The Poor, Inflated Middle Class

In this particular entry I'd like to share some thoughts on something that I've been thinking about for a couple of years now: The poor, inflated middle class. With "poor," and possibly "inflated," containing meaning on multiple levels.

-------------

I'll start with a personal story. I just bought a car. After driving my '85 Toyota for about eight years, it was finally time to move on. Now I'm a poor graduate student, an exploited laborer, and I'm okay with that. It's just part of the deal. Despite this, though, I still need some wheels. Not that I drive very often, but considering I live in the middle of nowhere, transportation is at times necessary. The old Camry filled the bill perfectly for a long while. But, sadly, she's just about dead. I wanted a dependable car. Something that, given the proper maintenance, wouldn't let me down any time soon. I looked at a Golf, but they have some pretty bad reviews: fragile, poor part quality, great mileage though, but didn't quite fill the bill. Looked at another (newer) Camry - too expensive for what I could afford (surprisingly - though I should mention that my selection was limited. This was a rush job as I'm visiting my family for the holidays, and my car broke down while away from home, so I need a new one before I leave. As if more stress were something I wanted out of this season ). I'll cut to the chase: I ended up buying an entry level, 2001 German-brand car. Good, dependable car (cheap price thanks to the fact it was a repo) that I don't have to worry about being stranded with as long as I do my part as an owner.

I didn't buy this car because it was a fancy-schmantzy German chick-magnet. On the contrary, I actually feel a little (or a lot) irresponsible for buying it. But the fact is that this car was the best quality vehicle I could get while remaining within my modest price range. As I strapped in to drive it home I wrapped my fingers around the leather steering wheel, fiddled with the climate control, and struggled (read: failed) to turn the radio on )because I couldn't figure out the anti-theft device that rendered it inoperative) I started wondering why so many bells and whistles were so necessary. For the last eight years my car had no amenities beyond power steering (not even a radio, and only one hub cap). Heck, I didn't even have a working defrost until two winters ago, and I was happy about it. In fact, I straight up miss the Camry, my stomach is in a little bit of a knot just thinking about the fact that it'll soon be donated. All I wanted in a new(er) car was something that wouldn't die on me. I got that, but I also got a whole lot more. And why?

The answer is that the United States is based on a bloated, fictional middle class, and it's killing this country. The elite in this country is so tiny that everyone that is not destitute is shoved in to this "middle class" category. Growing up I was well cared for, never destitute, and I know my parents and their parents before them considered themselves middle class. Okay, that's fine. But my best friend growing up came from a family who also considered themselves middle class, and there was a huge difference in economic status. We lived in a trailer park (albeit, a nice one) until I was four years old, then moved in to a nice single story home in town, while my friend lived in a huge suburban home, three big cars in the garage. This represents an apparent gap that is in reality wider than the example indicates.

So lots of people are middle class. Granted, and this is important because I'm certainly not ignoring this fact, there are lot more destitute poor in this country than those from insulated white communities likely realize. And this number of poor greatly outnumbers the elite. However, the point here is that "middle class" is a huge percentage of people in this country. Which brings me back to my new(er) car.

Cars are an obvious status indicator in this country. Even as a kid I knew that BMWs and Mercedes were nice rides, usually driven by people with money. So how was I able to afford one? The answer is that car companies have mirrored Americans' desire to be "upper class," or at least separate themselves from the "lower middle classes" in some way. As such, Aston Martin and Rolls Royce - vehicles usually only available to the social elite - are no longer the only nice cars out there. Today companies like Audi and Mercedes still make their top of the line car - for example, the Mercedes CL is 120 grand, and they even make a "limousine" that's a whopping $300,000. But at those prices Freddy Middle Management can't afford to drive a nice car, but he's got some extra money to burn (or a desire to be in debt for status') in order to exemplify Veblen's concept of "Keeping up with the Jones,'" so what does he do? He buys the cheaper option.

The first thing I thought when I peeked at my new car in the garage was: "Man, that looks just like a Honda Accord." Except for the leather steering wheel, that is. The bells and whistles, that's it. The car isn't that much better made, and maybe even worse made than a Honda of a lower price (we're talking new cars now since used vehicles vary by so much). But there's that German company's emblem on the trunk lid that says (as T-Pain would say) "I got money in the bank, what chu think about that?" I think Veblen had it right.

So food for thought: consider the blogs title - "The Poor, Inflated Middle Class." Think about it in reference to the fact that the middle class in this country is both huge and in debt (and I guess overweight, too if you think about "inflated" in that way), and think about it in terms of empathy. Those poor American middle class folks that are subject to the requirement of keeping up with the Jones' and spending more than they earn. It's interesting stuff.

On the Meb Question and Magazine Covers

Happy Saturday everyone. Below is the completed version of my previous entry. Stay tuned this week for another discussion on a similar topic!

Daniel

=======================

You may have read the headlines: Meb Keflezighi became the first American to win the New York City Marathon since the great Alberto Salazar did it in 1982. Almost instantaneously the naysayers jumped in to the conversation. "Keflezighi isn't really an American" they said, "because he wasn't born here." In fact, Keflezighi (I'll just call him Meb from now on, that's what his racing bib reads afterall) was born in Eritrea, a small east African nation who's southern border wraps itself around the northern border of distance running giant Ethiopia.

Darren Rovell of CNBC wrote that Meb is

like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.

He's since posted an apology of sorts entitled "What I Got Wrong About Keflezighi" but his original post still highlights the issue at hand

Granted, Meb was not born in the United States, but neither was Salazar. A similar point of contention has been pointed to in the case of Bernard Lagat, the Kenyan-born athlete who gained American citizenship just in time to win two gold medals at the 2007 world track and field championships, but that's a little different since (and this should be big for any detractors) Meb moved to the States as a child and never did any running before he came here.

Here's a quote from the Washington Post article covering Meb's 2004 Olympic silver medal (also in the marathon):

Washington Post:

Keflezighi is one of a handful of U.S. medalists who were born in other countries, including gymnast Annia Hatch (two silver medals) of Cuba, and swimmer Lenny Krayzelburg (gold) and synchronized swimmer Anna Kozlova (two bronzes) originally from Russia.

In 2004 Meb became the first American to win an Olympic medal in the marathon since 1976. And people had a problem with him then (note Runner's World cover story in September 2005 discussing the aftermath of the Olympic Games) but it didn't seem quite as biting then. One difference could be that in 2004 the next closest American was 12th place and a solid four minutes back. In the New York Marathon the next closest American was Ryan Hall (who has become this country's distance running darling over the past year or two). Hall was only 1:21 back of Meb and was part of the lead pack for most of the race, whereas in 2004 Meb was essentially in a four-man race from around mile twenty on.

Hall's race was indeed impressive despite the fact that his 2:10 was roughly four minutes off of his personal best time. In the marathon, the race is so long and each course is so different, anything around 2:10 or better for someone with Hall's experience can be considered a success. That said, the US had a good day all around. Not only did Meb win and Hall come in fourth but Americans finished 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 15th, then held every spot but one from 17-33 (with the vast majority of the post-Meb finishers being white guys). Even for a race run in the states, that's exceptional. And as such, I can't help but read the comments of people like Rovell as something along the lines of "but why aren't we talking about the WHITE GUY?!. There must be a way we can highlight his performance by knocking down the guy that won." That seems a little oversensitive, let's look at it another way.

Most members of the media aren't as outwardly mean toward athletes the way Rovell was. But most people can't really help acting upon their social "racist training" that informs their actions. My point is that the ideology of this country (and this is certainly global to a certain extent as well, though that notion is a bit Euro-centric in itself) is such that the white male must be the hegemone. Now we all know that this is a construction. By sheer numbers white folks are not the majority, but the System is set up in such a way that he is the dominator of power. We can look at some less obvious examples than Rovell to point to the fact that distance running in America is purposefully set up as a white-dominated institution. Whether this has been set up so for profitability alone or the perpetuation as white, heterosexual, male as the norm in this country to further hegemony is up to debate (of course the two are probably linked), but let's look at some examples so we can understand this better.

Take magazine covers from the popular running magazine Runner's World, a publication geared toward the casual jogger and the running fan (though not really the fanatic). In other words, RW targets as wide of an audience as it can. The vast majority of cover images are of distance runners, the one exception to this was Lolo Jones in February of 2009, when she was featured for her recommendations for getting "Great Abs." Considering the number of successful American distance runners (since this is an American publication, it makes sense that the covergirls and coverguys would be Americans most of the time) of color (like Bernard Lagat, Meb, Abdi Abdirahman, Khadevis Robinson) one would expect to see a significant number of people of color appearing on Runner's World covers. This is not the case.

Here's how the numbers break down. Since January 2006 - GoogleBooks goes from then until December 2008, and my own collection fills it out until the present - there have been only three people of color appearing on RW covers. Meb appeared in September of 2005, as mentioned above, and again in November 2007. Meanwhile, America's distance running goldenboy Ryan Hall has appeared on two covers (September 2008 and November 2009), the same number as Meb, despite being a professional less than half as many years. Kara Goucher represents this phenomenon similarly. She burst on to the scene at the 2007 T&F World Championships and has appeared on two RW covers since (June 2008 and May 2009). These two are also overwhelmingly the most seen faces in internet banner advertisements on popular running websites and the pages of RW itself.

This is clearly political economy at work. Those in charge of choosing these covers or spokespeople are influenced by the market, who are influenced heteronormativity and the normativity of whiteness. In this way, I feel that distance running as a sport is marketed as a white-dominated institution and reflects the general hegemony of the System we live in.

Meb and American T&F as a Hegemonic Institution

Happy Friday everyone! The following post is a brief preview of what I'm working on at the moment. Depending on how well this piece goes it may be used as my portfolio entry for the MA portfolio. In any case, these are my initial thoughts on the matter, well, some of them at least. One thing to keep in mind is that this is not complete (on a couple of levels). As of November 6th I have not punched in that data the supports my claims. Hopefully that will be up by Monday morning. In the mean time, enjoy!
------------------------------------------
You may have read the headlines: Meb Keflezighi became the first American to win the New York City Marathon since the great Alberto Salazar did it in 1982. Almost instantaneously the naysayers jumped in to the conversation. "Keflezighi isn't really an American" they said, "because he wasn't born here." In fact, Keflezighi (I'll just call him Meb from now on, that's what his racing bib reads afterall) was born in Eritrea, a small east African nation who's southern border wraps itself around the northern border of distance running giant Ethiopia.

Darren Rovell of CNBC wrote that Meb is

like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.

He's since posted an apology of sorts entitled "What I Got Wrong About Keflezighi" but his original post still highlights the issue at hand

Granted, Meb was not born in the United States, but neither was Salazar. A similar point of contention has been pointed to in the case of Bernard Lagat, the Kenyan-born athlete who gained American citizenship just in time to win two gold medals at the 2007 world track and field championships, but that's a little different since (and this should be big for any detractors) Meb moved to the States as a child and never did any running before he came here.

Here's a quote from the Washington Post article covering Meb's 2004 Olympic silver medal (also in the marathon):

Washington Post:

Keflezighi is one of a handful of U.S. medalists who were born in other countries, including gymnast Annia Hatch (two silver medals) of Cuba, and swimmer Lenny Krayzelburg (gold) and synchronized swimmer Anna Kozlova (two bronzes) originally from Russia.

It seems from my memory and my research that no one had a problem with Meb being the first American to win an Olympic medal in the Olympic marathon since 1976. So what's the difference? Well in 2004 the next closest American was 12th place and a solid four minutes back. In the New York Marathon the next closest American was Ryan Hall (who has become this country's distance running darling over the past year or two). Hall was only 1:21 back of Meb and was part of the lead pack for most of the race, whereas in 2004 Meb was essentially in a four-man race from around mile twenty on.

Hall's race was indeed impressive despite the fact that his 2:10 was roughly four minutes off of his personal best time. In the marathon, the race is so long and each course is so different, anything around 2:10 or better for someone with Hall's experience can be considered a success. That said, the US had a good day all around. Not only did Meb win and Hall come in fourth but Americans finished 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 15th, then held every spot but one from 17-33 (with the vast majority of the post-Meb finishers being white guys). Even for a race run in the states, that's exceptional. And as such, I can't help but read the comments of people like Rovell as something along the lines of "but why aren't we talking about the WHITE GUY?!. There must be a way we can highlight his performance by knocking down the guy that won."

I know what you're thinking, and I'm not trying to be the racism police here, especially because there are only a handful of ignorant media types that seem to be holding this idea. My point is that the ideology of this country (and this is certainly global to a certain extent as well, though that notion is a bit Euro-centric in itself) is such that the white male must be the hegemone. Now we all know that this is a construction. By sheer numbers white folks are not the majority, but the System is set up in such a way that he is the dominator of power. We can look at some less obvious examples than Rovell to point to the fact that distance running in America is purposefully set up as a white-dominated institution. Whether this has been set up so for profitability alone or the perpetuation as white, heterosexual, male as the norm in this country to further hegemony is up to debate (of course the two are probably linked), but let's look at some examples so we can understand this better.

Take magazine covers of the two most popular running magazines in the US: Runner's World and Track and Field News.

One Day Sexism Went For a Walk

In closing her 1999 preface to Gender Trouble, Judith Butler raised a series of questions questions:

What continues to concern me most is the following kinds of questions: what will and what will not constitute an intelligible life, and how do presumptions about normative gender and sexuality determine in advance what will qualify as the "human" and the "livable"? In other words, how do normative gender presumptions work to delimit the very field of description that we have for the human? What is the means by which we come to see this delimiting power, and what are the means by which we transform it?

Before I continue, I would like to make one side note on Butler. Over the years she has become quite well known for her work that has reached audiences outside her field of study in a way very few have been able to. This, despite being another (like Kenneth Burke who was previously discussed in this blog) academic who is noted for writing very densely. This is perhaps one reason why some of her work has passed under the nose of editors without certain changes being made. Certainly, when one is navigating complicated discussions it becomes increasingly challenging to communicate certain thoughts without flaw. Nonetheless, it is difficult to ignore the humor of The Bad Writing Contest of 1998 where Butler was named the "winner", and has subsequently been used as an example in many introductory composition classes illustrating how not to write. As I said, this is not brought up to take away from Butler's work, but just as an interesting side note. *End of digression*

Going For a Walk
In meditating on the questions Butler brings up in her introduction I find myself drawing parallels to the work of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and his concept of "Color-Blind Racism". Bonilla-Silva suggests that many, in an attempt to not be racist, ignore race completely in order to achieve equality. The basis of this argument is that such a stance trivializes and ignores struggles for equality and allows individuals to forget blatant, wide-spread acts of racism of the past instead of learning from them and making sure they are not allowed to happen again. There is more to this argument, of course, but I hope this allows you to understand the basics.

Butler, in turn, mentions "normative gender presumptions" and how they may "work to delimit the very field of description that we have for the human". In my study of sports commentary it is clear the the twenty-first century has seen a movement toward what could be called "gender-blindness" where phrases such as "men" and "women" are almost non-existent. Butler points to the fact that normative gender presumptions can restrict the individual, while one can observe such boundaries being broken down, or perhaps ignored in the sports commentaries. These two concepts may not be compatible for a side-by-side discussion given the fact that Butler highlights an overt inequality (or is a word like marginalization more appropriate?) among people based on sex, while my observations center around a conscious erasure of these "presumptions". However, I think there may be something here nonetheless. That is, a relationship between Butler's observations and that of sports commentary in the fact that one attempts to correct the other, yet in doing so ignores the fact that a problem exists in the first place.

It's something to think about, at least.

Daniel

Reading Burke - Assemble a dictionary

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

The Next Next 300-Game Winner

With Randy Johnson reaching the 300-win mark yesterday, I set out to identify some contenders for the next player to achieve the milestone. In order to populate this list I took in to account those who have the combination of youth and already achieved wins to see who is most likely to reach 300.

My projections for this season were taken from each player's profile on ESPN.com. Further, I sought to find a "magic number" for determining who is a contender and who is a pretender. This number has come in the form of wins per season through age forty. At present it is reasonable to assume that if a player is to reach 300 wins, they will also play until at least age forty. As such, that age is the benchmark for my projections.

In calculating average wins per season I took in to account the track records of recent 300 game winners Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Randy Johnson. Each pitcher was/is playing past age forty, and slightly over twenty full seasons in the league. Given the fact that the average win total per 162 games for these 300-game winners were 16, 15, and 17, players requiring 18 or fewer wins (some leeway should be awarded, I think) between now and their age 40 season will be considered. However it is worth noting that this is not an exhaustive list, but rather merely those who I feel are most likely to reach 300 wins.

The List:

Felix Hernandez: Age 23, 44 wins, projects to have 54 wins at current season's end.
King Felix has one major advantage in the hunt for 300 wins: he was young when he arrived in the big leagues. Given the fact that Hernandez was only 19 when he was called up (winning four games that season) he will be comfortably over fifty wins by season's end, all this despite the fact that he has not played for any especially strong Mariner teams in his five-ish seasons in the league.

Few doubt that Felix has the pure "stuff" to reach 300 wins, even though he hasn't had that "breakout" season in which he will seriously compete for a Cy Young. Such a season is only a matter of time, however, and Felix pitches with fluid enough mechanics that, as a power pitcher, he will likely be able to avoid an early-thirties flame-out. Lastly, if Hernandez pitches through his age forty season he will only need to average 14.5 wins per season to surpass 300, easily within the range of possibly.
The Verdict: Number One Contender!

Roy Halliday: Age 32, 140 wins, projects to have 158 wins at current season's end.
In a discussion of the "next 300 game winner" Roy Halliday must be one of the first discussed for a number of reasons. First, he is already thirty-two years old, and therefore more than likel within a decade of the end of his career. Additionally he is on pace to be comfortably over half way to 300 by season's end. At present, Halliday is as good as he's ever been. With this in mind, it is not difficult to believe he can string together the 17.75 wins per season he must average between now and age forty. If Halliday can challenge twenty wins per season for the next three to five years, he should be able to maintain the 13-15 win average in his twilight years and reach the milestone without much trouble.
The Verdict: Contender!


C.C. Sabathia: Age 28, 122 wins, projects to have 132 wins at current season's end.
Sabathia has always been a good pitcher, but his dominant 2008-2009 seasons vaulted him in to stardom. If he can continue with the kind of performances he's put together over the past two years, he will have a good chance of reaching 300.

Because he is so young (Sabathia got an early start, too, winning 17 games at age 20) Sabathia needs only to average 14 wins per season between now and age forty. The biggest challenge he is likely to face is health. Though he has been very healthy to date, Sabathia's epic size makes it difficult to fathom an injury-free career spanning twenty years. But then again, someone could have said the same thing about Randy Johnson (though Johnson is a little lacking in width compared to CC).
The Verdict: Contender!

Josh Beckett: Age 29, 95 wins, projects to have 107 wins at current season's end.
Beckett is a little behind Sabathia in his progress, which is understandable given the fact that he did not achieve double-digit wins in a season until age 25. However, Beckett has one advantage over everyone else on this list: he plays for the Boston Red Sox. That said, Beckett must average 17.5 wins per season between now and age 40 to reach the milestone.
The Verdict: Pretender!

Zach Duke: Age 26 , 32 wins, projects to have 44 wins at current season's end.
Zach Duke is a mega-talent that has flown under many fan's radar, and understandably so: Duke is in his fifth season and has posted a winning percentage of only .427. Of course Duke plays for the Pittsburgh Pirates, a team that has won either 67 or 68 games in each of Duke's four full seasons. Even so, Duke may still have a chance to reach 300, as he must average 18 wins per season between now and age forty, a number he is currently on pace to reach for the 2009 season. Duke will further be assisted by the fact that he will almost certainly be able to sign with a contender once he reaches free agency prior to the 2012 season, a move that should improve his chances dramatically. In the mean time he must hope that he doesn't fall too far behind the curve before that happens.
The Verdict: Pretender! (attributed to the Dread Pirate Curse)

Matt Cain: Age 24, 36 wins, projects to have 49 wins at current season's end.
I know most of you were likely expecting to see another Giant pitcher on this list, but I like to go against the grain. Cain is presently on pace to challenge the twenty-win mark for the first time in his career, and because he burst on to the scene at such a young age (he won 13 games in his age 21 season), he is a prime 300-win candidate. As it stands Cain must average 15.7 wins per season between now and age 40 to reach 300, a mark that may be difficult to reach if the SF offense continues its endemic ways over the next several seasons. However, Cain currently holds a 7-1 record, so a lack of run support has not prevented hiim from being among the league leaders in wins to date.
The Verdict: Pretender!

Zack Griencke: Age 25, 42 wins, projects to have 58 wins at current season's end.
In 2009 a disccusion of the next 300 game winner cannot be held without dropping the name Zack Griencke. Griencke has always been a "good" pitcher, but this season he has been unreal. Thanks to his early start in the league, Griencke only needs to average 16 wins between now an age forty, a feat the seems quite possible if he can string together a number of 20+ win seasons during his prime.
The Verdict: Hung Jury (until it is proven 2009 is not a fluke)

Justin Verlander: Age 26, 52 wins, projects to have 64 wins at current season's end.
As a streaky pitcher, Justin Verlander is a difficult pitcher to predict. In 2008 he was able to salvage an 11-win season despite a horrendous start. This, following his first two full seasons that were marked by 17 and 18-win efforts and sub 3.80 ERAs. This year it seems that he has worked through his 2008 struggles, and is project to win 17 or 18 games in 2009, At present, Verlander must win 16.8 games per season to reach 300 by age forty, a feat that seems quite possible. His greatest challenge may be reaching age forty, as many power pitchers flame out well before such a point. However, many power arms have been breaking with this norm in past years, with Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens both reaching the mark despite their power game.
The Verdict: Pretender! (health and consistency concerns)

Chad Billingsley: Age 24, 42 wins, projects to have 56 wins at current season's end.
This is perhaps a name that one may not be expecting to see on this list. However Billingsley has been steadily improving since his age 21 rookie season, posting win totals of 7, 12, and 16. Additionally he is on pace to challenge the 20-win mark in 2009. As a result Billingsley must average a very doable 15.25 wins between now and age 40. Certainly he must establish himself in the major leagues as a dependable pitcher year after year, but he is certainly off to a strong start.
The Verdict: Ask me in 2010

Johan Santana: Age 30, 116 wins, projects to have 131 wins at current season's end.
Johan is easily the best pitcher in the NL at present. In his age 30 season is is on pace to post his second 20-win season, and since becoming a full-time starter has already finished the season with an ERA under 3.00 an astonishing five times. Santana's greatest challenge is that he became a full-time starter late in his career (at age 25), which is a shame considering the fact that he made his ML debut at age 21. Despite all of this, though, Santana still has a shot at the 300-win mark, as he must average 16.9 wins between now and his age 40 season.
The Verdict: Contender! Despite his late start, he is just that good.

Mark Buehrle: Age 30, 128 wins, projects to have 139 wins at current season's end.
Since his first full season in the bigs at age 22, Buehrle has been very reliable for the White Sox, winning between 10 and 19 games each year. This season he will challenge the 20-win mark, and will likely have a chance to challenge 300 wins in ten years or so. To date Buehrle has average 15 wins per season, and in order to reach 300 by his age 40 season he must win an average of 16 wins per season. Hitting 300 will certainly be a challenge (I can see Buehrle retiring with a very Mussina-like record), 300 is certainly in the cards.
The Verdict: Pretender! All those innings (an average of 224 per season) will catch up to him.

A Bleak Financial Forecast?

Originally posted on MarinerCentral.com on 1 June 2009

It seems redundant to begin this post with something like "With the recent economic downturn..." even though I haven't breathed a word of it in this collection of work, so I won't.

Our "insider" over at ESPN.com, Buster Olney, provided a piece today entitled "For Holliday and others, free agency looks bleak", a title that makes sense given the current state of our economy. Almost everyone has something to worry about in regards to the future and their bank account. In reading the story, though (at least the first three paragraphs, since I don't subscribe to ESPNinsider) I couldn't help but laugh at the following:

With a strong season, Holliday might have been in position to get something in the area of six years and $100 million, but right now, he might be looking at something for three years and $30 million to $35 million.

Buster mentions that Holliday is headed for a smaller payday than he'd hope for given his current offensive projections. However the above statement is in reference to the financial/economic issues teams are facing. We saw examples of this heading in to the 2009 season with players like Ken Griffey who, despite his declining production, would have certainly fetched more than two million dollars had be been in the same position five years ago. The same can be said for Garret Anderson and his two point five million.

Either way, paying a big-time slugger between ten and twelve million dollars a season should hardly be considered "bleak", though I understand the desire for a 29 year-old player to have a six-year contract versus one only lasting three. That's job stability and that works in to the model of present-day baseball business, as Dr. D recently pointed out at SSI when discussing Russ Branyan.

The reason I'm writing this blog, other than the fact that Buster's title amused me, is that I have been hoping for a few years now that MLB salaries would come down to earth. Consider, for instance, the 2009 Mariners. The team, in a season where they have cut a substantial amount from the payroll compared to last year, currently employs five players making 9.5 million dollars. Given all the talk we hear about baseball salaries, that doesn't sound like much. But reallly, five players making 9.5 million bucks just this year? That's a lot of bread. How does one person even spend that much money unless they're Jamie Moyer who has about thirty children to put through college? These salaries are the reason why it doesn't surprise me to hear stories about players like Manny who have paychecks pile up in their locker week after week, forgetting or not caring to deposit them. At the moment, they really don't need the money, and apparently the appeal of building interest on the money doesn't seem immanently important either.

Just for kicks, a couple more examples: The Oakland As, a "small market" team currently employs two players over the 9.5 million mark (11.5 and 13.5), while the Royals also have two (11.4 and 12). Looking down these team's rosters and salaries, I feel that the numbers look about right for a team. But that's not the way things work. The Yankees pay their players extravagantly, but their ticket prices are also pretty high, they make a LOT from merchandise and advertising, and probably several other places. I understand that everything is a balancing act, but I'm just saying that I wouldn't mind seeing players a bit more accountable for their pay checks and made to REALLY earn a bloated contract, if one is to be given at all.

With all this in mind, and judging from Buster's use of the word "bleak", it seems that accompanying an economic improvement in this country will be a revival of A-Rod-esque paydays. But who knows? Maybe owners will realize that they can control the free agentmarket a little better (as long as people like Scott Boras butt out), lower ticket and merchandise prices, and maintain a similar profit level. I can hope, right?

The GM and Managerial Psychosis in Baseball

Originally posted on MarinerCentral.com on 30 May 2009

In his 1935 work Permanence and Change, literary theory titan Kenneth Burke introduces what he calls the occupational psychosis of our world. He explains it this way:

There is a psychosis which might be variously called capitalist, monetary, individualist, laissez-faire, free market, private enterprise, and the like, the intensely competitive emphasis which has been with gradually and imperceptibly disintegrating with the growth of corporations and monopolies (cartelization) and the corresponding growth of nepotism and seniority (rather than the stress upon the qulifications of a "live wire") as the basis of promotion among office holders. Its psychotic force is probably best revealed in the professionalization of sports". (41)

Now I don't believe nepotism plays a substantial role in the on-field workings of baseball the way it does on the business side (or in business in general) - after all, how can we explain the fact that Bill Bavasi was even allowed to be a GM in the first place?. However, the issues of seniority is a big one. This is not anything new, or anything we all don't know about. Over the last four or so years the Mariners have been a laughingstock in Major League Baseball for riding players like Jose Vidro despite their lack of performance because they've "been through the wars," as so many at the MC enjoy mentioning.

However it is not that the Mariners are the only team to take part in such detrimental favoritism, but rather that this franchise operated in extremes. Taking a quick look at other players around the league, one may ask why Darin Erstad has a job this season give the fact that his season OBP totals have been .279, .310, .309, and .208 since 2006.

Further, one may ask why teams have paid Kip Wells to pitch (and not the other way around) when his ERAs over the past five seasons, including 2009, have been 5.09, 6.50, 5.70. 6.21, 6.35, a period in which he has been paid over fifteen million dollars. Wells is a strong example of a player being paid handsomely providing performances that can only be described as matronly. Mariner fans can certainly understand this, given examples like Richie Sexson's all or nothing 2007 and 2008 seasons. Though this brings up another issue, one that makes little sense on one level, but is clearly difficult to solve. That being the concept of rewarding athletes when they are past their prime for near-free contributions they made while younger, and perhaps being paid millions upon millions of dollars for intangibles like Griffey Guidance more than anything else.

This is exemplified in our old friend Richie Sexson, once again, who earned less than a half million dollars in 1999 and 2000 despite clubbing sixty-one home runs and driving in over two hundred runs for the Indians. In basketball Michael Jordan is an example of an athlete being rewarded near the end of their career (though MJ retired from the Bulls prior to experiencing any problematic twilight years), as his salary, after twelve years, topped out at four million dollars, but ballooned to just over thirty and just over thirty-three million dollars in each of his last two seasons with Chicago.

Some other non-Mariner names to consider include Julian Tavarez, Jamie Moyer, Daniel Cabrera, Kaz Matsui, Mike Hampton, Chan Ho Park, Garrett Anderson.

Certainly there are particular circumstances with each player that explain why they have been given second, third, or fourth chances following a failure. Jayson Stark, for example, wrote a great piece discussing Jamie Moyer's recent struggles and why he will continue to start every fifth day (at least for now) despite his inflated ERA and BAA.

It would seem that the idea here is that players who show some promise despite age and struggles will be given chances to succeed. The secret in negotiating this is strata is to avoid paying top dollar for a fading star, letting that pleasure go to the team that decided to award a long term contract in the first place, thus making it less painful to cut loose struggling veterans when they make it clear their skills have abandoned them. The past several years have shown us, the fans, that Bill Bavasi was a clear victim of the "pay up for seniority" psychosis. Whether due to the economic downturn or plain baseball business savvy, Z has so far shown that he can tiptoe his way through the psychosis without looking like a lunatic, let's hope the trend continues.

Comments:

From "Sancho Panza":

There is a psychosis which might be variously called capitalist, monetary, individualist, laissez-faire, free market, private enterprise, and the like, the intensely competitive emphasis which has been with gradually and imperceptibly disintegrating with the growth of corporations and monopolies (cartelization) and the corresponding growth of nepotism and seniority (rather than the stress upon the qulifications of a "live wire") as the basis of promotion among office holders.

Clumsy, and not just because of the word in bold. Not the best sentence Burke ever wrote.

If competition had already been disintegrating increasingly with this "psychosis" thing by the time of the Depression, how is it possible that capitalism survived, for great stretches thrived for another 60+ years?

From Daniel:

True indeed, but I guess that is to be expected when you're reading someone with no formal education. Those who do have that background can see where he missed some possibly important basics I haven't read Burke's work in the order he wrote it, in fact I've only read one or two of his later works, so I'm a little curious now that you mention it to look at how his writing changed between the 1930s and the 1990s.

Also, I am purposefully failing to attempt an answer at your question because I think you make a very good point . Though I guess one could argue for adaptations that have been made to help prop capitalism up for a longer time than it should have lasted (I can't remember who wrote the work outlining the trends of past economic systems - thus roughly projecting how long capitalism *should* stick around, and why - was Arrighi? I'll check on that soon) but I am far from an expert on that and therefore shouldn't attempt to comment One thing's for sure, though, compared to past centuries, our current economic system has proven to be a totally different animal in a lot of ways and has thus disproven/surprised a lot of people.

Anyhow, in reference to entitlement, it is nice to see that Z suffers from the "psychosis" much less than Bavasi did! At least so far... (I'm trying hard not to oversimplify the issue here. Of course there are MANY factors that play in to why a given player is kept around and overpaid for longer than they are valuable, this is just meant as a brush-by for the sake of discussion).

Gendering Athletes in Sports Commentary - The Statistics

Originally posted on MarinerCentral.com on 2 May 2009

This is a topic that I have just begun to be involved in, so this blog will be as much of an exploration for you as it is for me.

The Background
In discussing possible sexism in sports commentary I will turn one (or two) source texts, and one early piece of criticism. The source text I will be using is commentary from the UK on the 2007 Women's 10,000 meter World Championships (this is a track and field race we're talking about here), while the main commentary I will be drawing from is Michael A. Messner, Margaret Carlisle Duncan and Kerry Jensen's 1993 article “Separating the Men from the Girls: The Gendered Language of Televised Sports” that appeared in the journal Gender and Society.

Messner et al. studied the language associated with professional tennis and college basketball, mostly in the 1980s, and noted a great many diminutives being used in women's sports commentary. Most of these were associated with
1. referring to men as "men" while women were called "girls"
2. women being largely referred to by their first name only, versus men who were often referred to by their last name only
3. titles of given events "other" women's sports by utilizing names like "The Women's 1989 NCAA Tournament" versus "The 1989 NCAA Tournament", where the masculine is considered the standard and the feminine is considered the other.

It is important to realize that, as I said, the source material used in this study is twenty or more years old, and as a result much of the patterns observed in this study no longer exist (or exist to a limited degree) in the present day. In fact, according to my research *most* of the in-text (meaning what announcers and commentators actually say when unscripted) occurrences of sexism no longer exist in the same, or similar, form as those described by Messner et al.

In fact, the only major, observable othering of women that has really bled through to present day commentary from twenty years ago is the above mentioned NCAA basketball tournaments. This can be observed here (the ESPN page for the men's tournament) and here (the women's tournament page) in reference to 2009's installment.

Also, before I go further, let me note that at this point I do not bring these issues to light in order to comment on them extensively. I will not be bringing many (if any) outside thinkers in to this discussion, nor will I be providing extensive analysis of what my research has led me to believe. I still need to do a fair amount of research before I'm willing to do that. Today, I would just like to familiarize you with this topic and inundate you with data .

Some Perspective
Speaking of data, let's take a peak at the 2007 World Championship race I mentioned earlier.

Here is an excerpt of the race I will be discussing, in case you're curious.

The above link will take you to a YouTube video of the UK version of the race. I have also taken some time to analyze the American version of the race, and the results are really quite interesting. This is primarily so when considering that sports commentators are essentially story tellers. They point to central characters and significant events and report on what they see. Given this fact, depending on who is competing and who is reporting, different athletes will find themselves at the center or the periphery of the story. Certainly those who are winning or are seen has having the chance to win a given are will receive much attention, but in addition to that one can expect the "hometown" competitor to also receive significant attention, that is, if they are seen as a legitimate contender in the race (no one wants to laud a hometown athlete for leading a race for two miles then see them fade to last place by the end, that would be embarrassing ).

This last fact is the rationale for my analysis of the American version of the race. Kara Goucher, who is at present likely the most popular distance runner in the United States, was little-known at the time of the race beyond the fact that she is married to former Colorado U. star, Adam Goucher. The fact that she (spoiler alert!) eventually finishes third in this race is a major surprise to the casual fan. Considering the fact that American track and field commentators (there are really only four or five individuals that cover the sport on mainstream television in this country, and they all work for NBC) have been roundly criticized for lacking knowledge on the sport they discuss, it is no surprise that those assigned to the 2007 World Championships did not see Goucher as a serious medal contender until the final one hundred meters. (And as a note, if you don't believe me on the commentators lacking knowledge, just take a look at dyestat.com or letsrun.com for similar opinions).

The above is significant because the story being told by the NBC commentators is not one that includes Kara Goucher to any great extent. Contrarily, the British athlete who eventually finishes fourth in this race, Jo Pavey, was a central character in the UK-told storyline. As such, the British version provides more extensive discussion of a "hometown" athlete's actions than the American version does.

Getting to the Numbers
In order to understand where I'm going with this, take a look at the raw data below. Below statistics can be seen on the frequency naming for all athletes discussed in the race where "Full Name" refers to one's first and last name being used as a descriptor.

Source Full Name First Name Last Name
British 52.4% 6.3% 43.6%
American 58.9% 3.6% 37.5%

For the most part these results are similar, especially given the fact that the sample size here is limited (of course give the sport we are discussing, there aren't a lot of texts we can look at from the last five or even ten years in the first place). However, the interesting part comes in to play when we discuss exactly who is referred to by their first name only (which, as you recall, is defined as serving as a diminutive in sports in general - not just women's sports. Also, please note that I haven't taken data for men's races yet - these are my preliminary findings, but I'll get to it ).

In the American version the first name only is used sparingly and is divided up between several athletes. However, in the UK version, Jo Pavey (the British athlete) makes up nearly the entire 6.3% of first name only references. What does this mean? I'm not quite sure yet, but it is indeed interesting.

To me it seems that American commentators are very aware of the importance to be politically correct in their descriptions and naming of women. As a result, the first name + last name combination is hyper-present in many cases. This can be seen in this example quite clearly. In the 2008 US Olympic Trials Lolo Jones won the 100 meter hurdles and was the clear favorite to win the race and as such, was the "central character" of the storyline - which was assisted by the fact that she wins as well. In any case, the race commentators here (American) refer to Jones nine times, each time using her first + last name. In fact, in discussing all athletes (and these statistics do not include one-on-one interviews following the race because I believe that is a different genre entirely), the last name only was used once, and the first name only was never used.

Developing Conclusions and Directions for Further Research
Given this information (and the fact that all athletes in the hurdles race are "hometown athletes" to the commentators) it is very interesting the the UK version of the 2007 World Championships discuss Jo Pavey using her first name only as often as they do. I believe this instance goes deeper than the mere female diminutive discussed by Messner and his colleagues, though I believe I would like to do more research (particularly in similar men's races discussed by UK announcers) before making any theories as to what it means.

Comments:

From "Sancho Panza":

"However, in the UK version, Jo Pavey (the British athlete) makes up nearly the entire 6.3% of first name only references. What does this mean?"

Probably that the viewers were more familiar with, more likely to identify with Jo than with the other contestants. The reporter used this to connect emotionally. It's "our" Jo out there running for "us". For the same reason, German reporters of both genders would often simply say "“Boris" or "Steffi".

Even if we disallow the above, six times out of one hundred doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me. You have to show a significantly greater %, and that it's significantly greater for women's events than for men's, all based upon a reasonably big sample size.

From Daniel:

I tend to agree, on both counts. The concept of the viewer "owning" an athlete from their own country makes sense.

Also, I think you're right that (especially with a tiny sample size) 6% is pretty insignificant. But I still love the fact that just about all that six percent came in reference to one person. I know that isn't any basis for reserch or anything, I just think it's cool I do plan on taking a look at more races, included men's. Just haven't gotten that far yet. This is my initial grope in to the night, so to speak.

Thanks for the response, Sancho, you always seem to point out good stuff (or bad, depending on the context haha)

Baseball and the Carnival

Imported from MarinerCentral.com. Originally written on 25 April 2009
My first real discussion in The Way of Things will be related to baseball and also discuss a topic that interests me personally, something that I think is really very interesting: the concept of the Carnival.

As a brief background, the Carnival is an idea that was brought to the attention of modern readers by Mikhail Bakhtin, primarily in his work Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics (but also discussed in a number of other works as well). Carnival is, as you probably know or have guessed by now, is a time of frivolity among the masses. It is a time when established order is not broken down, but rather turned inside out, or reversed. This reversal is exemplified by Bakhtin's description of "The Fool" who, during Carnival, dresses and acts like the king, while the king takes the place of the fool. Further (and this will become important later on), the Carnival establishes a dualism, a system of opposites, where individuals seek to find escape from their everyday routine by becoming someone else - someone that is as far from their "official" self as possible. This dualism is further represented by a series of opposites being represented in Carnival: life and death, night and day, and more tangibly in people doing things like turning their clothes inside-out, being naked during the Carnival, or the poor feasting to a breaking point. Essentially, societal borders are reconstructed in this setting, and the individual has the power to become whoever they desire. Today we see examples of the Carnival in the traditional sense in Mardi Gras (is that how you spell it?).

The Baseball, Almost

Beyond Mardi Gras one can understand the Carnival to exist in the world we live in from several perspectives. Certainly an actual "carnival" like the one you may encounter in New Orleans is an extreme and not something encountered regularly. For this reason modern representations of the Carnival have developed. A simple example of this is when we go to the movies and lose ourselves in a different world, become immersed in another person's identity for a couple of hours, before returning to the world afterward. Baseball is much the same way - but it's power is even greater.

In Rome the Carnival was huge. That's the only way I can describe it. Consider the society that existed in Rome's heyday: a highly structured empire where people lived according to a set law. Perhaps this structure was slightly lax the further one was from the Empire's central hub, but in the city itself, one can image what it was like to live according to an emperor's rule. Such a life is likely quite stressful, especially for those individuals not blessed enough to be high on the societal foodchain. If life is so difficult, so structured, how are the masses kept from leaving the empire for some place less strict, kept from killing themselves to get away from it all, or from revolting? The answer is: the Carnival.

This really is genius. An empire like Rome could not function without the masses as a base. Further, given the fact that such a regimented empire required great obedience, something had to be done to maintain the power structure. It is for these reasons the Carnival came to be in Rome. For one week every year Rome essentially took part in one big party (and I apologize now, because I know this Carnival was not a feature of Rome for the entirety of its existence, and I don't have citations to let you know exactly how long and when it did take place, but I can find out if you really want to know). Huge, government-owned, food stores were opened up to the masses, and those who spend their days toiling away in support of Rome were once allowed to reverse their societal role and live as the emperor did. This was not an escape from reality, but from the individual's specific reality.

What About Baseball, Again

Right, back to baseball.

So, just as Romans took part in the Carnival and just as we sneak out to the movie theater here and there to lose ourselves in a 007 flick, we watch baseball games on television, or go to the ballpark. The game is a three hour break from our reality, from 7:10 until 10:00 or so o'clock. But baseball is unique to other escapes because, as well all know, the game doesn't really stop with the twenty-seventh out. Rather, baseball is a universe of its own in our minds. If one sits at work pretending to make a to-do list for the day, but instead tries to figure out next season's twelve-man pitching staff, or who should be called up once the rosters expand in the fall, that individual is dipping their toe back in to the pool of baseball's escape. It is a world of it's own, and it follows the individual wherever they go, providing escape whenever it is needed.

But you already knew that.

Baseball as Oppression

One thing that I have had to fight to make some colleagues understand is that these carnivalesque escapes are indeed a break from our daily toil, but are more importantly a form of oppression forced upon the masses by "The System". Well, what is "The System"? Briefly: "The System" is not merely an economic construction, or a social construction, or any other one-dimensional, singularly (or centrally?) controlled state or private apparatus. It is rather a name for that which controls everything in our world that is connected, that works toward sustaining itself within a structure that works toward preventing individuals from realizing and experiencing the freedom to do exactly what they please, when they please, in life. Essentially, escaping "The System" is impossible because 1. we are all a part of it, and we are just shy of being forced to exist within it, and 2. it is self-sustaining. Really, without this system, what are our choices? Reverting to hunter/gatherer societies? Then many would argue we lack many other freedoms that those in first world nations (even the very poor) take advantage of.

I apologize if this has begun to sound radical, this feels like a digression, but it's actually pretty key.

The reason escapes like baseball are oppressive is that they perpetuate the cycle of: oppression in our daily lives => escape to the Carnival (baseball), which allows us to recharge ourselves so we can face our daily struggles anew => that is until we get bogged down again and need another escape, so it's off to the ballpark.

It's like being a drug addict, you have to have it otherwise the world will end. Your head will explode. Lima beans will replace Skittles.

As such, we, the masses, must exist in our daily lives in order to reach the escape we crave. We are held captive by the fact that we must work through the winter and blow along with the winds of society in order for baseball season to roll around, and for us to enjoy it. Further, we must accept this system if we want to continue escaping from it - to see the baseball game I can't just quit my job and go live in a shack in the woods. I hate to make money so I can afford cable, tickets, gas for my car to get to Seattle, my parking in the parking garage at the stadium, etc. Thus, the escape fuels the oppression.

Without the Carnival, what would happen? Without baseball, what would happen? Without this escape, people would reject "The System" and it would no longer be able to sustain itself because it depends on the masses. There would be a revolution, or a mass suicide, or a mass exodus from "civilization". It's impossible to know exactly, but something would happen to cause "The System" to collapse. As such, escapes like baseball are a requirement of this reality. Without baseball there would be, in theory, no oppression. Therefore, the escape, and in some cases, baseball is the source of our ultimate oppression. Pretty wild.

But is this going to stop people from watching baseball? No way.

Comments:

From "Sancho Panza":

Therefore, the escape, and in some cases, baseball is the source of our ultimate oppression. Pretty wild.

And pretty illogical. If as you claim The System forces escape on us, then it follows that it's the agent - not its subterfuge – that's the source.

I know of one "system" only that is "preventing individuals from realizing and experiencing the freedom to do exactly what they please, when they please." It's called nature, which is challenging rather than oppressing, and there can be no question of ever meeting its challenges by doing exactly what we want when we want. Culture – a more useful, concrete term maybe than The System - in its broadest possible sense is an existential response to nature, and part of that response is – as you call it - "carnivalesque."

Now the guy that goes to the ballpark to get away from his wife is definitely escaping, but I see nothing inherently insidious or escapist in gaining relief and respite from the tedium and chores of what we have to do to survive on this planet. On the contrary, it contributes to our well-being and recharges batteries necessary for survival.

From Daniel:
I think you're right on the first point - what I mean to say is that diversion is a major component of oppression, and came about because of it. I'll get in to this a little more below.

You bring up an interesting point with nature as a form of escape. This is actually a really interesting topic for discussion, especially in reference to people like Lefebvre, who argue that urban centers create things like roads in order to provide access to nature, which brings up the questions: when people go in to nature in order to accomplish escape, is it still authentically natural? What makes something natural? It's up for debate, for sure. I would argue that an escape to nature is a component of the Carnival because the individual must return to their official life afterward, and because it's hard to a person to "return to nature" when we easily corrupt it, whether we mean to/want to, or not.

Also, I think it's important differentiate between "escape" and "escapism", where the latter has something of a negative connotation to it. But in reference to this: "I see nothing inherently insidious or escapist in gaining relief and respite from the tedium and chores of what we have to do to survive on this planet." The idea is not that the escape itself is insidious, but rather the fact that we utilize it as a distraction from something that we are forced to endure. In this light, I believe I was wrong if I said the escape was the ultimate source of oppression - it's just a component of the System. In any case, the idea is that some turn to baseball as a diversion from doing "what we have to do to survive on this planet" is exactly the point - we don't have a choice but to survive within the System - because it's near impossible to figure out a way to survive outside the confines of it.

Last, I think you can certainly argue culture is a way to go about describing the System - but I think it's an oversimplification. Though that's a different discussion.