The Iowa City Press-Citizen stinks

I've been a loyal member of the I hate the local paper club for many years. I find their newspaper is nearly completely void of actual news and is so anti-University it is unbearable for me to read. So I stopped reading it and it has taken one source of frustration out of my life for the last five years.

We do however have a weekend subscription in which the paper is combined with the Des Moines Register which I find to be slightly less offensive. Mostly my reading is looking for human interest stories and current national or global topics. And I like to look at the pictures and see what's on sale at Menards, but I digress...

All this as background so that I can give you an example of why our local paper stinks. This photo is a scan of the UI Roundup. Let's just walk through how many ways this small and simple piece has been mutilated by the ICPC:

1. Title is "Hawkeyes Split with Wolverines". What they split I'm not sure, perhaps the last piece of pecan pie or turns changing in the locker room. Difficult to split wins and losses since they only played one game.

2. Split, in the context of wins and losses, would mean that the Hawkeyes won a game. It would be interesting to know how Iowa could have won a game yet the Big Ten leading Wolverines are 14-0 in the conference.

3. I thought perhaps they looked at a women/men doubleheader for the "split", but the men's team played PSU. The men did split with PSU, who happen to be the Nittany Lions not the Wolverines.

4. The box score: the most sterile and simple of all pieces of sports news. Impossible to screw up right? WRONG. The box score lists Iowa and Michigan State. I thought we were talking about Michigan?

And I thought the Leaders and Legends division names were confusing?!?!

I invested 5 minutes of negative energy this morning sending the sports department an email pointing out the errors and asking this: Really? Because the only question I can think of that addresses the ineptitude of the paper is: Really?

This is lesson #1 on why you shouldn't believe anything you read in the paper or see on 60 Minutes. Journalists generally suck at at their job. They are like weathermen except angrier and more liberal.

Lesson #2 on why you shouldn't believe anything you read in the paper or see on 60 Minutes is that they aren't trying to inform you. They are trying to sway your opinion to the opinion they want you to have. Which by the way they would have more success doing if they weren't such buffoons.

Go invest some time at www.fark.com or read the book It's Not News It's Fark: How Mass Media tries to pass of Crap as News. Then be cynical and untrusting of anything you read on the internet, in newspapers, and certainly on any "news" show on TV.

Yours,

Mel Gibson from Conspiracy Theory

When to make winning important

Ed, good question, and one that I don't think should have to be answered.  I know you can make an argument that forcing your kid into hardcore competition can pay dividends in the long (sometimes really long) run.  If you read Andre Agassi's autobiography you'll hear him talk about how much he hated tennis when he was a kid, but his father forced him into it.  Sure, 30 years and $30 million in prize winnings later, all those hours facing the ball machine that he called "the dragon" paid off.  But at what cost?

Unfortunately, kids don't get to choose anymore.  And what I mean is that although there are levels of competitiveness, there is not level of "recreational" play.  I think that if you want to play recreational basketball or volleyball in high school, there should be a recreational league to do it in.  Let the super competitive types try to earn the college scholarships, but you shouldn't be DENIED the chance to play because you're NOT that competitive.  Especially at prior to the teen years, allow recreational play.  I love the movie "The Sandlot" because the neighborhood gang took a kid who had no idea how to play baseball, taught him how to play, and made him a part of the team.  Awesome flick!

Ed, don't wait until you're 80!  I'll be semi-retired in less than 10 years, so let's start a non-profit called "Fun Sports".  Equal playing time, lots of fun, learning the game and learning teamwork.  This is at least the 384th good idea we've had on this blog!  Maybe someday we'll actually make one of them happen.

Where to live...

Man, you guys rattled off places to live like you've been planning for years to runaway and start a new life!  Although I have to move every few years, my options are usually limited, so believe it or not I haven't given it a ton of thought.  Brad is convinced that I'm retiring in Oelwein, and as much as I love Pamida and the Pizza Ranch, I don't see that happening.  I didn't think through the order in terms of first, second, and third.  Just three options.

1.  Delaware.  Yep, Delaware.  It's beautiful, not far from cities like Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., and there is a major military installation close by (Dover AFB), which will be good
for us when we retire.  Delaware obviously has a lot of coastline, and the beaches are fantastic.  However, Delaware generally is not a "party town" destination, so it's more family-oriented.  I also like that it still generally has four seasons.  Oh, and they don't have sales tax there!

I'm looking at a map of the United States to pick a couple of others.  How crazy is that?

2.  Wyoming.  For some reason the state of Wyoming appeals to me.  What's not to like?  It has the second highest mean elevation at 6700 feet.  For that reason, it doesn't get too hot.  The state holds the Grand Tetons, Yellowstone, and SIX national forests.  I'm not sure I'd be all that crazy about the
winters, but I think I could deal with it.  I just poked it in and noticed that Cheyenne is only 100 miles from Denver!

I'm leaving out the other continents (I could live in Spain or Belize) since it seemed like you were thinking more in terms of our United States.

3.  How about Missouri (central or south Missouri)?  I don't know much about it, and my assumptions about it may be completely wrong.  Seems like the climate there is pretty awesome.  There is a lot of space with lots and lots of trees.  Seems like a good place to get an affordable chunk of land and have your own piece of the world.  I don't know.  Maybe I got too enchanted those couple of times I went to Frank's house!

Dallas is too crowded for me (the 35 corridor is a nightmare) and Austin is... well, it's in Texas.  I don't hate Texas, but as you guys have probably heard me say before, if you don't LOVE LOVE LOVE Texas, you don't really fit in Texas.  Plus it's just too hot.  You spend a couple of months of the summer indoors instead of a couple of months of the winter indoors.

I don't know anything about the Pacific Northwest.  I've heard good things, but how much precipitation do they get?  Seems like a lot of hippies up there!  Arizona seems way too hot for me.

Brad on WWILive

I think its funny that we must distinguish between our opinions and that of our spouse. That's odd to me, and not the first time it's come up. But that's another post...

MY top three would be:

1. Austin, TX - I'm a big fan of college towns. Great college town, has a city feel. Some great outdoor recreation accessible. Close to a close friend, Darren just down the way in San Antonio. And I general really like Texans. Go Longhorns!

2. Tucson, AZ - Following the college town theme, plus I really like arid desert weather of Arizona. Mountains around Tucson are fun and beautiful. Go Cats!

3. Somewhere in the Northwest - The NW is the part of the country that I have visited the least. But there is great diversity of recreation in the NW, glaciated peaks for mountaineering, a good foodie culture, a bit granola. All to my liking. In full disclosure, Sheila's list would include Eugene, OR. While I didn't want to name that specific locale, if I did make the decision to move (in my current, as in married with kids, situation) and we went to the NW, Eugene would be the likely destination. Shockingly: also a college town. Go Ducks!

Leading the non-college town list and number 4 overall would likely be Denver.

No commentary on a blog...blasphemy! Ed, go finish your post!

Where Would You Live? - Updated with New Content!

If you could live anywhere other than where you live today or where you have lived in the past, where would you make your home?  It's gotta be someplace new, and inherently a bit unfamiliar.  And you should make the decision on the basis of your current life situation.  You aren't retired, and you aren't independently wealthy.  You have the family you have today (wife, kids and/or pets, etc.) and will be working the same job doing the same things with the same pay.

And one more caveat, I don't want you AND your wife's combined opinion.  I'm wanting yours.  

Why don't you each give me the top three.

I'll put down my top three as a starter:

(1) Denver - It's similar to KC in size, not too large and not too small.  It seems like an outdoor haven where people really appreciate nature and the beauty that God made.  Lots of sunshine, and a Midwestern city are two additional appealing characteristics.  I also think it's a great place to raise a family - in terms of cost of living and in terms of schools, activities and the like.

(2) Dallas - Some of the same characteristics as Denver.  Warmer, perhaps even too much so.  But I like how spread out the city is and the size with DFW all jumbled together.  My limited travels there have also been really enjoyable, both as a kid and as an adult.  Having family there is also a cool thing.

(3) Chicago - It's a world city and the cosmopolitan nature is appealing to me.  Also a Midwestern city but BIG.  There is so much to do in Chicago and it offers just about everything anyone could want ... other than being rural or warm.  I also don't love wind so being the 'windy city' is a turn off for me.  But the opportunity, being close to home, and being a true world city offset some of the downsides and put it in my top three.

An alternate is Indianapolis.

Ok, so what are yours?

Ed on Little League Baseball

Love this post Marc.  Partially because it was easy to see it "lit a fire" under the level-headed one and partially because it immediately caused me to want to jump in also.

My take is that each of us are maturing to a point in our lives where we are developing our own "good ole days".  We squealed and squirmed when our Mom and Dad, Grandmas and Grandpas, Aunts and Uncles talked about how things used to be and described their personal accounts of the good ole days.  Well, we are now reaching that stage.  Yikes, right?

Second, my personal impression of the good ole days relative to little league baseball isn't that dissimilar to your own.  It involves one very important word that I believe is being lost in the sports our kids participate in at early ages.  It's called RECREATION.  In the increasingly hyper competitive world we live in the word recreation has been removed from youth sports and activities in general.  It's not about learning the game, getting exercise, social opportunity, learning to play as a team, etc.  It's about winning, and looking the part if you're not winning.  That's kind of what I read from your post.

Brad will be reaching that stage with his beautiful daughters soon, if he hasn't already reached it.  I'm currently in the throws of it with my kids.  And I'm competitive and like to win as much as anybody, ANYBODY.  Haley is well into the competitive portion of her activities - school, sports, etc. - it's very competitive.  Alex is on the brink, and Luke should still be in the recreational phase of his activities but in reality is already being pushed to be more competitive.  Like he needs that push!

I still think there is a place for recreation in youth sports today.  They'll have plenty of time for tryouts, competitiveness, and winning/losing in their adult lives.  There is no need to rush them into this when they are seven year olds.  So when is the right time?  Ten years old, twelve years old, or high school?  I don't know, but preserving it until a natural desire develops in your child is the right point for me.  It's my good ole days.

In the interest of inspiring more dialogue, what is the right point for you two?  And, did either of you feel pushed into being competitive at too early of an age?  Or do you feel that push was too late for you?  Would be great to solicit these same questions to our parents, but I suspect the trend (as with most things in our kids lives today) will be that this phase is coming earlier and earlier in the lives of our kids, driven mostly by parents.

Not me, when I retire (at age 80) I'm starting a not-for-profit recreation league.  Can I count on tax deductible donations from my brothers?

It's probably a good thing I'm not a parent

I went to my nephew’s baseball game yesterday.  He’s seven.   And by the time it was over, I was pretty sure that if I ever had kids, I would be a terrible parent, because I wouldn’t let my kids play sports!

Let’s start with uniforms.  Both teams looked far better than the 1984 Oelwein Huskies (of Ed Baldwin fame).  Every kid was dressed to the nines, complete uniforms head to toe.  They all had cleats, and I’m not sure why.  There’s not much movement in seven-year-old baseball, let alone movement that would require cleats.  Most also had a gear bag that included their own aluminum bat.  Ballin’!

As I watched, I could only think that these kids are learning baseball from adults that do nothing but watch the New York Yankees on TV.  Some of the stuff that they have obviously “learned” already have no place in an age bracket where the focus should be hustling on and off the field. 

The changeovers were about five minutes long.  Some of that is understandable I guess, since the catchers had to trade the 30 lbs of gear that would have protected them from being hurt by 90+ mph fastballs.  I felt sorry for those suckers – they could barely stand up!  One of the kids playing catcher was so weighed down by the equipment that when he tried to throw the ball back to the pitcher, the ball would land about six feet in front of home plate.  But back to the changeover… I guess every changeover is a “coaching opportunity” or something along those lines.  Or maybe it was time to allow the network to show commercials, kind of like a TV timeout.  It took FOR-EV-ER.  I just remember learning in Pee Wee league that you hustled out on to the field and you hustled in immediately after the third out.  I don’t think anyone cares about that much anymore.

One of the pitchers was cracking me up.  He had an entire routine, as if he was Nolan Ryan storming back and forth to the mound after every pitch.  He would throw a pitch, walk halfway up to home plate (shaking his head when it wasn’t a strike), get the ball, then saunter back with a pattern of alternating between touching the brim of his hat and punching his fist into his glove.  Hilarious.  Where did he learn this stuff?

Most of the batters weren’t much better.  They all seemed to have little routines that they would go through a few feet away from the batter’s box.  Then they would step into the box, dig in, and wait for the pitch.  Keep in mind that these are seven-year-olds.  Perhaps the worst part of it all is that 90% of the pitches are either eight feet in the air, three feet behind the batter, or are rolling in the dirt ten feet before the plate.  Why are seven-year-olds playing “fast pitch” baseball??

I’m not sure why they pitched at all.  The kids would pitch until either the batter hit the ball or struck out.  If he threw four balls (which the pitcher did EVERY time) then the coach would pitch three (overhand) pitches.  At that point, either the batter had to hit one of the three pitches or he was out.  During the entire three-inning game (which took nearly two hours) no batter ever hit a pitch when a child was pitching.  Not once.  Why aren’t these kids hitting off tees, or at a minimum, hitting an underhand pitch from an adult?  In fact, I could make the argument that there wasn’t much baseball played at all during those couple of hours.  It’s mostly kids just standing around.  Oh wait.  Maybe it IS like real baseball!

Some of the funnier stuff that just made me roll the eyes were all the kids with black eye makeup (ala Bryce Harper), the “announcers” on the loudspeakers that introduced the batters (that happened to be little girls), the live scoreboard in the outfield, and the coaches screaming at kids to pay attention in the outfield even though “I know it’s boring out there.”

 

I just wouldn’t have the patience for it.  There’s not much fun in it, at least I didn’t notice too many kids having that much fun, although the parents were sure into it!  I think the best part for the kids was the free slurpee at the concession stand after the game (they all raced to get there).

 

I’d rather teach my kids to play three-base with the neighbor kids.