Bobby Cox & My Baseball Life

Last night epitomized what Bobby Cox has always been about--classic baseball. In the 8th inning, down by one run to the San Francisco Giants, the retiring manager of the Atlanta Braves put on the hit-and-run. Unfortunately, the Atlanta batter swatted the ball directly at the Giants' shortstop, ending the Braves' hopes for more postseason play right in that moment. It was more than that, though. It was the last time Bobby Cox would sit in a big league dugout, putting on the hit-and-run, hoping against all hope that his boys would win the game and force a fifth NLDS game in San Francisco. Last night was Bobby Cox's last game.

What Bobby Cox has meant to the city of Atlanta, to the fans and to baseball cannot be measured. After the Giants had won the game last night, while congratulating each other on the field, the Turner Field crowd began chanting "Bobby, Bobby." When a clearly emotional Bobby Cox stepped out of the dugout to tip his hat to the crowd, the entire Giants team stopped their celebration, turned toward the Braves' dugout and applauded Bobby Cox. Every person in that stadium, including all of his players and coaches, was on their feet applauding the amazing career of the Braves' manager.

As the postseason got closer this year, it was obvious that the Atlanta Braves wanted nothing more than to send their retiring manager to the playoffs one last time. He may be a world champion, a manager of the year numerous times, and the second most successful manager in postseason play (the first being Joe Torre), but for everyone that knows Bobby Cox, they also know he is a fierce competitor and wanted that last shot at a championship. That the Braves could even win the Wild Card and win a game in the postseason was nothing short of miraculous. Since the beginning of the season, the Braves have had injury after injury. A starting pitcher went down with a bad hamstring, the starting second baseman with the team's best batting average went down with a broken pinky and then went down just before the end of the season with a hip pointer injury that kept him out of the playoffs, their starting third baseman and arguably their most experienced player tore his ACL, and then, as if fate hadn't thrown enough of a hitch in their plans, the Braves' retiring closer ended his season and more than likely his career fielding a bunt and hurting an oblique in the process. The baseball gods didn't make it easy for Atlanta and didn't hand Bobby a real chance at one more championship.

If you listen to baseball people talk about Bobby Cox, you'll surely hear them refer to Bobby as a player's manager. What does this mean? Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune sort of sums up the sentiment:

"Winning with the Yankees is one thing. Winning with the Braves is another. Winning when players grumble about you is one thing. Winning when players universally respect -– and often genuinely love you -– is another."

Bobby was universally respected by every player that played for him. And his final press conference after last night's game showed the other side of the coin. As the press attempted to get him to talk about his feelings about this being the end of his career, Bobby kept saying how proud of his team he was. After choking up and admitting his belief that "a grown man shouldn't do this," he immediately went back to praising his team, specifically starting pitcher Derek Lowe. He respected his players as much as they respected him. When the team came off the field, Bobby Cox said he told his boys how proud he was of their effort. You have to think it was a highly emotional moment in the Braves' clubhouse. When the press conference wrapped up, something happened that rarely happens in these short, post-game pressers: The media stood and applauded as Bobby Cox left that room for the last time.

In the latest addition to the great series on the game by Ken Burns, Doris Kearns Goodwin talks about her "baseball life." I had never heard someone other than a player or coach, talk about the time in their life where they were both aware of and dedicated to the game of baseball the way she does in the segment. I found it odd. Until last night. Last night I realized that my entire "baseball life" Bobby Cox has been with the Braves, my Braves. In fact, Bobby has been with the Braves organization the entire time I've been alive. Just as I can't imagine Chipper Jones playing for any other manager, I can't imagine baseball without Bobby Cox. My generation of baseball fans has never known the game without Bobby Cox.

Bobby Cox has had a baseball life for fifty-one years. He really isn't going to put that uniform on again and finally he won't have to wear that pair of spikes. But just because Bobby is retiring doesn't mean he won't continue to be a huge part of the game. He'll easily go into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. His number will be retired in Atlanta. He'll hold onto his spot as the manager with the 4th most wins in baseball for some time. And, you better believe that the manager who always had his players' backs will retain the record for most career ejections for decades to come. Bobby's fifty-one year baseball life has left an impact on the game that will be around for a very long time.

It is more than okay for a grown man to cry about his last day in uniform and Bobby Cox more than earned that moment. Especially when his last day in uniform came after a fifty-one year career in a game as purely American as baseball. For this girl far from a major league ballpark, you will always represent the first 20+ years of my baseball life.

_________________________

Update (10.13.10): The Atlanta Braves have announced today that Fredi Gonzalez will take the helm of the team next season. Gonzalez, the name most often touted as a replacement for Bobby Cox, is the former manager of the Florida Marlins and came up as a coach through Atlanta's farm system, working directly under Bobby Cox prior to signing on with Florida.

2010 Buddy Walk In Boise

Saturday in Boise, the Treasure Valley Down Syndrome Association will be holding the annual Buddy Walk. 844 walkers on 59 teams are currently registered for the walk that starts at Capitol Park in Boise at 11 a.m. (For registration information, visit the Idaho Press Tribune website).

The Buddy Walk was organized in 1995 by the National Down Syndrome Society to celebrate Down Syndrome Awareness Month. Down Syndrome Awareness Month takes place every October. The Buddy Walk raises funds for local organizations like the Treasure Valley Down Syndrome Association and promotes tolerance, acceptance, understanding and inclusion of Down Syndrome people.

If you have a beautiful person in your life who has Down Syndrome, the Buddy Walk is a great opportunity to celebrate that person and what they mean in your life. And if you, like me, had the privilege of loving a Down Syndrome family member or friend who has since passed, but has left a deep impression on your heart, support the Buddy Walk and join the millions of Americans who appreciate these special souls for everything they bring to our lives.

Game 162

For those of you who follow baseball, today matters. Rarely has the 162nd game of the season determined so much. Going into today, the Rays and the Yankees are tied atop the American League East. Meanwhile, in the National League, the Braves and the Padres are tied for the Wild Card. And with one game left of the regular season, the Giants lead the Padres in the NL West by one single game.

Here's what needs to happen for my Braves to make it into the playoffs today:

First, they have to win. Secondly, the Padres have to lose. That would be the easiest path to the playoffs for them. If this were to occur, the Padres would be eliminated today.

However, a couple of other things could happen today that would still leave the door open for the Braves. If both the Padres and Braves lose today, they would play a tie-break game to decide the National League Wild Card--the 163rd game of the regular season.

Also, if the Padres win today and the Braves win, the Padres would play a single game tie-break against the Giants to determine the winner of the NL West. The loser would then go on to play a single game tie-break against the Braves for the NL Wild Card.

For you Padres fans, here's what needs to happen for the Padres to make it into the playoffs:

If the Padres were to beat the Giants today, the Padres would win the NL West. If the Braves were to lose, the Giants would then become the NL Wild Card. Obviously, the previous tie-break scenarios could also result in the Padres (rather than the Braves) going to the playoffs.

As for the Giants, they seem to have one of the easiest paths to the postseason. If the Giants beat the Padres today, their magic number is 1 and they would go straight to the playoffs as the NL West winner. This happens because the Padres are playing their division rival the Giants.

I don't much care what happens today in the American League, but for those of you following that, here are the scenarios for the American League:

The American League is much less complicated, though still totally undecided. With the American League East tied up between the Yankees and the Rays, today will determine how things match up in the postseason. If the Rays lose today and the Yankees win, the Yankees win the AL East and the Rays would then be the AL Wild Card. If the Rays win and the Yankees win, the Rays would still win the division and the Yankees the Wild Card. Why? Because the Rays hold a 10-8 season series record against the Yankees. Mostly, it is out of the hands of the Yankees. The best they can do is win and hope the Rays lose.

Did you follow that? If not, Major League Baseball's website has a nice rundown of today's scenarios.

The Yankees/Red Sox game begins at 1:35 p.m. (EST) and will be carried by TBS on cable. The Braves/Phillies game will begin at 1:35 p.m. (EST) and will be available on MLB.TV and possibly other satellite providers. And, the Giants/Padres square off at 4:05 p.m. (EST).

A Farewell to Bobby

<a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/video?vid=86bec32c-3a0f-4937-99d5-5de42152b8b9" target="_new" title="">Braves honor Bobby Cox</a>

Bonus link: "So Long Bobby" from the Johnson Post.

Winning At Any Cost

Yesterday when Boise City Councilman TJ Thomson issued what amounts to a retraction of a critical comment he made on a Facebook page about Congressman Walt Minnick's bigoted campaign ad, it was readily apparent that he'd been spoken to by Minnick's campaign or someone supportive of Minnick's campaign. Chances are Councilman Thomson received the very "fact sheet" that the Minnick campaign has been using in the press to defend the disgusting ad and was asked to please walk back his comment. Rather than allow the Labrador campaign to use Thomson's comment against Minnick, Thomson told the press that he had since found the ad to be accurate and suggested that Labrador's campaign spend less time on Facebook. No matter the order of events yesterday, the Minnick campaign got exactly what they wanted out of TJ Thomson.

The incident yesterday with TJ Thomson was not the first of such incidents that the Minnick campaign "cleaned up" and it probably won't be the last.

Now, rewind to August 6, 2009. This blog posted a complete summary of Walt Minnick's voting record. As we were about the see, that particular August would become chaotic as members of congress departed D.C. for their districts to talk about health care reform. Town hall gatherings all over this country went viral as the Tea Party began screaming about socialism and Obama's plan to kill grandma. Minnick was known to be wavering on health care (something he eventually voted against) and he agreed to meet with Tea Party Boise during the break. To stem the reaction of Idaho Democrats who were disappointed in Minnick for his obvious pandering, the Minnick campaign started talking up the votes Minnick had taken that supported the Democratic majority. This blog posted the complete summary of Minnick's voting record in response to the effort his campaign was making to convince us all that he was in fact a Democrat.

After I posted the voting record summary, I started receiving comments on it that were incredibly detailed and ultra-supportive of Congressman Minnick. I was chastised for my "flawed logic" and one particular commenter continued to assert that Minnick was the best Idaho Democrats could do. Like the argument Sisyphus has been making of late, a commenter by the name of idaho-dem stated that Minnick is good for Idaho Democrats because no Republican representative would have voted for the Lilly Leadbetter Fair Pay Act, hate crimes legislation or an extension of SCHIP. While idaho-dem continued to attack my arguments and further those of Minnick's campaign, I noticed in my blog stats that the internet service provider for idaho-dem was the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually I narrowed it even further and found that idaho-dem was not just any another Idaho Democrat like myself, but a member of Minnick's congressional staff commenting from a computer in one of Minnick's congressional offices. In politics this is what you would call astroturfing.

Once I had figured out that this fierce defender of Walt Minnick was astroturfing on my site, I spoke with John Foster of Minnick's office (now campaign spokesperson for the congressman). Prior to that summer, I had had a good working relationship with Foster and didn't realize that he was as opportunistic, manipulative and calculating as his boss. Foster talked me down and assured me that he would do something about this congressional intern who was commenting on my blog. After we discussed the situation, we discussed my criticism of Minnick and Foster reminded me that we Idaho Democrats needed to stick together because "we're family." By the end of that August day, I had closed comments on the post, removed all comments for viewing (something that has since been reversed, all comments are available here), and wrote a post discussing the situation. That August day, like the situation with TJ Thomson yesterday, John Foster and the Minnick campaign got out of me exactly what they wanted.

Not only did I have the experience of the Minnick campaign getting me to go along with their antics last August when I summarized Minnick's voting record, I had it again almost a year later when I co-wrote an expose about Walt Minnick. By spring of this year, I had given up hope that Walt Minnick would ever support the progressive ideals he ran on in 2008 and I had become a thorn in the side of John Foster and the Minnick campaign. Once the expose ran, I wasn't contacted by John Foster like I had been the previous August, I was contacted by someone I respect who had been contacted by John Foster and asked to speak to me. I stood by the expose then and I stand by it now. I wasn't about to let Foster and the Minnick campaign get their way again.

In the days following "The Walt Minnick You Don't Know" running here and at the MountainGoat Report, we both took heat for our criticism of Minnick. Over at MGR, she started receiving comments from two members of the Canyon County Democratic Party. The comments questioned her criticism of Minnick and questioned both of our devotion to Democratic politics. One comment by an officer of the Canyon County Democrats, Matthew Greene, insisted that MGR remove the link she had to the Canyon County Dems in her sidebar. She, like I, eventually started seeing a pattern in the comments she was receiving. The internet service provider was the same for Matthew Greene and another commenter who purported to be just another Idaho Democrat. The same would be true of Thaddius Wenderoth and another commenter who also purported to be just another Democrat. We who deal with politics call this astroturfing.

What does the incident with Matthew Greene at the MountainGoat Report have to do with what happened to me or what happened with TJ Thomson yesterday? The Minnick campaign turned around and hired Matthew Greene. They apparently didn't learn a thing from astroturfing on my site, in fact, they must condone astroturfing because they turned around and hired a Canyon County astroturf pro.

From an email they sent out about campaign workers:

And, from Minnick's campaign expenditures we see that Minnick's campaign office is paying Matthew Greene:
The Walt Minnick campaign, led by John Foster, will do whatever it takes to win and they have no qualms about using people to get what they want. They did it to me, they did it to TJ Thomson and they're now paying Matthew Greene for it. However, this isn't about Matthew Greene or even about TJ Thomson, this is about holding our elected officials accountable and expecting more from a man who, like it or not, wears the 'Democrat' label.

I don't know how the supposedly "too liberal" Huffington Post got hold of the story about Labrador wanting to send Idaho Guardsmen to the southern border between deployments, but I would put money on someone in the Minnick campaign shopping it to them. It also wouldn't surprise me if Thom George, chairman of the Kootenai County Democrats, came to Minnick's aid yesterday at 43rd State Blues with the Huffington Post story because he was asked to. This is simply how the Minnick campaign operates. Win at any cost.

As much as I would like to blame the entirety of what is happening with the Minnick campaign solely on Foster and Minnick himself, the Idaho Democratic Party and the Idaho press are enablers. The Idaho press has taken Minnick at his word on every part of his biography, on his voting record and on everything else he wants them to write about. It's despicable and unethical. Thankfully, Vickie Holbrook of the Idaho Press Tribune apparently can't be told what to do (at least not by John Foster and the Minnick campaign) and is calling for Minnick to stop airing that bigoted campaign ad.

The Walt Minnick campaign: Winning at any cost. Is this man really what is right for Idaho?

______________________________________

Update (9/30 9:48 a.m.): I knew of this, but didn't want to say anything without MG's permission. This is what I find the most despicable about the "win at any cost" strategy of Minnick & Foster:

The Florida Ruling: "No Rational Basis for the Statute"

When the Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida ruled last week that Florida's ban on gay adoption is unconstitutional, something interesting happened. In the unanimous ruling, not only did the appeals court state that gay parents wishing to adopt are being denied their equal protection rights as well as their right to due process, the appeals court stated that no amount of actual proof exists that suggests homosexual parents are any less capable than their heterosexual counterparts.

In the opinion, penned by Judge Gerald B. Cope, Jr., the Court summarized the case as follows:

"Under Florida law, homosexual persons are allowed to serve as foster parents or guardians but are barred from being considered for adoptive parents. All other persons are eligible to be considered case-by-case to be adoptive parents, but not homosexual persons-even where, as here, the adoptive parent is a fit parent and the adoption is in the best interest of the child."

The case arose when a gay foster parent sought to legally adopt two young boys that had been placed in his care by the Florida Department of Children and Families (FDCF). Despite the FDCF offering numerous "expert" witnesses that insisted that children raised by homosexual parents are more susceptible to questioning their own sexual orientation, more at risk of encountering domestic violence, and are more likely to experience the break up or dissolution of their family, the Court found no proof to support FDCF's claims. FDCF was supported in their appeal by numerous fundamentalist Christian, homophobic, bigoted, far-right "family councils" that had supported this law for it's thirty-three years of existence.

The problem with bans like the Florida one, other than the obvious problem of discrimination and intrusion on constitutional rights, is that there aren't enough homes for all of the children that need homes desperately. Before states like Florida rule out the opportunity for a segment of the population to adopt, there are already far more children needing homes than there are adoptive families. We have a crisis in this country when it comes to our children and yet states like Florida, Utah, and Arkansas refuse to allow capable, loving parents to adopt children who would otherwise spend their lives in foster care.

Florida understands this; At least to the extent that they leave the door open for several segments of their population to adopt. Florida allows for the following parents to adopt on a case-by-case basis and in most cases pride themselves on not automatically discriminating against these groups: Parents with a prior criminal history including for assault, battery, drug crime, & other felonies; Parents with physical disability or handicap; Parents with chronic medical conditions (including those who are HIV positive); and unbelievably, parents with verified findings of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. Florida does not discriminate against single parents or against anyone on the basis of sex, color, or national origin. Florida attempts to keep the door open for as many successful adoptions as possible in almost every other case except for those that involve gays.

Like Florida, Arkansas has a law on the books that bans gays from adopting. Like Florida's law, the Arkansas law is currently being challenged in the courts. Even more extreme than Florida's law, Arkansas passed legislation in 2008 that would prevent any unmarried, cohabiting couple from adopting. The proponents of the Arkansas Adoption Act wanted to ban gays from adopting so badly that they didn't mind trampling on the rights of the completely heterosexual, unmarried couples in the state who wished to adopt as well. In the lead-up to the 2008 election, the Family Council Action Committee and other organizations that supported the Arkansas Adoption Act campaigned on their misled belief that the law wasn't about taking away the rights of adults, but was about protecting the rights of children. As many believed and said then, the state would rather have children living in foster care their entire lives than have them living in loving, stable homes with gay parents.

While Judge Christopher Piazza of the Pulaski County Circuit Court upheld the state of Arkansas' right to go forward with the ballot initiative banning gay adoption in 2008, he ruled as follows:

"Initiated Act 1 prohibits cohabiting same-sex couples and heterosexual couples from becoming foster or adoptive parents. It does not prohibit them from becoming foster or adoptive parents if they do not cohabitate. However, the act significantly burdens non-marital relationships and acts of sexual intimacy between adults and forces them to choose between becoming a parent and having any type of meaningful intimate relationship outside of the marriage. This infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed to all citizens of Arkansas."

Though the Florida ruling avoided discussion of the right to privacy, the Arkansas ruling hinged on it. What the two rulings have in common is this: The legal battle surrounding gay adoption appears to have completely ignored the squawking from organizations like the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, and in the Arkansas case, the Family Council Action Committee, who have repeatedly said that homosexual parents are not equal to heterosexual parents (a claim that has been proven wrong time and time again).

This revelation is as much a victory for gay rights and the welfare of the nation's children as the actual court rulings are.

The welfare of the nation's children is a topic often in the news lately. Our children are facing a growing crisis in this country, one that cannot be ignored. The recent news about the number of children living in poverty is only one in many unsettling aspects of the crisis our children are facing. Let's talk about poverty first. The numbers are horrific:

"Worst of all, children, our most vulnerable group, experienced the steepest rise in poverty and the largest single-year increase since the 1960s. After dropping twenty-four percent between 1992 and 2000, the number of children in poverty increased more than one-third between 2000 and 2009. An additional 1.4 million children swelled the ranks of poor children to 15.5 million children -- more than one in five children. This almost ten percent increase in child poverty over 2008 is shameful, disturbing, and threatening news for millions of our nation’s children -- unless our nation addresses their human emergency needs."

As of 2008, Arkansas ranked 40th in infant mortality, 47th in child deaths, 42nd in teen deaths, 44th in child poverty, and 39th in child abuse deaths. From the same study, Florida ranked 48th in uninsured children, 48th in juvenile incarceration, and 41st in child abuse deaths. Utah, another state that has laws on the books that prevent gays from adopting, ranks 43rd in uninsured children. What these rankings mean:

Clearly, whatever system these states have for caring for their children isn't working. Is preventing a broader pool of potential adoptive parents from caring for these children really the best idea? Obviously not.

In the period prior to 2008, 5 children died per day from abuse or neglect (a total of 10,440 children in the U.S. are known to have died from abuse and neglect between 2001 and 2007). In a recent report from the Every Child Matters Education Fund, during the period from 2001-2008, 134 children in Arkansas died due to child abuse and neglect. During the same period, there were 970 child abuse or neglect fatalities. In Utah, 91 children died. Unfortunately, most of these stories are often never told to the public because of restrictive confidentiality laws that shield us from knowing the failures of our country's child protection services. For every child like Idaho's Robert Manwill, there are sadly dozens more.

Children need loving, stable homes to succeed. In the crisis that faces today's children, one caring home could make the difference. Banning an entire subset of potential parents from adopting is not only wrong, it is feeding the crisis. If a kind, caring couple wishes to adopt a child, create a safe environment for that child and ensure that child has everything he or she needs to succeed, what difference does it make if that couple is homosexual or heterosexual? It shouldn't make a difference at all and finally our nation's courts are saying so.

The Florida ruling, which will more than likely be appealed and eventually gain an audience with the Florida State Supreme Court, is only one in a series of court rulings that stand to challenge the discrimination in this country that our local, state and federal governments refuse to address through lawmaking. In the first two decades of the twenty-first century, we could potentially see the overturning of the military policy that prevents gays from serving openly, we could see several states move to strike down laws that prevent gays from adopting, and we could see Prop. 8 (the ban on gay marriage in California) overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. As much as we need skilled and dedicated soldiers whose sexual orientation is not an issue to serve in our military and as much as we need to remain true to the founding principles of equality that this nation has spent its existence striving for, our children are important too and we must give them every possible means to thrive.

TDIH: Kennedy/Nixon Debates

On this day fifty years ago, then-candidate John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon participated in the first of four televised presidential debates. It was the first time in the history of the United States that a presidential debate was televised and 70 million viewers tuned in to watch. On this, the fiftieth anniversary, I offer the following links:

• For an overview of the debates, the Museum of Broadcast Communications offers a superb synopsis as well as suggested further reading.

• In the September issue of Smithsonian magazine, Alison McLean summed up the influence of the debates nicely:

"Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon face off in the first televised presidential debate September 26, 1960. As a tanned, fit-looking Kennedy debates a thin, wan Nixon (recovering from the flu and recent knee surgery) in need of a shave, the subject is policy, but the take-home message is that on TV, appearances matter. Exactly how much the event affects Kennedy's fall victory is itself a matter of debate, but more than half of voters report the contest influenced their opinion. Nixon declines to debate in 1968 and, as president, in 1972."

• An excerpt on the New Nixon Blog (a feature of the Nixon Foundation website), "Fifty Years After: 1960's Kennedy-Nixon Debates," by David Pietrusza.

• The Huffington Post secured a superb article by Northeastern professor Alan Schroeder that is worthy of the few moments it takes to read. We often do think only of the cosmetics of the debates, but we really should remember the historical significance of the debates.

It's unfortunate in this day and age, with the media outlets we have, that some in politics (Idaho and otherwise) do not truly appreciate the opportunity to debate. We now have the ability to disseminate debates all across this country, even to the most rural parts, and instead of taking that opportunity to allow for the education of every last voter, politicians hide from that face-time in a pathetic, cowardly way. Fifty years ago, the way we educate the voting public changed; if only fifty years later we could appreciate that advancement in democracy for what it is.