW Gretzky is Ukrainian.
42 Comment by R.Scott on 4 October 2007:
Mr. Piatak’s dig about Red Sox “fans’ sense of whiny entitlement” may have more to do with the current over-exposure of the Sox-Yankee rivalry (most of it deserved because it IS the best in baseball) and the attendant sprouting of frontrunners who only follow winners no matter where they’re from (at the Indians-Yankees game tonight Craig Saiger sat next to LeBron James and called him a front-runner because LeBron, who is from Ohio, is a fan of the Yankees, the Bulls, and the Cowboys! “Props” to Sager for challenging LeBron’s lack of shame.)
As for New England’s “ignoring all the Super Bowls, NBA Championships, and NHL Championships Boston has won” after “having to listen to all the Red Sox fans whine about the”curse of the Bambino” the year they won the Series “, I have to say Mr. Piatak has the wrong idea about the average fan from New England. Real Red Sox fans hate the whole “Curse of the Bambino” mythology, a storyline which is often used to taunt Sox fans. Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe shamelessy dredged this nonsense to national prominence. The Boston sports media is the most ruthless {no pun intended} in the country. NFL Championships? Other than our current run of good fortune, we have suffered greatly over the decades, just like the Bengals. I can’t apologize for the Celtics success, but it should be noted that the Celts haven’t won a title since 1986. The Bruins haven’t won the Stanley Cup since 1972.
I know the Red Sox have a lot of money to spend, but a lot of the Sox’ money is new because of their recent success, and they are spending it accordingly. Baseball has always been about the have and the have nots. How else do you explain the New York teams of the 40s and 50s dominating the sport. The teams with the most money had the best farm systems and signed the best talent. Free agency is just a different spin on an old story. Until baseball institutes a salary cap and real revenue sharing like the NFL, there will always be a “second division”. By the way, Alex Rodriguez is going to look good in a Red Sox uniform.
43 Comment by Michael Averko on 5 October 2007:
Like I said at other venues: prior to ‘04, if not still in the present, I’ve always seen the Red Sox as kind of like Russia. Great teams that never quite made it to the top, as in never full filling its potential. Like Russia, the Red Sox have a proud history going back a ways. With the Red Sox, it was the early part of the 20th century, with Russia having Kievan Rus, along with a good stretch or two during the Romanov era (putting aside some of the left propaganda to the contrary).
44 Comment by Tom Piatak on 5 October 2007:
Indians 2, Yeankes 0. A rare example of justice being done.
45 Comment by Mickey Droney on 5 October 2007:
In my estimation, baseball requires more skill than any other game. Hitting a baseball is, arguably, the most difficult aspect of any sport. If you succeed 30% of the time, you are a star. Could you hit a 90mph slider, let alone throw one?
46 Comment by Nicholas G.P. MOSES on 5 October 2007:
I can see Dr. Phillips’ point, but for those of us who are not Deep Southerners, a bit of European subversion is just the medicine for deracinated American culture.
47 Comment by Tom Abts on 6 October 2007:
Mr. Droney is correct – hitting a baseball requires a lot of skill. In fact, playing baseball requires a lot of skills – hitting, throwing, catching a ball, running, and good reflexes. Usually baseball players are good at other sports – when I was in high school, our baseball team included the captains of the other sports: football, soccer, basketball, hockey, and wrestling.
48 Comment by Aldebanlohoperaldi Huffghaffson on 7 October 2007:
a distant bell
and stars that fell
and rain out of the blue
then my life is through -
and the angels ask me to recall
the thrill of them all
then i shall tell them
i remember you
…funny…
I hear you guys but you tend to be THAT romantic about the ’slightly’ wrong stuff… AND so, be that romatic about that–BUT especially about your Own…kids, wife, husband…relatives…and friends & community. LOOK around – if – don’t have that (and you don’t for the most part) you’re LOST, sadly – REALLY. Get IT. Period.
Otherwise … so you Know at this point – i say it not sadistically – but because at this point it’s salutary For you to know – you’re Yet NOT sufficently civilized.
And what is more the essence of love than civil behaviour. -Jane Austen
blesses…
you’re THERE – even MORE than the forces NOT wanting to be There -where You are. Don’t let them prevail against you… wuv,
Reality
____________________________________
49 Comment by John Willson on 7 October 2007:
Well, Tom Piatak must be pleased with the playoffs so far. The National League has produced two winners NOBODY could root for (except the retired people who live in the desert and the chi-chi set who go to the mountains). At least the Chicago designer-baseball Cubs have gone down again. The (Latin) American League looks more and more like a showdown between the two teams that have a real claim on conservatives: Middle America versus Fenway. Despite the fact that the Jake is a wonderful example of post-modern baseball architecture, there is nothing quite like Fenway. And despite the “bloated” Boston payroll (which the Indians will have next year, or they will have many fewer players very soon), we (meaning real conservatives) must put our hearts and souls behind whoever wins the “junior circuit.”
50 Comment by Rick Johnson on 8 October 2007:
Problem with Indians is that they are members of that faux baseball league that uses the gimmick of the Designated Hitter rule allegedly to make the game more exciting. Only National League teams are true to tradition, and hence deserve loyalty from Paleos. Of all the major sports, Baseball has the deepest traditions, and performances are intensely measured and compared with the past. The DH rule, ball design tinkering, and performance enhancing drugs and contrivances have threatened to sever the current sport from its past. MLB executives, owners, GMs and Managers have acquiesced in this degeneration. MLB is a perfect example of the greed before everything modern American culture. Current enthusiasm is a mile wide but only an inch deep.
51 Comment by Tom Piatak on 8 October 2007:
Bring on the Red Sox!
52 Comment by Tom Piatak on 8 October 2007:
An added benefit to the Indians winning tonight was that the darling of the neocons, thepro-abortion, pro-gay rights adulterer and former mayor of a sanctuary city, Rudy Giuliani, was in attendance. He did leave his dress and makeup behind for this public appearance. Maybe he was sharing those with another Yankees fan, Hillary Clinton, whose enthusiasm for the Yankees is as sincere as every other aspect of her public persona.
53 Comment by Mickey Droney on 9 October 2007:
Tom,
You are correct, but you forgot: pro-”Sanctuary City”, pro-illegal immigration, pro-leviathan, anti-2nd amendment, etc…
54 Comment by Boyan K. on 9 October 2007:
@CanadianObserver (#41)
Yes, I think I’ve already got the meaning of your “foreign elements”-reference (as little as I’m informed on baseball, I know it’s pretty big in several countries of Central and South America). I’ve just took it as an illustration of your, somehow inadequate, use of that (Anglo-Celt/Saxon) part. My point was that the national term “American” is hardly synonymous with such an – purely ethnic – identity as Anglo-Saxon/Celtic. Thus my mentioning of DiMaggio and Gretzky (who is Canadian, all right, but you get the point). And I could have gone on and on with famous American/Canadian athletes of different (Italian, African, Serbian… just name it) heritages. That’s all I was trying to say.
Of course, if you honestly believe that all your countrymen of non-Anglo-Saxon (/Celtic, right) descents should be paying daily acts of obligatory genuflection to their “Anglo hosts”, that’s between you and them. Though, I doubt that you’ll be in agreement with many of your fellow Canadians, no matter what color, creed or ethnicity they belong to. Your group arrived there a bit earlier than some other groups did (the same goes for the French portion of Canada), but with just enough time to shape the countries in its own fashion (language, legal system, culture…), which the following waves of the newcomers, as far as I know, willingly embraced as a key part of their new identity. Which is all fine, and is a fact which I don’t think anyone could seriously question. On the other hand, you’re not some landlord in medieval England, who can afford treating his (non-Anglo) countrymen like some serfs who must express their lifelong gratitude to his hospitality and kindness. They’ve chosen to live in America/Canada, they pledge their national and political loyalty to these countries, not to their former homelands (or the ones of their forefathers). They pay their taxes, die in the wars their countries wage… Like it or not, they’re not some delinquent trespassers in your backyard. They are compatriots of yours, who share the common identity, but have the rights of preserving their own cultural traditions (for themselves, of course) as long as they like. But, since I’m not an American/Canadian (nor I plan to become one, fear not
), I would prefer not to discuss this subject any further. Neither I would have brought it up in the first place.
As for the sports, I wholeheartedly share the notion that they represent a part of modern identity of any nation and any culture. Which makes the state of overwhelming dislike of football (soccer) in North America perfectly understandable (believe me,some sudden impact of American football’s popularity in any European country would cause the same kind of reactions as the most
) . On the other hand, the thing with sports is not in preservation but in competition. The more “global” it gets, the more successful it feels. We could like it or not (for the record, I’m not too keen on globalization either), but it does not change that fact. For example, we all profited from global spreading of, say, martial arts, don’t you agree? Of course, the rest of the world can always say “take your aikido home, you Japs, we wanna preserve our traditional art of good ol’ fist-fighting in a crowded bar” 
, but the whole culture of the Far Eastern martial arts had had a considerable impact to the very concept of self-defense. We cannot just pretend it didn’t happen.
comments on this forum, only vice versa
Again, Mr. Piatak, my apologies on the off-topic. I’ve just seen the CanadianObserver’s comments on my previous post, and wanted to explain some of my views. That’s all, as far as I’m concerned.
55 Pingback by Eunomia · The Rockies on 21 October 2007:
[...] On the other side, I do hope that the Indians finally prevail in the AL, because the only thing as obnoxious as a satisfied Yankee fan is a proud Red Sox fan. Also, as Tom Piatak has explained, the Indians represent the forces of good fighting against those of evil. [...]
56 Comment by Kevin on 21 October 2007:
“Bring on the Red Sox!” You got ‘em!
All true paleos should love the Red Sox for it is they who have buried an Empire and relegated the Yankees to just another bad memory of the 20th Century.
Red Sox Nation salutes the valiant Indians and wishes them well as they build for the future. This experience will prove helpful the next time around. You have the consolation of knowing Navajo, Jacoby Ellsbury will continue to make Native Americans proud in the World Series.
Fenway. October. Glorious.
57 Comment by John Willson on 22 October 2007:
I watched sadly, Tom, as the silliest closer I have ever seen shut down the midwest. Ferocious pitchers have been in Cardinal, Yankee, Oakland and other uniforms, but Mr. Papelbon, trying to look mean, seemed more like one of the late Jim Henson’s Muppets. I will still cheer for the Bostons; Mr. Becket is the best pitcher around this year, Fenway is Fenway, and Big Poppy is a gracious man.
58 Comment by Paul Ridenour on 1 May 2008:
> on 02 Oct 2007 at 3:54 pm2robert reavis
Give’em hell Tom !! Money can’t buy’em love. Another thing I admire about them Indians is that Stan Waite and his folks fought right along side General Sterling Price and Rooster Cogburn over here in the hills of Pea Ridge Arkansas a long long time ago when them damn Yankees was snoopen around way back then. Go Indians whip them Yankees agin. rr
The correct spelling of Stan Waite’s name is Stand Watie.