Friday, November 27, 2015

Our Turn

Add Laquan McDonald to the tragic list of young men whose violent deaths over the past year have caused a public outcry over police brutality and the perception that men of color are targeted by law enforcement authorities in cities all over the United States. Beyond the race of the decedents and the occupation of their killers, there are few similarities in the number of deaths at the hands of the police, including Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, a suburb of St. Louis, Eric Garner in New York City, Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Jamar Clark in Minneapolis and now McDonald in Chicago. All were involved in petty criminal activity at the time of their deaths, all resisted arrest during confrontations with the police, and all but McDonald were un-armed.

Of all the cases, the one of McDonald, a 17 year old who was killed on the southwest side of Chicago in October of 2014, stands out in the starkest contrast of all. For starters, his story did not become a full blown media event until last week, more than a year after his death. The attention came after a lawsuit was filed that forced the City of Chicago and the Chicago  Police Department to release a video made from a camera mounted aboard a police vehicle which recorded the shooting of the teenager.

It's understandable why the CPD and the city didn't want that video released. In the soundless video, we see McDonald surrounded by police vehicles. He walks away from the camera in the direction of the two cops pointing their guns at him but veering away from them to the right. At no time is he any closer than 15 feet from the officers. Then he suddenly drops to the ground and you can see puffs of gun smoke as the young man twists and turns on the pavement. You then see an officer kick an object (the knife) away from the motionless form of McDonald.

In the end, CPD officer Jason Van Dyke emptied his gun into McDonald, shooting him 16 times, most the the shots striking him after he was on the ground. When Van Dyke went to reload his the pistol with another cartridge, his partner, the cop who kicked the knife away from McDonald, apparently told him to hold his fire.

But that's only the beginning...

Shortly after the shooting, officers entered a Burger King that was close to the scene and asked to view surveillance video shot by a number of cameras mounted in and around the restaurant. The manager obliged and the officers spent about three hours alone with the video equipment. The next day when investigators returned to inspect the video, they found that about an hour of footage from the evening of the shooting had been deleted. Ironically what did survive were images of the cops inspecting and presumably, erasing video.

The police department continues to claim that there is no "credible" evidence to prove that members of the CPD intentionally deleted the files that contained video that may have been pertinent to the death of Laquan McDonald, yet offer no plausible explanation for the missing video.

Furthermore, according to Craig Futterman, founder of the Civil Rights and Police Accountability Project at the University of Chicago and one of the plaintiffs responsible for the lawsuit forcing the release of the video, an eyewitness who screamed at the officer to stop shooting at McDonald after he had fallen to the ground, refused to leave the scene despite the insistence of police. She was taken into custody for a brief period of time and claims to have been "intimidated" and told that she "did not see what she saw."

This past Tuesday on the eve of the public release of the video, Officer Van Dyke was indicted on first degree murder charges in the death of Laquan McDonald. Why it took so long to press charges against the officer and release the video is complicated.

The whole case of the death of Laquan McDonald likely could have easily fallen through the cracks and been forgotten had it not been for a confidential tip from an insider in the police department that brought Futterman's attention to the the police dashcam video which showed that the officer's contention that his life was threatened by McDonald was nonsense. On April 13, the Corporation Council of the City of Chicago, Stephen Patton announced to a panel of aldermen that an FBI probe, (joined by the Independent Police Review Authority and the States Attorney's office), on the shooting was underway. Given the severity of the case and the public climate relating to police vis a vis the African American Community, Patton recommended that the city settle out of court with McDonald's family to the tune of five million dollars. The city's finance committee and the full City Council agreed to the settlement.  Still, Mayor Emanuel and police commissioner Gary McCarthy objected to the public release of the video on the grounds of the FBI investigation into the case was still underway. In can also be assumed that part of their logic was to avoid the unrest that occurred in other cities around the US. For the record, Laquan's family also objected to the public release of the video of the murder of their loved one.

The public's response to the video was swift and predictable; the rage, understandable. McDonald was behaving erratically, having been high on PCP at the time of his death. The young man threatened a person with his knife, which resulted in the original 911 call. He attempted to break into several vehicles and took police on a half mile journey through streets and alleys before Van Dyke shot him. Up until that point the police strategy was to corral him using their vehicles to prevent him from coming in contact with passersby, while waiting for other cops to arrive with tasers which could have non-lethally subdued McDonald. The video shows the police to have McDonald cornered when Van Dyke and his partner got out of their vehicle, guns drawn. Within seconds, Van Dyke opened fire and emptied his weapon in about 15 seconds.

While some police officers contend that the dashcam video does not tell the complete story of the tragic event, it is quite clear that it was unnecessary for Van Dyke to shoot McDonald once, let alone 16 times.

Since the release of the video there have been numerous peaceful demonstrations in the city. At this writing, the day after Thanksgiving, marchers are organizing on north Michigan Avenue, Chicago's prominent shopping district, on this, traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year. Clearly this is an attempt to gain as much visibility as possible, drawing attention to an abominable injustice that took place and arguably continues. That is the inalienable right of free people in a free society.

How it all plays out is anybody's guess; hopefully the demonstrations will be peaceful, and the police will to keep their cool. The best thing that can happen out of all this is reform and a real dialog between the police and the communities they have been entrusted to protect. I think the last thing anybody wants, with the exception of some people who might hope to gain personal advantage from the situation, is to bring back the turmoil of the disastrous events of  Chicago, 1968.

Once again, the whole world is watching.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Simple Answers to Difficult Questions

We once had a priest who gave the shortest homilies (sermons) possible, sometimes they would consist of only two or three sentences. Somehow he always managed to get the point across in those few words better than his colleagues could with their multiple page dissertations. You might say I could learn a lesson or two from him when it comes to writing blog posts.

The truth is, it's possible to sum up the core principles of any faith, or for that matter ideology, simply and briefly. Hillel the Elder, a rabbi who lived at the time of Christ, is responsible for some of the most profound utterances distilling the true essence of faith into a few words:
If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?
The legend goes that one day, a skeptic came to Hillel with this challenge: if Hillel could recite the Torah while standing on one leg, the man would become a believer. Hillel's response while on one leg was the following:
What is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbors. That is the whole of Torah, the rest is commentary. Now go study.
Which the man did.

The problem with religions or ideologies is that the commentary often becomes more important than the core values. To put it another way, the letter of the law becomes more important than the spirit of the law. Anyone who has ever read the Christian bible, (the first five books of which are a translation of the Torah), knows that when passages are taken out of context, they can be used to justify virtually anything.

That explains thousands of sects of Christianity, each one claiming the Truth to be found exclusively in their own interpretation, and the ultimate favor of God, only for themselves.

The same is true to varying degrees in Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism Zoroastrinism, Paganism, Atheism (which is also when you think about it, nothing more than a faith), and every other belief system that has ever been devised.

Yesterday, unspeakable acts of violence committed in the name of God took place in Baghdad, Beirut and Paris. It is my sincere belief that religion is not responsible for these despicable acts, rather the perversion of religion.

Fear and hatred are among our basest, basic instincts.. Religion, at least my own experience of it, seeks to teach us a higher level of existence, as expressed through love, forgiveness, and compassion. These things don't come naturally to us, they are taught. Hatred by contrast, does not need to be taught, it just happens. We all experience fear and hatred, and hopefully teach ourselves to overcome those instincts.

We have seen all too frequently that unchecked hatred combined with an overdose of religious indoctrination based upon ideas cherry picked out of scripture is a lethal combination.

As usual, I've gone on too long. These ideas have been better expressed in a meme that's been making the rounds of social media lately. I'm not much for re-posting these quite often smarmy platitudes on the human condition, but I did yesterday as this one seemed to be particularly appropriate. Here is what it said:
A Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, a Pagan, and an Atheist all walk into a coffee shop and they talk, laugh, drink coffee and become good friends.

It's not a joke, it's what happens when you're not an asshole.
Assholes above all, seek to have power over other people. It's very difficult to achieve power by affecting a great many people's lives in a positive way. It takes commitment, self-sacrifice, patience and the will to do good. It's very easy to achieve the power to affect many lives negatively, all it takes it a weapon and of course, the will.

We've seen that the sadistic assholes of Daesh (ISIS) not only seek to achieve power, but also take a great deal of pleasure in afflicting pain and suffering upon others. They do it in the guise of faith but let's face it, you don't need religion to be an asshole. Case in point, there were a whole bunch of assholes in Central Europe in the mid-twentieth century whose hatred was fueled by not by religion , but by nationalism, revenge, and political ideology. Around seventy million people died as a result. Today there are assholes roaming the streets of Chicago who apparently believe in nothing other than nothing is sacred, not even the lives of innocent children.

Late yesterday evening, a remarkable image was broadcast. It showed a group of perhaps a couple hundred thousand individuals gathered in Paris's Place de la Republique with a sign that read in English, "not afraid." That happened early this year after the massacre in the offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo. After that horrible event, millions of Parisians of all colors and faiths marched in the streets of that great city. Expect to see more demonstrations of a similar nature today, tomorrow and in the days to come.

Today we are in solidarity with the citizens of Baghdad, Beirut and Paris, as we should be everyday for people everywhere who want peace, regardless of their creed, color or nationality. Fortunately there are more of us than the assholes, regardless of all the attention they get through the suffering they are willing to inflict upon civilization.

We cannot and will not let them win.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

You Never Know II

These are some of the perplexing questions people have been grappling with for millennia: "How did we get here?", "What's the meaning of life?", and "Does God exist?"

As of a couple weeks ago, we can add a new question to the list: "What the hell happened to the Cubs this year?"

OK all two of you who haven't yet pressed the go back button know exactly what I'm talking about.

We left off the last post at the beginning of the 2015 Major League Baseball National and American League Championship Series. Representing the Nationals were the New York Mets and the Chicago Cubs. The American League gave us the Toronto Blue Jays and last year's pennant winners, the Kansas City Royals.

The beauty of those two matchups was that three of the teams had not been in the post-season, let alone a World Series for quite a while. Before last year, neither had the Royals. Last year the Mets, Cubs and Blue Jays all finished behind their respective division winners by double digit margins, and none of them were predicted to do much this year. For most baseball fans I suspect, it was a breath of fresh air not having to watch the Cardinals, Giants or the Red Sox play in November again, unless of course you were a fan of those teams. To those folks, I offer my condolences and apologies.

As I wrote in the last post, the four divisional series were highly entertaining, loaded with plenty of drama and the unexpected. Most of the games were close and all but one of the series went the maximum five games.

Those four divisional series were a tough act to follow and predictably, the subsequent two championship series were a let down.

Another big name pitcher who has had problems in the post-season is David Price of the Blue Jays. He was cruising along in Game Two of the ALCS in Kansas City, retiring 18 in a row after giving up a leadoff single to Alcedes Escobar. Then came the disastrous seventh inning where five singles and a double added up to five runs, all of them charged to Price, and all KC would need for the sweep of the first two games at home. Toronto managed to take two out of three in their building but the Royals finished off the Blue Jays and Daivd Price again in game six in Kansas City. The score was 4-3, the only close game of that series.

Then there were the Mets and Cubs.

No one in Chicago who had been paying attention, believed the hype that the Cubs would trounce the Mets as they had during the regular season. After all, the Mets were a different team with the mid-season acquisition of center fielder Yoannis Cespedis and a new groove the team found, led by its young, flame-throwing pitching staff. On the other hand, the Cubs were a different team as well, one of the hottest in the majors. Their strength, beyond the ridiculous success of Jake Arrieta (see the last post) came from a young group of sluggers led by the 26 year old veteran, Anthony Rizzo.

The series, most folks suspected, would be a classic matchup of strength versus strength.

Save for the excellent pitching of the Mets, I don't think anyone expected the series to turn out the way it did. The Cubs were able to spread out only eight runs over four games. The Mets by contrast were not the least bit intimidated by Cubs aces Jon Lester and Jake Arrieta, who showed signs in his last two games of being merely human. New York teed off on Jason Hammel in game four. The only Cubs starter who managed to get away with a no decision was Kyle Hendricks who was pulled for a pinch hitter in the fourth inning of Game Three with the score of that game tied.

The Mets scored in the first inning of every game, while the Cubs were only able to get the lead-off man on base four times in 36 innings. Least expected was the ace in the hole for the Mets, second baseman Daniel Murphy. Murphy has put up very good offensive numbers in his seven year career but was never considered a home run hitter, until now. In those seven years, he averaged less than nine home runs per season. In the Cubs/Mets series, Murphy hit one home run in each game. If you remember from the last post, he hit a home run in each of the last two games of the NLDS against the Dodgers, making that six consecutive playoff games in which he hit a home run. Even Mr. October, Reggie Jackson never did that. Carlos Beltran of the Astros hit five in 2004, no one else had ever hit more. Adding another home run he hit in the Dodgers series, Murphy hit a total of seven playoff home runs by the end of the NLCS, exactly half the number he hit all season, but more on him later.

To say the Mets had their way with the Cubs would be a gross understatement. Not once did the Cubs have a lead, in fact the Mets held the lead in every full inning of the series except one where the teams were tied. This year's NLCS was a definitive statement, at least in that time and place, that in every aspect of the game the Mets were the superior team.

Baseball is a strange game. Were the Mets that good and/or the Cubs all of a sudden really that bad? What possessed Daniel Murphy of all people to channel his inner Babe Ruth? What made the young players on the Cubs who played fast and easy as if they didn't have a care in the only world during the regular season and in the  playoffs against the two best teams in baseball, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, look like they were carrying the burden of 70 years of the team's futility on their shoulders against the Mets?

After game four a friend texted me asking tongue-in-cheek if that whole thing about Mrs. O'Leary's goat was for real.

I don't know, perhaps. Maybe you could throw in Fred Merkle, a black cat, Hinky Dink Kenna and Bathhouse John,  Steve Bartman, the 1979 Blizzard, Don Young, Leon Durham and the Dave Matthews Band bus for good measure. The only answer I have is to a question Harry Caray posed years ago: "What do a mama bear on the pill and the World Series have in common?" The answer: no Cubs.

Sometimes the best a fan can do is shrug his shoulders, throw up his hands and say well, you never know.


There are people who take baseball so seriously they devised a system designed to take the you never know out of the game. That system raised to the level of a science, was named sabrmetrics by the most well known practitioner of the art of the analytical study of baseball statistics, Bill James. The work of sabretricians who employ scientific method and mathematical analysis to pour over oceans of data, has brought into question much of the conventional wisdom developed over the last century and half regarding what it takes to win a baseball game. As you can imagine, this caused a great deal of friction between baseball people who actually played the game, and the folks with their slide rules, (later computers), and inscrutable formulas.

In applying sabrmetrics to baseball strategy, once you have all the data figured out, the trick is pretty simple, calculate the statistical costs versus the benefits of a strategy in a particular situation, and employ only the moves with the greatest probability of success.

It's hard to argue with success. When a few struggling teams hired sabrmetricians including Bill James to consult on player acquisitions and strategies, and actually won games, pennants and championships, even the most stalwart baseball traditionalists had to take notice. Today you won't find a major league team looking to gain a competitive advantage without some sabrmetric help.

The downside of managing a baseball team like an insurance actuary is that it takes takes a lot of the fun out of the game. For example, you hardly ever see sacrifice bunts anymore (and the possibility of a batter squaring off then pulling back and slamming a single past the drawn in infield), as it has been determined that statistically, giving up an out in order to advance runners is less successful percentage-wise, than just swinging away. Sabrmetricians have devalued speed on the basepaths and determined that the risk of base stealing is usually greater than the benefits. Consequently one of the most exciting aspects of the game, the stolen base, is way down. Likewise, less emphasis has been put on fielding, and more has been put on power over average, consequently we're seeing more sluggers in the field who can't play a lick of defense. They're striking out more too.

The really smart baseball people, Bill James included, realize there are far too many variables in the game of baseball to understand it completely through numbers.  Turns out, there is some value to the element of surprise after all, and it's not always prudent to paint yourself into a corner by employing only a limited number of predictable strategies. Fortunately, you never know is not dead, yet.

Case in point, the Kansas City Royals. The Royals under their manager Ned Yost, don't do anything by the book. They steal and run the bases with abandon, guys in the middle of the lineup bunt, they don't hit many home runs and most of all, they hardly ever strike out. They're a very opportunistic team, as we saw in the World Series against the Mets; if you make a mistake against them, they will make you pay.

The Royals are a team designed to fit the idiosyncrasies of their ballpark, Kaufmann Stadium. That park is known to be extremely stingy for giving up home runs, so the team that calls it home concentrates on contact hitting, as swinging for the fence in Kansas City usually results in a deep fly out. As Kaufmann Stadium's outfield is about the size of Texas, team speed is also built into the roster. That became apparent in the bottom of the first inning of the World Series when KC's leadoff man, Alcides Escobar hit a deep drive to center field. The Met's centerfielder Yoannis Cespedis misjudged the ball and ended up kicking it out of the reach of left fielder Michael Conforto who was backing him up. When the ball was finally relayed back to the infield, the speedy Escobar had already circled the bases for an inside the park home run.

Another aspect of the Royals is they never give up, evidenced by the number of comeback wins they had in the playoffs. Some would attribute this to the character of the team, an idea scoffed at by many in the sabrmetric community, perhaps because character is something that cannot be accurately measured. In the top of the eighth with the score tied and two on and two out, Eric Hosmer misplayed a ground ball allowing the go-ahead run to score, a play that bore a haunting resemblance to the ball that went through Bill Buckner's legs in the 1986 World Series, also against the Mets.

Unlike Buckner and the '86 Red Sox, Hosmer's teammates picked him up, first in the ninth when Alex Gordon hit a solo home run off the previously untouchable Mets closer Jeurys Familia to send the game into extra innings. Then in the bottom of the 14th, the Royals exploited a David Wright error which resulted in a runner at third who scored when who else but Hosmer drove in the winning run with a sacrifice fly.

After a complete game two hitter thrown by newly acquired KC pitcher Johnny Queto, the teams traveled to New York. Like the Cubs in the same situation, down two games to none but heading home, the Mets were still optimistic about their chances. Unlike the Cubs they did something about it and made a definitive statement that they weren't going down without a fight, winning that game 9-3. In Game Four the Mets were on the verge of tying the series as they took a 3-2 lead into the 8th inning. Tyler Clippard in relief who had been very effective in the series up to that point, walked two straight KC batters. He was yanked for the closer Familia. Eric Hosmer hit a ground ball to Damiel Murphy's left. Murphy hustled to make the play before the runners could advance, but ran past the ball which ended up in right field. That costly error opened the door for three runs which would prove to be enough to put KC over the top with a 3-1 series lead over the Mets.

Still all was not lost for the Mets as Game Five featured arguably their best pitcher Matt Harvey against Edinson Volquez who just returned after attending his father's funeral in the Dominican Republic. No one knew how Volquez would fare after what had to be a tumultuous four days for the young pitcher, beginning when he learned of his father's death after coming off the mound in the seventh inning of Game One. If the Mets could win this game, they'd have to face Johnny Cueto again in Game Six. However Cueto had been erratic since coming to Kansas City, and if they could steal a win against him, they'd face Yordano Ventura whom they beat handily in Game Three.

You never know, stranger things have happened

The possibility that the Mets would at least get out of New York still alive in this series looked very good late in the game as Matt Harvey was brilliant, shutting out the Royals for eight innings, holding them to only four hits. He also struck out nine batters on the team who never strikes out.

When Harvey came off the mound at the end of the eighth, things got really interesting. As he met up with Mets manager Terry Collins in the dugout, viewers watching on TV could clearly read Collins's lips telling Harvey he was done for the night. An emotional Harvey in turn, told his manager "I want the ball."

Terry Collins had a decision to make...

For most big league managers, there would be only one choice, go with the closer. Conventional wisdom dictates that complete games are all but a thing of the past, especially in the post-season. Before Johnny Cueto pitched his complete game masterpiece in Game Two, the last American League pitcher who tossed a complete game in the World Series was Jack Morris in 1991. It hasn't been that long for National League pitchers but you get the idea. In the regular season, most managers yank the starter when he reaches the 100 pitch mark, but during the post season with lots more help available from the bullpen, starters are usually given a much shorter leash. At the end of eight innings in Game Five, Matt Harvey was flirting with 100 pitches. Even more compelling, last season Harvey had Tommy John (elbow) surgery which sidelined him for the entire year. He pitched well in 2015 but many thought he was being over-used and there was speculation that he might not be used at all in the post-season. Given the circumstances, it was a no-brainer that Collins would want to pull Harvey.

On the other hand, Harvey was pitching magnificently and win or lose, this would be his last game of the season. On top of that, Jeurys Familia had blown two saves already in the series (admittedly not entirely his fault). It happens all the time, the starting pitcher pitches eight magnificent innings only to have a reliever come in and blow the game in the ninth. For Collins it was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. His decision would ultimately not be judged on its merits, only by the results. If it worked he'd be hailed a genius, if not, he'd be second guessed for eternity.

The tension built in the bottom of the eighth as the Mets' top of the order came up to bat. The nearly 45,000 fans at CITI Field in Flushing, Queens, were on their feet and at least 40,000 of them demanded to see Harvey back on the mound in the top of the ninth. As the moment arrived, the Mets took the field  one by one, but there was one player conspicuously missing from the field, the pitcher. After a long pause no doubt intended for dramatic effect, out of the dugout stormed Matt Harvey. The fans went crazy; they were about to witness, or so they thought, the culmination of one of the classic pitching performances in World Series history.

You could tell by the body language that Matt Harvey was pumped.

Lorenzo Cain led off. The Royal centerfielder was twice the victim of Harvey strikeouts. This time Cain battled at the plate working the count to 3-2. After seven pitches, Harvey lost Cain to the dreaded lead-off walk.

Collins stubbornly stuck with his man. 

Cain stole second on the first pitch to Eric Hosmer.

The next pitch would be Matt Harvey's last pitch of the season, and it was a good one, a low fastball on the outside corner. Unfortunately for Harvey, Hosmer's hit was better than the pitch. The lefty first baseman went with Harvey's offering, slamming it to the opposite field for a double that easily scored Cain. No sooner did Cain cross the plate when Terry Collins was out of the dugout headed for the mound, which was precisely the moment the second guessing that will follow him the rest of his days began.

And yet, the Mets were still up 2-1 with their star closer finally in the game, and still very much in control.

Next up was third baseman Mike Moustakas who hit the ball exactly where he needed to, grounding out to first and advancing the runner to third. With one out and the tying run ninety feet away, the dangerous Salvador Perez came to the plate. Familia got Perez to hit the ball exactly where he wanted him to, a ground ball to third. David Wright did exactly what he was supposed to do, cleanly field the ball, look the runner back to third, then fire to first to get the hitter for the second out. The only person who didn't cooperate with the plan was Eric Hosmer, the runner at third.

Now in Conventional Baseball Wisdom 101, one of the first things you learn as a base runner is to never let yourself get thrown out on a base or home plate for the first or the third out of an inning. This applies to the first inning of a game in early April as it does to the ninth inning of a World Series game.

Mets first baseman Lucas Duda was very familiar with that rule, so ingrained was it in his DNA that it probably never crossed his mind that Hosmer might try something. Hosmer on the other hand apparently missed that class. A millisecond after Wright threw to first, he broke for home. A good throw from Duda would have nailed Hosmer at the plate by at least five feet and the Mets would have been packing their bags for Game Six in Kansas City. But Duda, as astonished as everyone else by Hosmer's temerity, made as bad a throw as a major league ball player could make, about three feet to the right of catcher Travis d'Arnaud who had no chance to make the play.

"Hosmer's mad dash home" as it has been called, scored the tying run, and ripped the hearts out of Mets fans everywhere. Familia was able to get out of the inning without further damage, but after Hosmer's daring play, it was all academic. The stage was set for the Royals bullpen to shut the Mets down as they had done to American League teams for the past two years. It took a few innings but eventually the Royals did what they do best at the plate, manufacture a run with a single, a stolen base, a runner advancing on a ground out, and another single. Daniel Murphy's error that followed, almost a carbon copy of the one he made the night before, was only the icing on the cake as it turned out the Royals didn't need the four unearned runs that followed. Closer Wade Davis came in and struck out the side (with a Michael Conforto base hit in between) to put the Mets and their fans out of their misery.

When it was over, there was no clear cut MVP, but they had to give out the award just the same. It went to Salvador Perez, the de facto leader of the Royals. Perez was the indestructible man after taking more foul tips to the body this series than anyone has a right to. It was a good choice to award a team win by giving the MVP to the team leader.

It wasn't always pretty but this year's season proved there's more than one way to win a ballgame. You don't need the highest payroll or play the way you're "supposed to" in order to win the World Series. It was good old fashioned baseball in the best sense of the term, with all or nothing base running, manufactured runs, and unconventional wisdom ruling the day. I secretly rooted for the Royals because I like their approach to the game, no superstars, just a very solid lineup top to bottom, willing to do whatever it takes to win a game. Truth be told, I liked the Mets only slightly less for the same reasons.

Kansas City beat New York in five games, but it wasn't as one sided as that number might indicate. The cruel truth of baseball is that one day you can be on top of the world, and the next day be a bum. Without Daniel Murphy's head's up base running and a series clinching home in the NLDS, the Dodgers would have ended up playing the Cubs for the pennant, not the Mets. Who knows how that would have turned out. Murphy's bat and glove contributed in a big way to the NLCS, so much so he was awarded the MVP of that series. Yet without his crucial error in Game Four of the World Series, the Mets might have lived to play another day, maybe two, or maybe even a win a championship.

Ditto for Duda. Despite all the good things he did all season, in the playoffs and the World Series, he will always be remembered for that bad throw.

Terry Collins's unconventional decision to listen to his starter and leave him in to pitch the ninth inning of Game Five will go down as one of the worst managerial calls in World Series history, and with perfect 20-20 hindsight, it was the wrong call. Of course, Collins could have sent Jeruys Familia in to face Cain and Hosmer with exactly the same results, and Collins would most liely have been chastised for not thinking "outside the box."

Hosmer could have stayed on third as conventional wisdom would have dictated in that situation. His breaking for home will no doubt be remembered for a long time. It's already been compared to one of the most famous plays in World Series history, when Enos Slaughter ran through a stop sign at third and scored on a close play at the plate to win the 1946 World Series for the Cardinals.

Of course, had Duda made a good throw and the Mets come back to win the World Series in Kansas City, Hosmer would be remembered for something completely different.

It's what a friend of mine calls the "razor thin margin between genius and stupidity" that makes baseball so audacious, frustrating, heart-breaking, compelling, and wonderful, all at the same time.

The Mets are a good young team, they'll get another chance as they'll be around for a while. So will the Cubs and the Pirates.

At this writing there are only 97 days until pitchers and catchers report for spring training.

I can't wait.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

You Never Know...

We lost baseball's great wordsmith in September when Yogi Berra died at the good ripe age of ninety. Berra was unquestionably one of the greatest catchers ever, but today he is probably best known for his quotes, a mixture of homespun wisdom:
Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.
It's like déjà vu all over again.
a unique take on mathematical concepts:
Baseball is 90 percent mental. The other half is physical.
hilarious malaprops:
He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious.
and redundant tautologies:
We have deep depth.
So quotable and numerous were his utterances that the word yogism was coined to describe not only things Yogi Berra said, but goofy things other people said that were credited to him. On that he commented:
I never said most of the things I said.
Probably the most famous thing Yogi Berra never said had something to do with an event not concluding without the benefit of song from a woman of large proportion. 

Berra was the master of stating the obvious. Who would have realized for example that you could learn a lot about something simply by watching, that a record would stand until it was broken, and of course, that something's not over, until it's over.

That last observation, probably his most famous, simple-minded as it may sound, is remarkably profound when it comes to the profession Yogi Berra mastered. An equally quotable man with a much different style, the late Baltimore Oriole manager Earl Weaver put it this way:
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all.
Unlike games ruled by the clock, there is no such thing as an insurmountable lead in baseball. Difficult as it might be, it is still possible to score ten runs with two outs in the bottom of the ninth to win or tie a ballgame. It probably even happened once somewhere, sometime. As Yori Berra might have said (but didn't):
If there is one word that best describes baseball it's this: You never know.
That wannabe yogism was actually uttered by all-star pitcher Joaquin Andujar, who sadly also passed away this past September. You never know describes the wonderful unpredictability of baseball, especially the game as it is played today.

This year's baseball season which concluded last Sunday was defined by you never know, making it one of the most entertaining seasons in recent memory. At least four teams came seemingly out of nowhere to make it into the playoffs, and the team that won it all, came from behind late in games five times in the post-season, proving once and for all what messers Berra and Weaver intimated, you should never leave a ball game until the last out is recorded.

I've always contended that what makes sports so compelling is the outcome is not contrived like theater, rather the drama is created before your very eyes. Last year's World Series pitted the San Francisco Giants against the Kansas City Royals. These were two very good teams, but that series was dominated by the performance of one man, Giants pitcher Madison Bumgarner. That's not to say there was no drama. The Royals ended up one swing away from winning the Series, down by one with two outs in the bottom of the ninth, a runner at third, and Salvador Perez at the plate. But in reality the outcome was never in doubt. Like a fictional heroic epic, when all looks the bleakest, you know the hero would find a way out. That's exactly what Luke Skywalker Bumgarner did. Perez, playing the role of Darth Vader in this drama, wanted desperately to go where no man had gone before by hitting a walk-off come from behind home run in game seven of the World Series. The Giant lefty responded with fast balls all out of the strike zone and Perez swinging for Kansas City, Kansas, took the bait. Instead of immortality, the best the Royal catcher could do to catch up to Bumgarner's heat was a harmless foul pop-up to third baseman Pablo Sandoval for game, set and championship.

If the drama of last year's post-season could be compared to Star Wars, this year's was a little more compelling, perhaps Hamlet meets The Shining, with a little Dr. Strangelove and Abbot and Costello thrown in for good measure. The theme tying it all together was you never know.

Each 162 game major league baseball season is an arduous journey with many pitfalls along the way. Players get injured, go into slumps, or check themselves into rehab at inopportune times. Truly good teams seem to overcome adversity and find ways to be successful. Other teams get hot for whatever reason at the right time and come up on top one year, never to be heard from again. You never know.

At the beginning of the year, things were looking good for teams with big name stars like the Nationals, and the Angels, Likewise by virtue of their being defending champions, the Giants were expected to make the postseason. All those teams fizzled, thwarted by teams who were re-building and considered a year or two away from contention, namely the Mets who won their division, and the Astros and Cubs who won wild card spots. The Astros went on to upset the Yankees (who lost their division to another unlikely team, the Blue Jays) in a one game wild card playoff.

The current setup in major league baseball where two wild card teams are selected from each league (in addition to the three division champs), is in its third year. On one hand, the system rewards teams who have good records but play in strong divisions. This year however, we had the strange occurrence of  the three best teams in baseball all coming from the same division, the National League Central. Consequently the second and third best teams in the game had to play each other in a one game playoff, meaning a high seeded team would be assured of making an early exit from the post-season. That dubious distinction went, for the second consecutive year, to the Pittsburgh Pirates, a team who has been rebuilding it seems forever. All their 98 wins and second best record in baseball got them this year was a one game ticket to Palookaville, punched by Jake Arrieta and the Cubs. Expect changes in the playoff structure next year which would give a playoff advantage to wild card teams with better records than divisional champions.

Speaking of Arrieta, no pitcher was hotter in the second half of the season. The 22 game winner posted a phenomenal 1.77 ERA for the regular season. But that's only the tip of the iceberg:
  • The last game Arrieta lost in the regular season was on July 25th. For the rest of the season he started twelve games, and won eleven of them with one no decision, a game the Cubs eventually won. 
  • Nine of the twelve games he started (granted he didn't finish them all) were shutouts. 
  • He pitched a no-hitter against the Dodgers in Los Angeles on August 30.
  • He pitched six perfect innings against the Pirates on September 27 in a one hit shutout. 
  • In those twelve games, Arrieta pitched 88 1/3 innings and gave up only 4 earned runs which adds up to an ERA of 0.41. 
  • That does not count the one game wild-card playoff in Pittsburgh where Arrieta pitched a complete game shutout.
In a normal year, off-the-chart numbers like those would have made Arrieta a shoe-in for the National League Cy Young award. But in this crazy, you never know year, two pitchers both with the Dodgers, Zack Greinke and Clayton Kershaw had phenomenal seasons of their own and posted comparable numbers for the year. At this writing we are still awaiting the announcement of the award.

The Dodgers faced the Mets in a coast to coast dream matchup for the networks who were no doubt reeling from the early departure of the Yankees. The rap on Kershaw for all his prowess, was that he couldn't win the big game. The winner of the 2014 Cy Young award, Kershaw had two rough post-seasons, last year, losing two games in the Dodgers' best of five National League Division Series loss to St. Louis, and two more the year before in the National League Championship Series, also against the Cardinals

This year, Kershaw made it five post-season losses in a row in a 3-2 loss in game one against the Mets and their young ace, Jacob deGroom. Zack Greinke had better luck with run support from his team the next game, winning it 5-2.  In game four, Kershaw finally got the monkey off his back, this time after only three days rest, pitching brilliantly in a three hit masterpiece, a do or die game in New York. In that game, Kershaw allowed only on run on a solo home run by Daniel Murphy (more on him later). LA took the game 3-1.

Things were looking up for the Dodgers as they headed home for the definitive game five with Zach Greinke on the mound. After giving up one run in the top of the first, the Dodgers immediately jumped on Jake deGroom in the bottom of the frame, scoring two runs. Greinke was looking pretty good until the fourth inning when he gave up a single to Daniel Murphy. Next up was the lefty hitter Lucas Duda who as usual received an extreme infield shift where the Dodger third baseman was positioned in short right field. Duda drew a walk, advancing Murphy to second. Then performing a revival of the classic Abbott and Costello routine, "who's on first, what's on second, I don't know's on third", the Dodgers didn't know who was on third either, and Murphy calmly waltzed to third base while the Dodgers just stood and watched. Next up was catcher Travis d'Arnaud who hit a fly ball to right that was hooking foul. Dodger left fielder Andre Ethier bore down on the ball and made a splendid running catch, one or two strides into foul territory. Murphy tagged and scored easily, tying the game.

That catch brought up the question, should Ethier have let the ball drop in foul territory, thereby conceding the out but not allowing the tying run to score? Now there's a question that will be pondered for eternity. In the sixth, Murphy (much more on him later), hit a solo home run off Greinke and that was it, the Mets beat the Dodgers three games to two.

News of the Dodgers' demise was music to the ears of Cubs fans whose team had beaten the Cardinals in the other NLDS two days before. That matchup was the first time those ancient rivals had faced each other in the post-season since 1886 when the St. Louis Browns, champions of the long defunct American Association, beat the National League Champion Chicago White Stockings (same teams, different names), in a previous incarnation of the World Series. Chicago fans had long relished the thought of meeting the Mets in the NLCS as A) lingering hatred still burns in the hearts of old-timers for the New York National Leaguers since the great Chicago collapse of 1969 and B) the Cubs owned the Mets during the regular season, taking all seven games from them.

Little did they know...

Anyway, the unusual outcome of the Mets/Dodgers series was nothing compared to what went down the day before in Toronto. Under the dome in the Great White North, the Blue Jays were battling the Texas Rangers in another deciding fifth game of a divisional series. Toronto dug itself into a deep hole after losing the first two games at home, but redeemed themselves in Arlington winning both games on the road, 5-1 and 8-4. In game five the score was tied 2-2 by the time the seventh inning rolled around. 53 minutes later, that inning would go down in history as one of the strangest ever. The weirdness started with Rangers Shin-Soo Choo at the plate and Rougned Odor at third. On a throw back to the pitcher, Toronto catcher Russell Martin inadvertently bounced the ball off Choo's bat and it ended up in the infield between third base and the pitcher's mound. Odor immediately took off for home while the plate umpire signaled a dead ball. Meanwhile the Toronto infielders were slow to react and Odor crossed the plate easily. The original call was no play (presumably due to batter interference) and not surprisingly, an argument ensued. After a video review, the umpires reversed their call, saying that the ball was indeed live as Choo and his bat did not interfere with the throw, and the go-ahead run for the Rangers counted.

Quite understandably, Blue Jay manager John Gibbons came out and rightly I believe, protested that since the umpire signaled the ball dead during the play, the play should have been ruled dead, just as in football where a play is automatically dead whenever an official blows the whistle, regardless of the reason for the whistle. Gibbons lost the argument and announced that the game was being played under protest. Toronto fans agreed and showed their displeasure by hurling trash onto the field.

It turned out to be a moot point as in the bottom of the inning, the Jays loaded the bases on three consecutive Ranger errors. Toronto scored the tying run on a fielder's choice, then the roof caved in when Jose Bautista hit a monster three run home run off a Sam Dyson sinker that didn't sink. Dyson took exception with Bautista's now legendary prodigious bat flip before he rounded the bases. A kerfuffle ensued and more trash found its way onto the field. After the dust settled, the Blue Jays found themselves up 6-3, and that's how the game and series ended.

The other ALDS saw 2014 American League Champion Kansas City Royals against the feisty Astros. Like Toronto, the Royals appeared they would be down two games do none at home. But in game two of the series, Kansas City began their streak of late come-from-behind playoff wins, by winning that game and preserving a split of the first two games of the series. Once again, in game four, six outs away from elimination, the Royals down by four in the 8th scored five runs, then two more in the ninth to move the series to a fifth game in Kansas City where newly acquired pitcher Johnny Cueto won easily, 7-2.

Whew, all that and we still haven't made it to the League Championship Series. I guess that will have to wait for another day and post.


Wednesday, November 4, 2015

A Hollow Victory

Last Saturday, Halloween night no less, an incident took place on the southwest side of Chicago that would serve as a bullet point for the gun crowd, (no pun intended). As trick-or-treaters prowled the streets of Gage Park, a masked, armed robber was shot and killed by a customer in a local business. The shooter who was packing heat had a conceal-carry permit, and will not face charges. Sure enough, conservative web sites jumped all over the incident, claiming it as yet another example of how allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons in public, saves lives and property.

Well it turns out in this case, that was only partially true as the would-be robber was armed with a toy gun. With a name sounding like he stepped out of a Dickens novel, 55 year old Reginald Gildersleeve once worked in the store where he lost his life, and it has been speculated that the attempted robbery was actually a Halloween prank gone horribly wrong. To the people in the business and especially the man who shot him, Gildersleeve was dead serious (sorry), and a real threat as he pointed a very real looking gun at the heads of the store's employees. 

Since his death, Gildersleeve's story has been well documented by the press. Leading something of a double life, he had a long history of criminal activity, mostly petty stuff like narcotics violations with a few robberies thrown in. He also was a devoted husband, step father and grandfather who portrayed himself on his Facebook page as someone looking to turn his life around. 

Hailed by some as a "good guy with a gun", the man who shot Gildersleeve has not been identified in the press and to my knowledge, has not given any interviews. His brother did acknowledge the fact that this has understandably been a very traumatic experience for him and his family.

I bring this up because so often we view incidents like this as cut and dried examples of the brutality of life in the big city that pit good guys against bad guys, forgetting that the people involved in these horrible situations are complicated human beings, not one dimensional characters ripped out of the pages of a comic book. Perhaps he needed to pay off a debt, maybe he wanted to buy a present for his wife, or maybe he was just drawn to a part of his past that he couldn't let go. We'll never know because Reginald Gildersleeve will take whatever compelled him to rob a store where people recognized him (despite the mask), to his grave. 

As for the man who shot him, justified as his actions may have been, he will have to live with the fact that he killed a man it turned out, was not much of a threat to anyone, except himself.

In the end, this incident will be recorded as just another of the 2,579 (and counting) shootings in Chicago so far this year. Since Reginald Gildersleeve died four days ago, at least five other people have been shot and killed in Chicago, including a young woman from Evanston who was visiting her grandmother in the Auburn-Gresham neighborhood, and a nine year old boy who was ambushed and executed in broad daylight, only a few hours and blocks away.

If only they had been packing heat, maybe they'd be alive today.

Yeah right.

Saturday, October 31, 2015

A Little Schoolin'

The viral video du jour, actually three of them, show a white police officer grabbing a female African American high school student while she was sitting at her desk in class, then flipping the girl and the desk over and dragging both of them out of the classroom. Not surprisingly, these videos shot by fellow students in a South Carolina school on their cell phones has drawn universal outrage, and the reactions as we have come to expect from the right and the left of this country, are entirely predictable.

To one side, this is an obvious case of a racist cop egregiously overstepping his authority. To the other side, it's a case of a teenager disrespectful of education and authority, selfishly disrupting a class thereby denying her classmates the opportunity to learn.

These reactions came well before any context surrounding the confrontation were brought to light. After the actual facts were brought out into the open well... nobody changed their mind.

The facts, some of them at least, are these:
  • During class, the student was either texting of having a conversation (eye-witness reports vary) on her cell phone and the teacher demanded she stop. She refused. (Score one against the student).
  • After a standoff, the teacher requested help from a school administrator. The student refused to cooperate again. At that point the cop, a "resource officer" who was assigned to the school was called to the room. The officer asked the student several times to get up and leave the classroom. Again she refused. (Score another against the student)
  • After unsuccessfully convincing the student to leave her seat and the classroom, the cop grabbed the girl who continued to resist. This resulted in the ugly scene in the videos described above. (Score one against the cop and the student).
  • It was later revealed that the student's mother recently died and that the young woman was in foster care. (Score one for the young woman).
  • It was also revealed that the same officer has charges pending relating to incidents of a similar nature involving students of color. (Score one against the cop).
  • The officer's boss, the county sheriff, before firing him, released a statement that his employee was no racist as he is currently dating a black woman. (No idea how to score that one). 
  • Defending his firing of the cop, the sheriff also said that the officer's actions were "not typical of the job I expect (him) to do." (Score yet another against the officer).
Heard consistently throughout the coverage of this incident is the opinion that nothing the student did, at least anything apparent from the videos, justifies the officer's actions. Perhaps this is true. However, two critical questions that desperately need to be addressed, especially by police and school officials are these: why are policemen permanently assigned to schools in the first place, and secondly, what exact actions ARE typical of the job(s) that officers are expected to do when someone flat out refuses to comply with an essential and perfectly reasonable request?

I think it's safe to assume that the teacher's and administrator's reason for calling in a policeman was to remove a disruptive student from the classroom so the class could continue. It's highly unlikely they expected the officer to council the student, offer her words of encouragement, or invite her to tea. They could have done that themselves, perhaps they should have. When all else fails, short of building trap doors or ejector seats in classrooms (hmmm, maybe not such a bad idea), the only way to remove a student who simply refuses to leave, is by using the threat of force, and when that fails, use force itself. That's why the policeman was called. If the student responds in kind with force, as was the case with this particular child, things can get pretty ugly, which they did.

It has been stated over and over again that the officer acted irresponsibly and perhaps even criminally in roughing up the student, but no one, not even the sheriff could offer any clues as to how the officer could have acted responsibly while still doing what was asked of him.

A policeman's responsibility beyond dealing with bad guys and wayward students is to use proper judgement and restraint, and to act according to the rule of law while carrying out those responsibilities. Like other people who are paid to do unpleasant work, we expect the police to do a job that most of us are unwilling and/or afraid to do. Clearly the school administrator and the teacher felt the need to remove this student from the classroom, yet they didn't want to perform the messy, perhaps job-threatening work themselves. Perhaps they should have tried harder before taking the draconian step of calling in the police officer.

I asked my resident authority on such matters, my mother, (a long time teacher, administrator and principal of a large inner-city elementary school) what she would have done. Without missing a beat she said that if a student was stubborn about leaving the class and making a scene, she would have had all the other students leave for the library and left the student alone in the classroom to sit and think about her actions without the benefit of an audience. Had the situation been handled in that way there would have been no need to call in the federales in the first place, no violence, no viral videos, and of course, no blog post.

In my book, the school officials are as responsible for what happened that day as anybody else. Calling in a police officer to handle a situation they probably could and should have handled themselves was only asking for trouble. Like I said, the officer was doing the job that was asked of him. Violent and ugly as those videos are, I am not in a position to judge if the officer acted inappropriately, and frankly with the unreliable information we have, I don't think most of us are.

As for the student, what if any responsibilities does she have? First of all I think it's reasonable to expect all students to act in the spirit of the class, if not by directly participating, then at the very least showing respect by refraining from disrupting the teacher and fellow students. Every student knows full well that using a cell phone in class is unacceptable. Except in an emergency, where the student should have excused herself from the class, there is absolutely no excuse for violating this obvious breach of common sense and respect for her teacher and her peers. It was the student's choice to violate both the spirit and the rules of the class by using her phone, refusing to stop when asked, and resisting the officer when he demanded she leave. Whether his actions were appropriate or not, the student brought upon the those actions entirely by herself.

This week, a friend of mine taught me a new word he encountered in his work in the field of social justice. That word is "de-opportuniteed", an adjective made up by social workers as a substitute for the term "at risk", used to describe children who have a good chance of falling between the cracks in society. The old term was neutral in that it didn't claim to place judgement on a child's circumstances, it merely flagged a problem. The new term by contrast explicitly states that the children in question are in their precarious position because something has been done TO them, thereby eliminating any trace of responsibility from the child.

Clearly we need to have compassion and empathy for children who lack the love, guidance, care and protection of a loving family. But there are two things that must be considered. First, not all "at risk" children are neglected by their families, and second, not all children with difficult backgrounds are at risk. At some point, all children regardless of their background must be taught to be responsible for themselves.

I see a great deal of harm in the attitude that this whole mess is entirely the responsibility of the officer and none of it belongs to the student. To me, that sends a very clear message to students all over the country that it is their right to behave exactly as they please in school, to ignore the demands of teachers, school officials and other authority figures, and that their education is entirely the responsibility of the school, and none of it their own.

And we wonder why we are falling behind the rest of the world in terms of education.

Finally, one last question has been raised over and over again in this discussion: "How would you react if that was your child?" To that let me state without any reservation that two of the most cherished people in my life are my son and daughter and if any harm came to them I would be devastated. While I refuse to lay a hand on either of my children in anger, I believe that in order to become engaged, successful individuals as well as good people, all children must be challenged to some extent in every aspect of their lives. At this point in their young lives, being a student is my children's job and they have the responsibility to do the best they can at that job. I think both of them understand that and both of them work very hard at school, even if they'd rather be doing something else.

To answer the question how would I feel if my kids were treated that way by a police officer: if one of my children at that age showed as little respect for their teacher, their education, their classmates and the police officer as the student in South Carolina did, then with much sorrow and regret I would have to say, yes, he or she would have had it coming.

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

The Neighborhood

Last week on a balmy mid-October evening, I got home late after attending an event in the Loop. Shortly after I got off the train and began my walk home, I heard the sound of sirens coming from every direction. It was pretty clear to me what was going on when I noticed that the overwhelming majority of flashing lights headed my way were blue, not red. My suspicions were confirmed the next morning when I checked the news; someone had been shot.

Most of the police cars, an ambulance and a fire truck came to rest about two blocks from me. Other cop cars were patrolling the neighborhood in search of a perpetrator. Thinking back on it now, it was probably my safest walk home in the twelve years we've lived in our current home. Considering the pleasant weather, the streets were filled with people, many of whom headed in the direction of the incident. Perhaps twenty years ago I might have joined them out of curiosity, as I was a bit of an ambulance chaser back in the day. Now however, needing little to remind myself of my own mortality, I'm much less inclined to seek out the misery of other people.

Not so for my neighbors. I'd go so far as to say there was almost a festive atmosphere on the street as the excitement broke up the tedium of everyday life, or at least took people's minds off the Cubs who were at that very moment in the process of being eliminated form the playoffs.

There was nothing in my neighbors' reactions that would indicate anything bad or even all that unusual was taking place. The next day as I walked my regular route past the scene of the crime, leaves fell from trees, kids were on their way to school, and adults on their way to work headed to their cars or like me to the train. A large American flag hung from a flagpole in front of a tidy clapboard house which stood near the spot where the shooting took place. Halloween decorations, your typical pumpkins, ghosts and spider webs, adorned many other homes. There was no indication at all that anything bad happened the night before, no police tape, no dried blood or body outlines in the street, no TV crews or reporters scoping out the scene.

The sad fact is that shootings are not unusual events in this city. The news reports I saw the following day informed me this was one of three shootings in Chicago that day. Doing the math, that number is low. From a quick search of the web, so far this year there have been 2133 shootings in Chicago. Given that roughly 300 days have gone by in 2015, on an average day over seven people get shot in our fair city. Just for the sake of argument, 377 of those who got shot in Chicago this year died, while there were 43 non gun related homicides in the city in the same period.

From the news report I read, in this particular shooting, a man walked up to another man on the street and shot him in the chest. The victim was taken to the local hospital a few blocks down the street from our house. At last report, he was in serious condition. For all I know he could be back on the street looking for payback, as medical science is so amazing these days. Another sobering item in the report was the time of the crime, 8:12PM. I distinctly remember looking at my watch as I got off the train that evening. It was just short of 8:15, meaning that had I left the downtown event a few minutes earlier and caught the previous train, I very likely could have been walking by the scene as the crime was taking place.

But it was the sheer banality of the experience that troubled me the most, including my own attitude. By the time I got home and was embraced by my children, the whole experience was put on the back burner where it has been bubbling over for almost one week.

I don't particularly fear for my own safety in my neighborhood, but I certainly fear for the safety of my wife and kids who could someday find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. I fear for my neighborhood and the city I love dearly. And I fear my own attitude which shows little compassion for gang bangers who feel compelled to kill each other, or anyone else who happens to be in their way. After all they're still some poor mother's child, human beings just like the rest if us, despite the way they behave.

On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of the stupidity of guns and violence, of street gangs and teenagers having indiscriminant. unprotected sex and giving birth to children they have no intention of caring for. I'm tired of our society rejecting the idea of personal responsibility and blaming everyone and everything but criminals for their crimes.

As much as I love our life in the city, sometimes I wish I could take my family away, far away. This evening as I walked home from the train past the site of the shooting, it was raining and about twenty degrees cooler than last week. The goons who typically roam the neighborhood looking for trouble when the weather is nice were conspicuously absent. For some reason the crime rate goes down whenever the weather gets bad meaning things should temporarily be getting better.

I never thought I'd say this, but winter can't come soon enough.