Free Republic

Very interesting (104) post. Thanks.

I fell upon an interview with Morrison's father and sister from a few years ago. It was quite an eye opener. Rear Adm. Morrison spoke of his famous son as highly intelligent, spoke of his own hope that his son would make a career in film, and admitted to never having listened to his son's music despite berating him for taking up a music career despite lacking musical talent. Yet he also betrayed an enormous pride in his son for having succeeded in his own way, on his own terms, though he didn't say anything (and the interviewer may not have thought to ask) about some of the antics post-1968 (not to mention the railroading bust in Miami in 1969---let's get it straight, Jim Morrison actually never exposed himself, he was wearing oversize boxers beneath his slacks) that may have been part of his son's bid to shed the "Lizard King" image because he feared nobody in his audience really took the music or the poetry seriously. Take all that as you will.

His sister, though, remembered her brother's high school graduation gift request: where most boys "wanted a car," Jim Morrison wanted a set of the complete works of Nietzsche . . .

Jim said as a kid, he was traveling with his family across some stretch of hot desert when they came across a brutal fatal accident involving some Indians from a local tribe..

As they slowly drove past all the death and vehicle carnage on the hot asphalt, he felt the soul of an Indian enter his body...

Probably why he used war paint and slammed whiskey as much as he did....I think I’ll have a shot...or two.

He may or may not have felt the soul of an Indian enter his body, but he was deeply affected by seeing that accident. His parents remembered him in tears over it and finding him inconsolable over what he saw.

This was the incident he later referenced in the lyrics to the Morrison Hotel song "Peace Frog." When the three surviving Doors put music to the poems that became the posthumous An American Prayer, that segment of "Peace Frog" was dubbed to his poem "Dawn's Highway/Newborn Awakening," with the "Peace Frog" segment bridging the two portions of that piece.

Indian, indian what did you die for?
Indian says, nothing at all.
Gently they stir, gently rise
The dead are newborn awakening
With ravaged limbs and wet souls
Gently they sigh in rapt funeral amazement
Who called these dead to dance?
Was it the young woman learning to play the ghost song on her baby grand?
Was it the wilderness children?
Was it the ghost god himself, stuttering, cheering, chatting blindly?
I called you up to anoint the earth
I called you to announce sadness falling like burned skin
I called you to wish you well
To glory in self like a new monster
And now i call you to pray.

Interpreting "The End" in light of Vietnam is intriguing, but you might want to consider a) that Jim Morrison began writing the lyric about his breakup with a girl friend; and, b) what the Doors themselves said of the song otherwise:

Everytime I hear that song, it means something else to me. It started out as a simple good-bye song.... Probably just to a girl, but I see how it could be a goodbye to a kind of childhood. I really don't know. I think it's sufficiently complex and universal in its imagery that it could be almost anything you want it to be.---Jim Morrison, in 1969.

Sometimes the pain is too much to examine, or even tolerate….That doesn't make it evil, though – or necessarily dangerous. But people fear death even more than pain. It's strange that they fear death. Life hurts a lot more than death. At the point of death, the pain is over. Yeah – I guess it is a friend...---Jim Morrison, focusing on the line "My only friend, the end . . ."

He was giving voice in a rock 'n' roll setting to the Oedipus complex, at the time a widely discussed tendency in Freudian psychology. He wasn't saying he wanted to do that to his own mom and dad. He was re-enacting a bit of Greek drama. It was theatre!---Ray Manzarek.

At one point Jim said to me during the recording session, and he was tearful, and he shouted in the studio, 'Does anybody understand me?' And I said yes, I do, and right then and there we got into a long discussion and Jim just kept saying over and over kill the father, f--k the mother, and essentially boils down to this, kill all those things in yourself which are instilled in you and are not of yourself, they are alien concepts which are not yours, they must die. F--k the mother is very basic, and it means get back to essence, what is reality, what is, f--k the mother is very basically mother, mother-birth, real, you can touch it, it's nature, it can't lie to you. So what Jim says at the end of the Oedipus section, which is essentially the same thing that the classic says, kill the alien concepts, get back reality, the end of alien concepts, the beginning of personal concepts.---John Densmore, the Doors' drummer, in his memoir Riders on the Storm

Take it all as you will.

Life hurts a lot more than death.

It should be kept in mind, too, that Jim Morrison was brought up in a psychologically abusive environment. His father, a Navy pilot and eventual rear admiral, and his mother had agreed never to spank their children but, instead, relied on ferocious military-style dressings-down, including harshly insulting beratings, that endured until the child in question was broken to tears confessing his or her failures (the Morrisons had two sons and one daughter)---even if it had only been a human mistake, as opposed to genuine misbehaviour.

Morrison broke off contact with his family (other than occasional contact with his brother) after he graduated UCLA (as a film student, two years before the Doors broke big), except for one occasion on which his father all but ordered him to give up his music career due to a "lack of talent"---at the time the Doors' first album was becoming a best-seller and "Light My Fire" was becoming the country's number one hit single---after a family member brought the Doors' debut to the elder Morrisons thinking their son was on the cover.

The earliest Doors promotion materials included a note that Jim Morrison claimed no living family. Rear Adm. Morrison himself shrugged it off by telling a reporter he took it to mean that his son was only too well aware of the parents' disapproval of the career choice "and maybe he was trying to protect us." Neither of Morrison's parents were ever known to comment about the Oedipal section of "The End," though if you're looking for any Vietnam reference in the song be advised that Rear Adm. Morrison's service including his having been the flagship commander (aboard the Bon Homme Richard, an aircraft carrier) of the 3rd Fleet Carrier Division during the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 and, upon his promotion to rear admiral, served further in the Vietnam War.

I don't know what it means on a deeper level, but on the same day his father was the keynote speaker at the ceremony decommissioning the Bon Homme Richard he once commanded, Jim Morrison died . . .

Manzarek was inspired by John Coltrane's version of My Favorite Things for Light My Fire.

That intro he devised for "Light My Fire" was damn near the theme of the summer of 1967, if you didn't count the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. His solo was a classic, too, though it was a shame it (and Robby Krieger's follow-up guitar solo) had to be edited for the single.

But if you ask me what Ray Manzarek's best, or certainly most beautiful performance in the Doors was, I'd have to say it was . . .

The Doors, "Riders on the Storm"

Did the Doors use a studio bass player in their recordings (in L.A. it would almost certainly have been Carole Kaye)?

(Too lazy to search for it.)

The Doors used Douglas Lubahn (a member of Clear Light, also on the Elektra label at the time) in the studio from Strange Days through Morrison Hotel; they used Jerry Scheff, a bassist with Elvis Presley's Vegas stage band, for L.A. Woman.

Just a little respite from the chicaneries of His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Be Life President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States . . . for old times' sake!

(No, I didn't forget Joe Niekro, I just thought he was too much of a putz about it to put him on such an extinguished dishonour roll . . . heh, heh, heh . . . )

OK, you talked me into it. Here are some of what you'd find on my driving list, in no order of preference:

Muddy Waters, His Best: 1948-55 and His Best: 1956-64.
B.B. King, Do the Boogie: Early '50s Classics.
Duke Ellington, Braggin' in Brass: The Complete 1938 Recordings.
Michael Bloomfield and Friends, Live at Bill Graham's Fillmore West 1969.
Otis Redding, Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul.
James Brown, Live at the Apollo.
Howlin' Wolf, Moanin' at Midnight/Howlin' Wolf.
Grant Green, Grant's First Stand.
Various Artists, Heaven Must Have Sent You: The Holland-Dozier-Holland Story. (Including their Motown hits in the original mono single masters---talk about putting the jukebox in your car!)
The Butterfield Blues Band, East-West.
Ray Charles, The Genius Sings the Blues.
Miles Davis, Kind of Blue.
The Beatles, The Beatles' Second Album. (Yes, I know, Capitol fragmented their catalog in the original heady days, but even with that this album just plain kicked---and kicks---end-to-end ass!)
Savoy Brown, A Step Further. (Especially for "The Savoy Brown Boogie" . . .)
Canned Heat, Boogie with Canned Heat.
Santana, Live at the Fillmore '68.
Albert King, I'll Play the Blues for You.
Freddie King, The Complete King/Federal Singles.
Guitar Slim, Sufferin' Mind: The Legends of Specialty Series.
Booker T. and the MGs, Melting Pot.
Albert Collins, The Cool Sound of Albert Collins.
Various Artists, Memphis Blues: Important Postwar Blues (a four-disc set of all the blues Sam Phillips recorded at what became the Sun Studios before he found Elvis Presley).
John Lee Hooker, The Original Modern Recordings.
Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels, Rev Up: The Best of Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels (and how long do we have to wait before these guys get their due in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?)

. . . just for openers . . .

I love that story! (The Playmate in question, Jo Collins, married Belinsky; they eventually divorced.)

My favourite remark about Don Sutton comes from Ray Miller: "Sutton's set such a fine example of defiance that one day I expect him to throw a ball up to the plate with bolts attached."

A tack in the glove is fine with me...

Which reminds me of Rick Honeycutt. In his pitching days, he once had a tack held to a finger on his glove hand, held there with a flesh-coloured bandage. When he got caught with it, he walked off the mound and, without thinking, wiped sweat from his forehead . . . with the tack hand, leaving a gash going across his forehead. His teammates didn't let him live it down the rest of the season . . .

In the bigs anything wrong with the ball and a new one is in. Even the batters pay attention and ask the ump to check the ball.

And, if they're not sure themselves and don't ask the ump to check, they just do what former pitching coach Ray Miller reminded people: Hit it on the dry side---or, wait for the one that doesn't break. Because a spitter that doesn't break is just a batting practise fastball begging to take a trip over the fence.

Bo Belinsky once said that when you played the Yankees and Whitey Ford got away with his mud ball, the opposing pitcher prayed to find it waiting for him at the mound when the sides changed. Belinsky himself would learn a proper spitter in due course from Lew Burdette, but he'd say of Ford's mud ball, "If I saw that little spot of mud on it when I got back to the mound, it was three outs I didn't even have to try for. If the spot wasn't there, I was dead."

Then there was Don Sutton, who once inspired Ray Miller to say this: Sutton has shown such a fine example of defiance that I expect him to throw a ball up to the plate with bolts attached to it.

Sutton himself had his own way of dealing with things when the umpires wanted him frisked. He was said to have little notes in the fingers of his glove, one of which said: YOU'RE GETTING WARMER. BUT IT ISN'T HERE.

Did you know: Sutton as an Angel once started a game against Tommy John, then a Yankee, and also suspected himself of a little fine tuning on a ball. During the game, George Steinbrenner---who was watching from his Tampa home---called the Yankee dugout and badgered manager Lou Piniella to have Sutton checked and, if necessary, ejected.

"George," Piniella pleaded, "if I have Sutton checked they'll have T.J. checked. Whatever they're doing, T.J.'s doing it better. So let's just let them be."

The Yankees won the game, but the best line about the game came from a scout watching from the press box: "Tommy John and Don Sutton? If you can find one smooth ball from that game, you ought to send it to Cooperstown."

I wonder if anyone ever just put something very dry and slick on their fingers, like spray silicone or boot waterproofing. That way you wouldn’t have to keep putting it on and nothing would be on the ball. I know they use some stuff that dries up with no evidence like hand sanitizer, but you would have to put more on. Anything to let the ball slip off the fingers and be grabbed by your thumb to give forward rotation with a fastball motion.

Apparently, before he went to outright doctoring, Whitey Ford was known to use a kind of stickum for a slightly better grip on his curve ball. He kept it in a hollowed-out deodorant tube on which the label hadn't been changed.

There was a hilarious incident involving that stuff in the Yankee clubhouse one fine day. Yogi Berra, apparently, had a habit of mooching personal products now and then, so Mickey Mantle decided to break that habit for him. He put Ford's stickum tube in a spot where Berra couldn't resist, and Yogi fell for it. Three minutes later, he ran screaming into the trainer's room: he had to have his arms shaved loose after Ford's stickum pinned his inner biceps to his sides.

On the other hand, there was Mudcat Grant. Once upon a time, Grant liked to soap the inside of his uniform jersey and, when the warmth of the afternoon took hold, he'd have himself a little soap foam next to his belt to scoop onto a pitch. He got away with it until the day he inadvertently put too much of the stuff on his gray traveling uniform and the soapy foam was just too obvious to ignore.

They used to call the knuckler the ‘dry spitter.’ Here’s an awesome RA Dickey gif, what Hoyt Wilhelm used to call his ‘spinner.’ Looks like bugs bunny throwing his corkscrew. RA threw this one at 80mph. Yes, 80mph. The catcher closes his eyes when he catches it.

They used to call the split-finger fastball the "legal" spitter because of its comparable break. George Bamberger (major league manager, minor league pitcher), who once made his way pitching in the minors with his own spitter (he called it a "Staten Island sinkerball"), once said, "Suppose I had my middle finger amputated? I bet you I'd have one helluva split finger fastball."

Finally, since you just about can't talk about the spitter without talking about the man himself, a Gaylord Perry story: Perry off the field was known as a friendly fellow, including with the umpires---even with those who had him frisked on the mound at regular intervals.

One afternoon, Perry bumped into an umpire who'd had him frisked the night before. They chatted amiable until the talk came around to the umpire's son, who pitched in the Little League, and whose team was getting beaten rather regularly. "Gaylord," the ump said, "you think you could teach my kid how to throw that thing?"

I prefer belt buckle

So did Whitey Ford----after he finally got nailed (sort of) using his wedding ring, which had a tiny rasp in it but enough that, as he once put it, "I had my own tool bench out there."

When Ford couldn't go to his belt buckle, catcher Elston Howard had a trick: he'd scrape a ball against the buckles of his shin guards before returning it to Ford.

Of course, in the old days you could go to the toxic waste dump if you chewed tobacco. That was Lew Burdette's little trick: he'd spit the juice to a certain part of the dirt near the rubber and build himself a little sump puddle. Whenever he went to adjust his shoes (which was half the time, a habit he'd had since he was a Yankee farm hand), he'd scoop up a little of his contraband puddle if he needed an out pitch post haste.

Joan Crawford may or may not have screamed "No! Wire! Hangers!" at her daughter . . . but Mike Flanagan of the Orioles didn't mind them when it came to demonstrating what he could do with a doctored ball if he wanted. He once showed Thomas Boswell a fresh ball, broke open a wire coat hanger, scratched four parallel cuts into the meat of the hide, then held it up. "Any time I need five new pitches," he said, "I got 'em."

Baseball is a game played by really good "kids" and officiated by humans. Bad calls have always been made and they will continue to do so. That's just a reflection on the imperfection of those who play it and those who officiate it...........

Imperfection is one thing; incompetence, for which Angel Hernandez has a game-wide reputation, is something else entirely. Particularly when Hernandez could see clearly enough what everyone watching that game on television could see and still blow the call.

It is what it is and any attempt to refine it and convert it to technological scrutiny will destroy the game forever.

Getting it right is never destructive to the game. I concede this was an early regular season contest, but suppose the game had championship implications? How sanguine would we be then in the innate imperfection of the beings who play and officiate the game?

You might care to know that an umpire who committed one of the most infamous blown calls in baseball history has long since come out in favour of permanent instant replay---regular season and postseason---and hinted that there wouldn't be a thing wrong with baseball government overruling an obviously blown call.

Said umpire's name is Don Denkinger.

P.S. Comparing Hernandez the other night to Jim Joyce in 2010 is almost apples and oranges. Joyce knew he blew the call at the moment he got to see a replay of the play and never shied from acknowledging it in the immediate aftermath. And, unlike Hernandez, who also has a game-wide reputation for arrogance, Joyce after his blown call didn't tell reporters seeking his comments that he'd only issue written comments, and on his own terms. In essence, Hernandez was telling anyone who wanted to know what he was or wasn't thinking when making a flagrantly blown call to urinate up the proverbial rope.

By the way, baseball government has acknowledged the call was blown, but that's all. It should rule the game suspended at a 4-4 tie, and play its remainder from the point of Adam Rosales's should-have-been home run, the next time the A's and the Indians meet. At the least it would be a far more legitimate continuation of a suspended game than the infamous George Brett pine-tar homer was . . .

So...whatcher tellin’ me is that the M’s have to win two World Series in order to catch up to the Cubbies. Oh, thanks a lot. Let me just go shoot myself now...

If my New York Mess (er, Mets) and my Boston Red Sox could do it in my lifetime (do not ask my Class A drug bill in October 1986!!!), anything can happen.

The Cubs were one game away from winning the World Series in 1945 . . .

. . . and the Texas Rangers twice were a strike away from winning the Series in 2011.

Close counts only in horseshoes, hand grenades, and (I think) atomic bombs . . . unfortunately.

You could be an Astros fan.

8-24 Ouch.

Oh, yes, the Astros. Weren't they the team named later to complete the trade that made a National League team out of the Milwaukee Brewers?

Of course the improvements Ricketts wants, including lots more signage, are things he believes would increase his revenue rather than anything that would improve the game-watching experience in Wrigley.

A baseball team that can score more runs than the other guys on a regular basis would do far more to improve the game-watching experience at the Confines than any signage or other cosmetics . . .

(This is the 115th year of their rebuilding effort the Cubs are playing this season, by the way . . .)

. . .it actually is a sound plan to build a high-tech wonder and wait for the enhanced revenue to purchase high-quality players. As a loyal Seattle fan I can state that that policy has given us every World Series the Mariners have ever won. Which would be one fewer than the Cubs. (Sob!)

I must have missed the World Series the Mariners actually did win.

(*FYI---This is from early American history, of course, but the Cubs actually have won two World Series. Back-to-back, even. That, of course, was during the Roosevelt Administration----Theodore's, that is . . .)

There may have been a miscommunication on my part. I think you were responding to the ‘ruins’ of the party when I meant the ruins of the country.

In turn, I probably should have been more clear that I meant the ruins of country more than party.

I know you don’t mean ‘be passive’ but without organization, organizational unity, hierarchy, leadership, valor only ends in a glorious death in defeat.

Well, we've been without it for long enough as it is.

But I don't want anything other than a properly-construed government (as opposed to the improperly-consecrated State) whose sole legitimate business---other than protecting and defending us from predators at home (real predators, if you please, not mere vicemongers) and enemies actual or demonstrably/provably iminent from abroad---is to leave her citizens the hell alone; to stay the hell out of your business, my business, every citizen's business, until or unless one citizen would obstruct or abrogate another's equivalent rights.

Who's going to start the journey back? I only wish I knew. It's easier, unfortunately, to see who isn't going to start the journey back.

Unfortunately, further, it doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere near beginning that journey this time around. Not based on what's incumbent in Washington now, not based on what at least one major party's going to be stuck with for November. (There was a part of me that had half a hope that some brazen but disillusioned Democrat might think of a primary challenge to His Excellency, but only a part, and you don't need me to tell you how that prospect worked out!)

I'd like to say that the smart place to concentrate would be upon Capitol Hill, but I'm not necessarily optimistic about those prospects, either. (I'm still mindful of Mr. Reagan's admonition that from the outside Washington looks like a sewer but, once you get inside, it starts feeling more like a hot tub, something like that, I can't recall the precise word-for-word remark right now.)

But then I'm of a breed that doesn't look upon the government as the alpha and omega of all. The ruination of the country began when people began looking at the government in that way, and those looks began long enough before any of us were born . . .

How can you be sure that your idea of conservatives, or conservatives at all, will rule the ruins?

Considering the way things have been going I don't think anyone can be sure that anyone's idea of conservatives will "rule," the ruins or otherwise.

Besides, I don't want and we don't need "rulers." Always remember that the first thing to go wrong with any conservative "revolution" is when the conservatives get the brilliant idea that it's their turn to "rule" (how'd that brilliant idea work out for you and for us, 2001-2006 GOP government?) instead of keeping the brilliant idea that it's the government which needs a watchful and ornery eye upon it---not the "ruled."

Remember that we're talking, in the end, about politicians. About whom P.J. O'Rourke had a point when he said, Politicians are foxes. But we insist on believing that some are guard dogs. We elect them to watch the hen house, and on the first Wednesday in November there's nothing left but feathers.

And unless there's a heretofore unseen surprise coming our way at convention time, on the first Wednesday of this November we're going to see nothing left but feathers, yet again, whether it's the re-election of His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Be Life President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States and Chairman of the Organisation of Halfrican Unity; or, the election of the Bain of our existence . . .

Which is one reason why (in my state we can do this) I'm casting a write-in vote for the man who once said, Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it, and misapplying the wrong solutions, on the grounds that Artemus Ward was right: if you can't find a live manperson who amounts to anything, by all means let's have a first class corpse.

The Perot votes gave us Clinton.

George H.W. Bush's policy reversals---read his lips, anyone?---gave us Clinton. Even if you accept the Perot votes as merely, and mostly, a direct result of reading President Lips, remember always that the only votes that counted for Droopy-Drawers were the votes he got. The votes for Perot were merely votes for Perot. Nothing more, nothing less. (And who's to say how many of those who did vote for Perot would have voted a) for H.W. Lips; b) for Clinton, considering H. Ross Peroxide wasn't exactly shy about going to or praising the government teat when it suited him; or, c) for someone else; or, for nobody, period?)

We would have done better without a Clinton.

For the first half of his first term, quite right---especially between Droopy-Drawers's taxes and the Waco siege.

For the second half of his first term, not quite, not with a Republican Capitol Hill sweep actually pincing him into a balanced budget and a surplus among other things . . . which, unfortunately, the Republican'ts couldn't wait to undo, as soon as feasible, at every damn last three-card monte stand in town, including but not limited to answering Clinton's budget proposals with budgets proposals calling for even more spending than Droopy-Drawers himself called for.

Did I mention the real reason for the loss of Republican House seats in 1998? It wasn't the impeachment---it was the budget issue. Led by Newtie Gingrich himself, trying to cram down the House throat a bloated budget and arguing on its behalf that you young whippersnapping kids with all that balanced-budget/spending-cut yammering just didn't get the Big Picture . . . and yet, every House member who voted against that bloat got re-elected, some in landslides, while most of the ones who lost their seats just so happened to have voted for the budget bloat . . . (It was enought to make you appreciate even further George F. Will's old wisecrack, "Once upon a time, Gingrich made eloquent arguments on behalf of term limits. Now he has become an eloquent argument on behalf of term limits.")

Not to mention how the balls were dropped on Clinton's impeachment. (It became conservative when to let a sitting president get away with perjury, suborning perjury, or obstructing justice, on whatever the actual or alleged original act, as the Republican Senate allowed? It became conservative when to argue---as God only knows Democrats did, but God help us some Republicans actually did, too---that it wasn't "right" to impeach a sitting president because nobody voted for the vice president to take the gig, after all, it isn't fair to "the people" to shove down their throats a president they didn't vote for, never mind that when you vote for a president you are giving, concurrently, your approval to his running mate on all implied counts including the prospect that said running mate might have to assume the top job in the event the president becomes incapacitated, impeached, or interred . . .)

p.s. Who were the geniuses who thought Bob Dole was the best man to square off against Droopy-Drawers in 1996 because it was, well, his time? Once Dole became the nominee Clinton could have run on a parking ticket and been re-elected by a small landslide . . .

Bill and Hillary did much more damage than a Bush 2nd term IMO and because of it we today still have Madame Hillary wreaking havoc and she will not let go of the power voters gave her and her husband.

I'm no fan of Droopy or Hilarious Rodent Clinton, but they weren't the ones who put the truth into the title of this book that should have been required reading for anyone stepping into the primary booths in 2008:

In that book, by the way, will one find splendid arguments against Newt Gingrich as a conservative icon of any kind, never mind whether we should feel all that comfortable with a Gingrich Administration . . .

Kimberly A. Strassel, "Stringing Up Gibson Guitar: Environmentalists and Trade Protectionists Set a Trap for American Businesses, 25 November 2011.

I thought you especially might appreciate hearing this, Mike Wallace's first known appearance on the national airwaves:

Information, Please: Guest---University of Michigan student Myron Wallace (NBC Red Network, 7 February 1939)

Wallace was a few months short of his graduation. After graduation, he began his broadcast career as a news/continuity writer for WOOD in Grand Rapids . . .

If it's up already . . . who cares?!?

The Irish Rovers, "The Unicorn"

Glad you bookmarked. However, a few things:

1) Ruth's home parks were anything but pastures . . . for him. Fenway Park wasn't that difficult for a lefthanded hitter to hit in, it merely came to look that way with the advent of the famous left field wall. For his first three Yankee seasons, their home park was the Polo Grounds---they were tenants of the New York Giants---and the Polo Grounds had the shortest foul lines in baseball on both sides. Ruth didn't exactly have to pump full power to hit them out in the Polo Grounds even if he did have a few long blasts. (He never reached the dead center field bleachers on either side of the elevated clubhouse in that yard, though---that feat wouldn't be done until a) Luke Easter, in a 1940s Negro Leagues game; b) Joe Adcock, of the Milwaukee Braves in the late 1950s; and---and on back-to-back nights yet---Lou Brock and Hank Aaron in 1962.) Yankee Stadium in fact was built to accommodate Ruth's power, with that famous shorter right field porch, though nothing anywhere near the shortness of the Polo Grounds' foul line dimensions. (Ruth probably should have been grateful for that cavernous center field spread in the Polo Grounds and that just-as-crazy left-center-field in Yankee Stadium; they probably helped him collect more triples with his opposite-field hits than his actual speed---in a word, he ran like a cement mixer with two flat tires, though they say when he was a real young sprout he could haul it a bit---would have allowed.)

2) Seriously, Ruth, somehow, was so far ahead of anyone else in the history of the game that it’s so overwhelming that it’s seldom talked about. Are you kidding me? It was always talked about, and for years after Ruth's career ended, for years after his death in 1948. A lot of it was quite hyperbolic, but it's just not true that Babe Ruth's actual or alleged distance from everyone else in the game "is seldom talked about," even now, even with some debunkings of his mythology.

3) In the 1910’s he was the best pitcher in the game, and his team removed him from the mound so he could play the outfield and hit every day. Babe Ruth wasn't the best pitcher in the game, but he was no questions asked the best pitcher on the Red Sox---at least after the Sox disposed of Carl Mays (their best pitcher in 1917-18) and you eliminated Bullet Joe Bush (their second-best pitcher in 1918) or Herb Pennock (their best pitcher in 1919).

Ruth was actually a good number three starter who had, regardless, comparatively low strikeout totals, a very lame strikeout-to-walk ratio, and a walks/hits-per-inning-pitch rate (1.55 in 1919, a whopping raise from his 1.06 over 1917-18) that might make him a number 3-5 starter in today's game. He looks better than he really was, mostly thanks a) to his 1917, when he led the team in wins (by two, over Mays), and b) his performance in the 1918 World Series, but Babe Ruth wasn't close to the best pitcher on his own teams, never mind the league, never mind the game.

Who were the best pitchers in the game in the 1910s? Arguably, by season, they were:

1910---Jack Coombs.
1911---Grover Cleveland Alexander.
1912-14---Walter Johnson.
1915-17---Grover Cleveland Alexander.
1918---Walter Johnson.
1919---Eddie Cicotte.

In case you were wondering further, Johnson had both the most wins in any season in that decade (36) and for the entire decade (265), not to mention the most strikeouts by season (313, in 1910) and for the decade (2,219). Smokey Joe Wood had the best winning percentage in any season in that decade (.872, in 1912) and for the entire decade (.680).

Babe Ruth was a good pitcher who had his moments approaching or meeting greatness, notably in the 1918 World Series. But in fact the Red Sox resisted Ruth's move to everyday play in the outfield because they needed him on the mound that much more, especially after losing Carl Mays. The Red Sox were a potent and pennant-winning team before him as well as with him; he was no questions asked the best player in the game for the final two seasons of the 1910s. Without just him alone, the Red Sox could have survived and thrived; it took Ed Barrow's soon-to-come raiding of Red Sox talent, when he moved later to the Yankee front office, to begin the zombiehood of the Red Sox in earnest.

None of which makes him any less Babe Ruth, of course.

A friend of mine told me once what his to be father in law told him at their wedding reception...

“you ever decide, for whatever reason, don’t want her anymore, you bring her home... Don’t you dare hit her.”

This reminds me, for some strange reason, of an incident at the wedding of my then-girl friend's older sister back in the year. To put it politely, the sister's family (my girl friend was one of the few exceptions; she supported her sister and intended brother-in-law) put her intended through hell and back right up to the wedding day. (Short version: they took to unconscionable extremes the concept that nobody was good enough for their daughter, never mind that the guy was one of the nicest and most diligent and loving young men you'd ever want to meet.)

Well, the wedding finally came about. As the reception wound down, my girl friend's mother and another of her sisters buttonholed me and asked me, point blank and soberly enough, "Do you really think they're going to last?"

Just as direct, I answered: "It's up to them. Nobody else has anything to do or say about it. It's their marriage, and they'll make it work or they'll make it fail by themselves. All you can do if it fails is be there for her. All you can do if it succeeds is . . . be there for them."

I let it go at that. I think it took them awhile to pick their jaws up from the floor.

The girl and I broke up long enough ago, but to this day I hope the sister's marriage is still intact and making fools out of her buttinski family.

Coincidentally, I just lucked into a Les Paul standard last night. Can't wait to hear what it sounds like through the Vox.

Should sound good. I've bumped into a few people playing Les Pauls through Voxes and they seem to like the union. (Me, I'm a Fender Twin Reverb/Deluxe Reverb man myself . . . ) Let us know how yours goes!

I thought the writer was going to say he used the amplifier to hear a fetal heartbeat.

Actually, I did, too.

(Now, can you imagine if you could hear a fetal heartbeat through certain amplifiers? Say, a Marshall? The poor kid would sound like he was beating war drums before screaming, Lemme outta here! Lemme outta here! I'm getting claustrophobia packed inside this pear! Either you give birth to me now or I'm gonna kick your lobster dinner right the hell back up your pipes!!)

. . . the correct set-up is Gretsch through a Vox.

Not for playing the blues it isn't. ;) (I tried, believe me. Just didn't have the ring and chime I was looking for . . .)

It’s fitting that an article written as an excuse to write about guitars & amps got hijacked by freeper gearheads!

Ain't we a stinker? ;)

I have made some sweet music with my ‘76 Les Paul custom but after acquiring my tele, it’s all I play anymore. I keep the Les Paul around because it’s beautiful, somewhat sentimental, and, at nearly 40 years old, irreplaceable to me but I rarely play it. The tele rocks man.

I tried but couldn't wrap with a Telecaster. To me it felt like a six-stringed boat oar and didn't sound half as deep. I appreciate that those who love them love them, but it's just not the guitar for me.

Two years ago, it was a Fender Telecaster. Last year, it was a Fender Stratocaster . . . Just last week . . . had to have it. The Mesa Boogie Express 525 amplifier . . .

A Fender Telecaster? A Fender Stratocaster? A Mesa Boogie amplifier? Clearly (says this proud player of a Gibson Les Paul through a Fender amplifier) the gentleman is a proud philistine . . .

(/wisenheimer)

As much as 86 hurt, being a life long Red Sox fan, I still like Carter. Now maybe i wouldn’t say that without 04 and 07 but ...

I've been a Met fan since the day they were born and a Red Sox fan since the 1967 pennant race. You don't want to know my class A drug bill from October 1986, now, do you? ;)

I posted that as a joke, you know because of the cocaine Boyd was on . :D

Funny, but I was thinking the Mets strafed him in Game Three because he wasn't on anything. They caught him stone cold sober and way out of his league. (You may remember Boyd boasting, in the run-up to Game Three, "I will master the Mets," only to get mastered right out of the chute . . .)

The above photograph is one of my personal favourites. How appropriate to see Gary Carter arm in arm with Yogi Berra at Shea Stadium's closing, two New York catchers whose clean images weren't lies.

The Sox totally would have won game 7 if John McNamara had started Boyd instead of going back to Bruce Hurst on short rest!

Not necessarily.

* For one thing, the Mets literally played kick the can against Boyd in Boston, in Game Three. It only began in the top of the first, when Len Dykstra hit a 1-1 pitch over the right field fence, Gary Carter swatted an RBI double (still nobody out), and Danny Heep (the Mets' DH in the AL park) hit a two-out, two-run single to open 4-0.

* For another, Bruce Hurst wasn't on short rest---he'd pitched Game Five in Boston on a Thursday, the following day was an off/travel day, and the originally scheduled Sunday Game Seven was rained out, moving the game to a Monday and thus enabling both McNamara and Davey Johnson to use their best postseason starters, Hurst and Ron Darling (who'd pitched almost as well as Hurst in Game One and beat surprise starter Al Nipper in Game Four, in Boston), on near-regular rest.

McNamara made quite a number of mistakes in that Series, as did Johnson, but there were reasons why he lost confidence in Boyd in that Series. Boyd may have thrown zeroes from the second through two-thirds of the seventh (Gary Carter drove in the Mets' fifth and sixth runs with a single but got thrown out trying to advance as Dykstra was scoring the second of the two to end the inning), but the Mets made contact outs on all but three at-bats in their entire turn with Boyd and hit their balls hard enough that McNamara, weighing that with the first inning, feared Boyd had less than his best stuff while the Mets were reading him too well.

So if you get the opportunity with the extra day of rest, you go with your best Series starter one more time. Hurst had his best stuff that night and the Mets simply figured out how to hit him just enough to make it count when they needed it the most. And, of course, once they were in that Boston bullpen it was no contest.

Punishment should be kept in house.

You mean the way the kid's original obscenity-wrapped diatribe was?

Astrud Gilberto, "Summer Samba (So Nice)"
Antonio Carlos Jobim, "O Amor Em Paz (Once I Loved)" (Mistitled as "O Morro Nao Tem Vez," as also happened on the original album label, somehow . . .)
Stan Getz and Charlie Byrd, "One Note Samba"
Stan Getz and Luis Bonfa, "O Morro Nao Tem Vez"
Stan Getz and Laurindo Almeida, "Menina Moca (Young Lady)"
The Modern Jazz Quartet, "Django"
Wes Montgomery with the Wynton Kelly Trio, "Willow Weep for Me"
Wes Montgomery, "Here's That Rainy Day"
Miles Davis Quintet, "'Round Midnight"

And, for you do-woppers and early soul lovers . . .

The Rivieras, "It's Easy to Remember"
The Dells, "Oh, What a Night (1969)"
The Skyliners, "This I Swear"
Don Cherry, "Band of Gold" (Extra credit if you know which comedy-rock hit included samplings of this one!)
The Drifters, "Save the Last Dance for Me"
The 5 Royales, "Thirty Second Lover"

So, who is the lesser evil of the choices before us?

Whomever it is who will be the most amenable to a Republican House, at least (I'm presuming the GOP will hold onto the House), when it prods him to remember that a conservative does not believe it's high time the government cut his neighbour's benefits; and, that the president of the United States is not by constitutional definition the Commander-in-Chief of anyone other than the armed forces, not Der Boss President, not Il Padrone, and that just because he says "jump!" it is not Congress's no-questions-asked job to ask nothing more than "Off which skyscraper?"

And right now, it's a hard call as to just which one would answer to the foregoing.

The Republicans took Congress in 1994 under the “Contract for America” brilliantly developed by Gingrich - Big changes were expected, some of which happened, most importantly keeping Clinton in check. All good, and I applaud Gingrich for his leadership in doing all of that. What Coburn writes about is how Gingrich did an about face and start collaborating with the Dems when it wasn’t necessary.

Just so. By 1997-98, Gingrich was busy lecturing those in the House who weren't exactly ready to go along with him on Droopy-Drawers Clinton's spending hikes (after all, what the hell fun is it to have a budget surplus the Republicans painted him into abetting and even let him take the credit for getting if you can't go wheeeeeeeeeeeee! at every three-card monte stand on the pipe)---indeed, Gingrich was even pushing for a little bit more than even Droopy-Drawers was asking!---that they just didn't get the Big Picture . . . and lo! come the 1998 Congressional elections, those Congressmen who didn't fall into line under Gingrich's bark actually kept their seats. (They merely told the home folks they were voting no way, no how, no chance, and why, reminding the home folks they weren't elected in the first place to join Clinton's Drunken Sailor Club . . . and the home folks responded accordingly.) It's entirely possible that the uprising that forced Gingrich off the Speaker's perch had as much to do with that budget issue as with anything else that numbered his days with the gavel in his mitt.

Indeed, there is less reason since for thinking people to buy entirely into the image that Newt Gingrich can, will, or even has stood properly athwart big government or properly astride constitutional government:

The last decades of the 20th century were a transformative period for American society, driven in large part by technological change. As the information age reached its height, traditional institutions of society often found themselves breaking down or struggling to keep up with the pace of change. Government was affected as much, if not more, than the rest of society.

This line of thinking was encapsulated by Alvin and Heidi Toffler in their best-selling book The Third Wave. According to the Tofflers, the first wave was the agricultural revolution, which led to feudal-style social systems. The second wave was the industrial revolution, which produced "mass society" in its socialist and capitalist versions. The third wave is the postindustrial society, built around information and technology. The Tofflers warned that the new age required new institutions of governance.

No one embraced this idea with more enthusiasm than House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. Gingrich referred to The Third Wave as "the seminal work of our time." He made the book mandatory reading for newly elected Republicans. This book says the U.S. Constitution "is increasingly obsolete, and hence increasingly, if inadvertently, oppressive and dangerous to our welfare." Therefore, it should "die and be replaced" (Emphasis mine.---BD.)

Gingrich is almost universally associated with opposition to big government. But that was not actually the case. Gingrich rhetorically criticised big government. And it served his enemies and the Clinton administration to portray Gingirch as slashing government programs. The Gingrich-inspired "Contract with America" was generally seen as a call for smaller government, although it did not actually call for cutting a single government program. (The closest it came was a call for zero-baseline budgeting.) (Emphasis mine.--BD.)

Actually, Gingrich opposed bureaucratic government---inefficient government---not big government per se. As Gingrich said in 1994, "government plays a huge role" in society and "anybody who believes in the American Constitution ought to believe in a fairly strong government." He went on to say that he has "no particular beef with big government." Or, as he said more recently, if the bureaucracies can be reformed and made more efficient, "the country could get excited about the opportunity to make government work."

That is not to say Gingrich and his followers would not like to see a smaller government. Many changes they support would indeed reduce government bureaucracies. But in the end, Gingrichism means "recognising that even a relatively small federal or state government will be much bigger than anything the founding fathers could have dreamed of." (Emphasis mine.--BD.)

. . . [His] belief in technology has led Gingrich and his disciples along three basic paths. First, they believed that government institutions needed to be reformed to make them more efficient. Most were built under an outdated "second wave" ethos. They would have to be updated for the new "third wave" technological age. Gingrich-style conservatism was about bureaucratic reform and technological innovation, not about shrinking government or individual liberty.

. . . Make government institutions efficient and all else will fall into place. "As a country we can give people better lives through better solutions by bringing government into conformity with the enterpreneurial systems they are experiencing in the private sector." The issue is not how big government is or how much it spends; it is whether we have "the systems architecture that would spend it intelligently." Traditional conservatives want the government simply to do less. But Gingrich and his fellow technophiles believe that the right systems architecture will enable the government to provide "greater goods and services at lower and lower costs."

This attitude gave Gingrich conservatism its appearance of optimism. Rather than being against big government, Gingrich could be for reform. "We need to move from a 'no, because' to a 'yes, if' approach to government policy." Former representative Vin Weber, one of Gingrich's followers, has also sounded the call for reforming government, rather than cutting it:

Conservatives have to do better than simply bash government. We have to lead the way toward reform of government. We need to look at the whole of government and think about how to empower the consumers of government benefits, rather than the bureaucracy. Conservatives who simply look to abolish agencies are going to be disappointed, but conservative reformers still have an open field.

Thus one could say of Gingrich's conservatism, "while this view did indeed see the federal government as the source of the many of the nation's troubles, it did not hold that the problem was federal power as such. Change those wielding federal power, and the power could be harnessed to the ends of conservative reform."

. . . Gingrich once called for abolishing the Department of Education, but he has since become an enthusiastic supporter of federal government involvement in education. He endorsed President Clinton's plan for the federal government to finance 100,000 new teachers and called for the government to provide Internet access to all Americans and computers to every four-year-old. He has proposed paying students for taking difficult math and science courses.

Energy policy is another area where Gingrich and the technophiles support massive government intervention . . . He would support a host of public-private partnerships, investments in alternative fuels, and conservation measures. Almost anything goes, as long as it involves new technology.

While Gingrichites correctly understood the failures of traditional welfare programs, they sought to reform not end them. "The old phrase 'conservative opportunity society' always envisioned a reformed welfare state," Weber notes. A Gingrich welfare state included government-funded orphanages and "parental training" centers for single mothers. He supported the Medicare prescription drug benefit and has joined with Hillary Clinton to call for the government to develop a national health care database.

In some ways, Gingrich-style technophilia may seem to be a much smaller movement than (others within the conservative movement). It is, with a few exceptions, largely based around one man. Yet, Gingrich has had and continues to have enormous influence over the intellectual development of both the Republican Party and the conservative movement. Given the disillusionment among Republicans with the current level of congressional leadership, nostalgia is increasing for the Gingrich era.

. . . But far from leading conservatism back to the philosophy of Reagan and Goldwater, Gingrich's ideas for a technocratic, efficient, and bigger federal government have helped drive it toward the big-government conservatism that dominates today.

. . . Gingrich has been riding a wave of nostalgia for the Republican Revolution of 1994. The recent Republican Congress was so incompetent and so inclined toward big government that 1994 looks like the golden age. But Gingrich was not and is not a small-government conservative . . . Indeed, listening to Gingrich, one gets the distinct impression that he doesn't care how big government grows---as long as it uses computers.

---Michael D. Tanner, from "From Oxymoron to Governing Philosophy: The Roots of Big Government Conservatism," in Leviathan on the Right: How Big Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. (Washington: Cato Institute, 2007; 323 pages, $22.95)

Given the spectre of Romney and the nightmare of Obama, one understands to a point why those tying their dinghies to Gingrich's ship aren't always inclined to trust but verify. This is not to say that even Mr. Gingrich wouldn't be a vast improvement over His Excellency Al Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada, COD, RIP, LSMFT, Would-Be Life President of the Republic Formerly Known as the United States, and Chairman of the Organisation of Halfrican Unity---but it is to say it might be wise to keep a very wary eye upon Mr. Gingrich . . . and, should he end up winning, any Republican majority on Capitol Hill, assuming there will be one again.

Good morning, BluesDuke...one can learn something new every day. Thank you.

Good listening.

I wasn't aware of the connection until I read a splendid biography of Mike Bloomfield, Michael Bloomfield: If You Love These Blues . . . His father came up with, among other things, the original salt shake with the holes shaped like the Star of David, the sugar dispenser with the little trap-door, and the coffee system. The elder Bloomfield sold most of his patents to Beatrice Foods and became even wealthier as a result.

Unfortunately, the elder Bloomfield seems to have had no clue on how to deal with, raise, or relate to a son whose inclination was toward creativity rather than hard business. Mike Bloomfield spent much of his life running from wealth, perhaps because his upbringing taught him the wrong lesson about it, that you could only become wealthy if you were willing to be a jackass. He did have one parent who supported his passions, though---his mother. To this day I think I've never seen Mike Bloomfield more at peace than in this photograph for this album cover, his once-beloved Les Paul in one hand and his always-beloved mother in his other arm:

In case you were wondering, the elder Bloomfields ultimately divorced. According to the biography, Mrs. Bloomfield came to lose respect for her husband because of his impossibilities and his refusal to accept, for the most part (there are a few stories that the elder Bloomfield---perhaps when it was too late---did slip in to see his son perform a few times and enjoy what he heard) that he had a son who was destined not for business but for music.

This one's for you and the Canteen . . .

The Butterfield Blues Band, "East-West" (Live at the Fillmore Auditorium, San Francisco, part one)
The Butterfield Blues Band, "East-West" (Live at the Fillmore Auditorium, San Francisco, part two)

http://patriotden.com/favorites/snack-coffeepots.jpg

Did you know: The family which created the Bloomfield commercial coffee system (and patented a boatload of restaurant and bakery paraphernailia) is also the family who yielded up the world's greatest Jewish blues guitarist . . .

Mike Bloomfield (with Al Kooper), "Albert's Shuffle"
Mike Bloomfield (with Al Kooper), "His Holy Modal Majesty"
Mike Bloomfield (with Al Kooper), "Really"
Michael Bloomfield and Friends, "Gypsy Good Time"
The Electric Flag, "I'd Rather Drink Muddy Water"
Michael Bloomfield and Friends, "Carmelita Skiffle"

The Giants are still in it-at least, for the time being.

They have a better team than they did when the won the SB-although I have the lurking suspicion they'll be eliminated much earlier this year, unfortunately.

A lot of that may depend on how the Packers regroup after the death of their offencive coordinator's son. And, whether the Giants tighten up where they need to and close the holes they showed when they lost a regular season game to Green Bay that they could have won.

Yeah, it's turning into a bit of a rout.

That's a little like saying the Battle of Midway was just a little waterfront brawl.

Tom Brady took Tim Tebow to school and back today. Detention began when the fourth quarter began and Brady had thrown more touchdown passes (six) than Tebow had completions (five) in the three quarters previous.

Tebow is a likeable fellow. An admirable fellow. With a lot yet to learn about passing up and surviving in the NFL. He had a season to remember, and he ran full-tilt into three Super Bowl rings and a lifetime's experience (not to mention a defence that seemed to have no intention of making even one of the mistakes the Steelers made a week earlier), and he's got nothing to be ashamed of. He was outplayed and outclassed on the field. Unfortunately, that can happen any time, any place. (A lesson Brady has learned and re-learned a few times in his career . . . )

Remember these words because, normally, for me football's postseason means spring training is only that much closer to beginning . . .

I still enjoy Savoy Brown's first eight albums. They kind of lost me after Hellbound Train, but those first eight albums are still terrific listening . . .

This might be considered "blasphemy' to Omar Sharriff fans but the story made me think of this outstanding cut from John Baldry...

Don't try to lay no Boogie Woogie on the King of Rock and Roll with intro And your mention of Long John Baldry made me think of this from another group of British bluesmen---and it makes Baldry sound like a geriatric . . . (I bet these guys knew who Omar Sharriff was . . . )

Savoy Brown, "Made Up My Mind"

Tanner is with the Cato Institute. I think he would be more likely to support Ron Paul or Gary Johnson than he would Mitt Romney.

Tanner isn't exactly that enthralled with Ron Paul. (I haven't seen him comment yet on Gary Johnson.)

By the way, if you want an excellent read, hunt down Mr. Tanner's 2007 book, Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution. That book should have been required reading for anyone going into the voting booths in the 2008 primaries.

The fact is no one is proposing truly and radically cutting government agencies except for Ron Paul.

More's the pity, because Paul is the candidate whose would-be foreign policy is giving a terrible name to small government advocacy.

I agree with the basic notion that government needs to be bigger than it was when the country was founded because of how much more complex our country and the world has become. But it absolutely needs to be run better.

And I agree with Mr. James Bovard (in "feeling your pain": The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years): "The majority of government agencies can neither be reinvented nor reformed. If Americans want good government, hundreds of failed government programs must be abolished and legions of laws that turn government into a public nuisance must be repealed. All other 'reforms' will merely prolong the abuse of the American people."

I don’t agree with the “send everything back to the states” thinking. I think too many conservatives think that’s the be-all, end-all of conservatism, but it’s an easy thing to say and unlikely to work out in practice.

There are some things the states cannot do and the federal government can do. Over two centuries' experience plus the Constitution are clear enough about those. I would not expect the states to take up national defence, but why should I expect or insist upon the federal government's tentacles in every damn last facet of American life? And has it gone unnoticed that most of the reason for the "complexity" of contemporary American life is the metastasis of government?

We are a much more powerful player on the international stage when we are the UNITED, not divided states. We cannot function with 50 hugely different sets of rules.

Then simply have done with it. Call for abolishing the states and their governments; suggest the appropriate singular monicker for the vast, newly-consecrated being; and, compose and submit that Constitutional amendment that will negate Article Four, Sections 1 and 4 and repeal the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Some of the states like California have gone so far off the rails that they ought to be reigned in by the rest of us.

Wouldn't that be just as untenable, to say nothing of grotesque, as was once the precept that the rest of us ought to heed the influence of California, or some such other "off the rails" state? There's no known law that says as California goes so go the rest of us (and thank God for it!); who on earth are we elsewhere to decide when California---a state which stands clearly to implode under its own tandem weight of legislative and populist excess---should be "reined in?" California's own extraterrestrial excess will rein it in soon enough, and drastically so, and the only question then will be whether there will be enough Californians left to resurrect the state from its own ash.

States are a great place for experimentation, but once we find policies that work, there ought to be a national movement to get them adopted nationwide.

When those polices that "work" are found, they tend to spread rather organically. Put the federal fingers onto those pulses and risk the solution becoming somewhat worse than the problem, if only because no two states are entirely alike and the specifics of one policy that "works" in one state will not necessarily apply in like or strict letter in another state.

Whether you believe in radically cutting federal government or not, there is going to be some government left and we need it to be run in an exceptional, not just competent matter.

This is what I believe in:

I believe in freedom.

I believe in individual rights and sovereignty.

I believe in a properly-construed government, a government whose sole legitimate business, other than protecting and defending us from enemies actual or provably iminent from abroad and predators at home (real predators, if you please, not mere vicemongers), is to stay the hell out of your business, my business, every citizen's business, until or unless one citizen would obstruct or abrogate another citizen's equivalent rights; as opposed to the improperly-consecrated State whose business seems to be sticking its fingers into every citizen's business whether it is competent or Constitutionally sanctioned to do so.

To run a properly-construed government would be exceptional, indeed. Indeed, it would be the exception to almost a century's rule.