Classic Rant #272 (June 8, 2010): Walking To 70

We are all growing older. Heck, I can feel it in my bones. I am not 20 years old anymore.

And when one of the icons of your youth turns 70, you have to take notice.

Today is Nancy Sinatra's 70th birthday! 

It's hard to believe, isn't it, that Frank's daughter, who turned "These Boots Are Made For Walking" into a worldwide phenomenon, is now the big 7-0.

She was one of the hottest girl singers of the 1960s. She was a Sinatra, so she had to be tough, and unlike a lot of the girl singers of that time, she wasn't fluffy. She was full of poison.

Sure, she had other hits, like "Sugar Town" "Somethin' Stupid" (with her dad) and "The Last of the Secret Agents," but she will be forever known for the "Walking" song, which gave her an image that had escaped her in her early recordings.

The cover of that album is a classic, showing Nancy in a pose that was both provocative and downright perverse at the same time.

And she was in several biker movies. No beach movies for this kid. She was rough and tough, and biker movies suited her just fine.

And although she was not in beach movies--the screen could hold only one siren at a time, and Annette Funicello fit the bill in many ways--Nancy Sinatra looked darn good in a bikini ...

And she looked darned good without a bikini, as she proved in a Playboy pictorial when she was past 50.

She still records to this day, and although being a Sinatra has probably been both a blessing and a curse for her, she has had an incredible career, apart from dad.

Here's wishing Nancy Sinatra many more years of health ...

And keep those boots walking forever.

Rant #1,621: Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

The Aroldis Chapman domestic violence mess has finally been judged by Major League Baseball, and you really have to ask yourself if the punishment fits the crime.

Last October, Chapman, then still a Cincinnati Red, got into a violent altercation with his girlfriend at their home. He allegedly choked her, and then took a gun and shot several shots into his garage.

The police came, he was taken away, but his girlfriend declined to press any charges. She was not hurt, had no marks on her body, and without her cooperation, any legalities were thrown to the wind, and there was no case.

However, MLB was alerted to what had supposedly happened, or didn't happen, and that is where the problems started.

Can you punish a player for a heinous crime that, according to this situation's outcome, might not have happened, or if it did happen, there were no legalities pursued, so in the eye of the law, there was no crime committed?

You might remember that the National Football League ran itself into a public quagmire that it could never free itself from with its own players involved in domestic violence.

The league was slow to act or did nothing, and the public backlash against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell was quick and all encompassing.

Certainly new baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred did not want to get into that, but how do you handle a crime that, at least according to the law, was not committed?

After a long review, Chapman was given a 30-game suspension, which will take place at the beginning of the regular season, which pretty much means that he will have April and part of May off, and that is that. He can still participate in spring training, but he will lose about $2 million in pay for his indiscretion or possible indiscretion.

It is not a stiff punishment, per se, but it is a punishment.

Again, how can you punish someone for an action that the law of the land found to not have happened or at least without the cooperation of the other party, could not be tried to the fullest extent of the law?

There is a behavior clause in each and every baseball contract. It is rarely invoked, because by and large, major league baseball players behave themselves. There have been times here and there where the clause has had to be invoked--it certainly came up during the Alex Rodriguez investigation--but generally, it is in each contract and sits there unused.

But in this case where Chapman's conduct came into question, whether anything as heinous as what we originally heard actually happened or not, it put a stain on baseball, a stain on Chapman, and that stain had to be taken care of.

And that is why MLB is allowed to punish a player who, legally, didn't do anything, or at least didn't do anything that was punishable by the law.

Not only is there a behavior clause, but there is also a domestic violence policy in place in MLB, and that is where they got Chapman, even though he might not have done anything related to domestic violence.

The mere possibility is enough to suspend him.

As I said, this is very complicated.

Chapman throws the ball 100 mph on occasion, but he also threw himself for a loop by even the suggestion that the actions against his girlfriend occurred.

Even the suggestion that he did something threw off the Los Angeles Dodgers, who originally wanted this player on their team. They backed off on a deal with the Reds, and the New York Yankees came into the picture.

Having to deal with the ARod backlash over the past few seasons, the Yankees still couldn't be prepared for the backlash they got over their trade for Chapman.

But they are weathering the storm, having said they knew what they were getting into when they traded for him, and would monitor the steps leading up to any punishment, crossing that bridge when they got there.

Well, they got there all right, and Chapman, to his credit, won't fight the charge. He had said in the past that he would, and the player's union backed him.

But he came to his right mind on this. Take your punishment, learn from it, and don't involve the union or your new team in this shenanigan.

As it is, MLB is not done with domestic violence cases.

Really, the Chapman case might be the appetizer, but the main course is coming, and coming soon.

Jose Reyes is involved in another such case, but his case is actually going to trial in early April, right as the 2016 season commences. And there is also the Yasiel Puig case to deal with, another one that appears to be headed to court.

So Chapman's case may set the bar, but the Reyes and Puig cases, and their outcome, will really show how strong a stand MLB is going to take on such matters.

Chapman got 30 games, and even that is kind of odd, since PED users can get 50 games for their first misstep, and ARod got an entire year off to ponder what he did.

What's worse, beating up your partner or taking PEDs?

Again, this is very complicated, but it doesn't lessen the impact of domestic violence, one of society's worst crimes.

And you have to applaud MLB for doing something about it, right at the get go, and not putting its head in the sand like the NFL did.

They certainly learned from what the NFL went through, that this is not the way for a league to act when one of its players does something so appalling.

But again, it all goes back to that behavior clause in the MLB players' contracts, and the domestic violence policy that was recently enacted.

Without that clause and the policy, Chapman would have gotten off scott-free, but on the other hand, the law never prosecuted him for his supposed actions.

This is a legal quagmire, indeed, but MLB has taken a stand, and you can't argue with them.

Let's see what happens in the Reyes and Puig cases. Based on the Chapman case, even if found innocent, they will receive suspensions for their supposed actions.

Will the union back them, or will they take their punishment, even if it was found that they did nothing wrong or at least legally, they did nothing wrong?

Just the suggestion that they were involved in such heinous activity is enough to suggest that they should receive some punishment, but what happens in a situation where the significant other simply lied, for whatever reason, about such a situation--will the innocent player still receive a punishment simply by being implicated in a lie?

It becomes a "he said, she said" thing, and people do get themselves entangled in situations that may find them to be stupid, but not legally liable.

Yes, this is complicated, isn't it?

Classic Rant #271 (June 7, 2010): Happy Anniversary … To Us

Yesterday was a historic day in the annals of history.

June 6 will forever be known as D-Day, and yesterday was the 66th anniversary of the landings that led to the Allied liberation of France in 1944 during World War II.

That event, in itself, makes June 6 a monumental day for all of us, whether we realize it or not.

But June 6 is also an important day for me, because on that day I got married to my wonderful wife.

I met my wife when I was totally down on my luck. A few months prior to meeting her, I decided to join a dating service, which was pretty progressive for its time, much like sites like Match.com are now. I had been separated from my first wife for a few years, our divorce wasn't finalized yet, but I knew that it would be within time. And it was time for me to move on and start meeting other women.

Then, I got let go by my company after working there for a few years. This happened right before meeting the woman who would later be my wife. I remember that when I was given her number to call, and first called her, I told her right out that I had just lost my job. I wanted to give her an out just in case she wanted one. But she must have believed in me, because she didn't take the out.

We met, had some fun, and started to date, and the rest is history.

And she stuck with me. I was out of work for more than a year. Sure, I had jobs here and there during that time, but nothing steady. I must say that I was doubting myself during this period. The divorce was being held up by my joblessness. I had to prove to the court that I was looking for work. During the year and a half that I was out of steady work, I applied for over 800 positions.

Finally, I got something. It wasn't the greatest job, but it was steady. Once I got that job, everything fell into place, including my divorce, which was finally set into motion and finalized.

During this period, the woman who became my wife could have left me, if for nothing else, out of impatience. But she kept with me, and I guess it paid off for both of us.

We married on June 6, 1993, one of the happiest days of my life. To this day, everybody says I was smiling from ear to ear the entire ceremony, and I probably was. I finally found the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, and I guess she found hers.

It was such a windy day when we got married, and we had an outdoor ceremony to boot. Everything was blowing around, it was a bad hair day, but we persevered.

A few years later, we had our son, to go along with my daughter from my first marriage, and then, tragedy struck again; when my son was just a few weeks old, I lost my job.

Happily, this time I was out of work for just about three months. It helped me bond with my son, and then I found the job I still have.

Yesterday, we didn't do much to celebrate. We went to the movies--one of our favorite things to do dating from our courtship--and saw "Robin Hood," which was better than I thought it would be.

On Saturday, we ate out at a restaurant. And "tragedy" struck again--a crown I have had in my mouth for two years or so came out when I was eating flounder. I am going to try to get that fixed today.

But even without the crown in my mouth, my wife sticks by me.

She is the best.

And even without the crown, she makes me feel like a king.

Rant #1,620: Frankly Speaking

If you are a regular reader of this column, you know that a few Rants ago, I told you about the revolutionary concept that Burger King was going to employee on its menu--offering customers hot dogs along with the usual hamburgers and all the other stuff they serve.

The idea was to come to fruition on February 23, and the fast food landscape would be changed forever.

Well, that day has come and gone, and like a good soldier, I actually went out and taste tested the Burger King hot dogs for you.

You can still have it your way, and your choices are two: the Classic, with ketchup, mustard, chopped onions, and relish; and Chili Cheese, which is pretty much self explanatory.

You can get them separately, or as part of their usual value meal with a drink and either fries or onion rings.

The idea is a very good one, because none of the big boys--MacDonald's or Wendy's--offer hot dogs on their respective menus.

Sonic does, and a few others do, but generally, the fast food places have stayed away from hot dogs, because I think they are so known for their hamburgers that they feel people simply won't bite in getting hot dogs.

But back to the chase ...

I tried both varieties of Burger King hot dog, and I basically got what I thought I was going to get, nothing more, nothing less.

These are not Hebrew National or Nathan's frankfurters, these are Oscar Mayer hot dogs, and as a hot dog lover, I know the difference right away.

You bite into a Hebrew National or Nathan's frankfurter, and you actually taste the meat. It has the right ingredients and spices, and it makes your mouth happy.

The Burger King hot dog--designed so that it can cook on the same apparatus they use to cook their hamburgers--is devoid of any flavor. It has a sort of crunch, but it has no flavor at all, simply meat rolled into a casing.

The toppings are what can make or break a hot dog, and quite frankly, being from New York, a hot dog without sauerkraut is like me without pants on. I can go about my business, but it just isn't right.

Well, the Burger King hot dogs are devoid of sauerkraut, so they are kind of naked in a way, at least to me.

And to put ketchup on a hot dog--no, it does not go. It goes against any rule of a proper hot dog.

The other fixings give the total package some flavor, but it is a dull flavor. The chili, for one, is as bland as the ketchup, and almost tastes like nothing more than ketchup.

The chopped onions have no oomph, nor does the relish.

The toppings are Heinz toppings--including the mustard, ketchup and relish--and Burger King and Heinz are part of the same company, natch, so it is like the hot dog is a cross-marketing tool for the company, more so than it is actually good tasting.

So what you have here are hot dogs that are flat in taste--but that does not mean that this experiment is a failure--far from it.

These will act as add-ons to regular meals of hamburgers. They were not added as a replacement for the famous BK burgers, but I will bet that someone that isn't necessarily satisfied with just having a Whopper will add on a hot dog for $1.99.

It also sets Burger King apart from its main competitors, and kids will probably love the hot dogs.

Yes, Burger King knew what it was doing when it added on hot dogs, and I am sure they are going to become a big hit with its customers.

So while I don't think it is very good taste-wise, Burger King was smart-wise in adding hot dogs to the menu ... and sometimes, it is better to be smarter than the competition than to actually offer something that is viable to the populace.

That is a sad truth, but the Burger King hot dog is here to stay, and whether it tastes good or not, it really doesn't matter.

What can be next from Burger King? Perhaps their own tacos, maybe sushi, who knows?

Whatever it is, it will give them one step up on the competition, and in the fast food wars, that is all that really matters.

Classic Rant #270 (June 4, 2010): Yer Out!

As a baseball fan, I had to cringe when veteran umpire Jim Joyce called the Cleveland Indians' Jason Donald safe during a game where Detroit Tigers' pitcher Armando Galarraga was on the verge of pitching a perfect game.

And cringe I did, because the call was wrong.

But in the aftermath of this error--on the umpire this time--I think, for once, Major League Baseball got it all right.

I was watching the Yankees drubbing the Orioles again, and when I heard that Galarraga was in the midst of this gem, I turned over to the MLB Network to see the last three outs.

The first was routine, the second less so. Unfortunately, lost because of the umpire misplay was an absolutely fantastic catch by the Tigers' centerfielder, Austin Jackson. If this were a perfect world, Jackson's catch for the second out would have gone into the history books as the catch that saved the perfect game.

Well, onto what should have been the third out. Donald hit the ball to the right side. The first baseman ranged way to far to his right to grab the ball, and he threw to first, where Galaragga snared the ball, put his foot on the bag a clear step ahead of Donald, and that was it.

But Joyce called the runner safe!

No, this could not be! But it was.

The next out was recorded, and Galaragga had a one-hitter. Not nearly as good as a perfect game, but still pretty good.

Well, after the game, Joyce, a veteran umpire who is probably one of the best in the business, admitted that he blew the call.

Galaragga, almost understandably, blew his stack.

But evidently, both made their amends to each other.

Before yesterday's game, Galaragga was presented with a car, which I am sure soothed his wound a little bit (but he can probably afford this car himself--he should donate it to a worthy cause). He also carried out the lineup card, and presented it to Joyce, who was behind the plate for this game. They jokingly patted each other on the head, and that was that.

Baseball looked into this, and for once, Bud Selig made the right call. He decided that the game would stand as it is, and go down as a one-hitter.

Frankly, if he would have rescinded Joyce's call, it would have cast a pall on the integrity of baseball's umpires. It would have also opened a Pandora's Box of problems, being that any call, play or incident in a baseball game could be open to question.

In a game that is full of judgment calls that are about 98 percent correct, you really can't have that.

Baseball will look into the extended use of instant replay, though, which I think is an idea whose time has come.

I have one question which I don't think has been brought up by anybody about this unfortunate incident.

Why didn't the crew chief reverse the call himself?

I don't know who the crew chief was, but it was not Joyce. In other sports--most noticeably in pro basketball--the other referees defer to the crew chief. I have seen many basketball games where the crew chief over-rules the other official, and you don't hear a peep about it.

However, in baseball, you rarely ever see that happen.

I think it is some unwritten rule in baseball that one umpire does not upstage the other, and that is why you rarely see this happen.

Well, it should have happened during this game, because it stole a once-in-a-lifetime moment from a young pitcher, and it made a veteran umpire look like a Little League once-a-weeker.

What a shame!

Rant #1,619: A-Musings

So, the Oscars for this year are over, thank goodness, and with it, hopefully this phony diversity thing, which is perhaps the biggest bunch of nonsense ever to come out of the PC years of our President, who spouts diversity so much that it has become to the detriment of our country that he has made us so scared to death of our own shadow.

Now, next year, there absolutely better be some black films and black performers nominated, or all hell will break loose. And that is even if these nominations aren't warranted, and have just been made so that a faction of the entertainment business is satisfied.

Snore ...

Now that that is over, what about the REALLY important stuff, the things that will really change our lives ... why don't we focus on those, and not this nonsense?

Let's focus on poor Salma Hayek. The actress cried to the press over the weekend that her dog had been shot, but she has no idea by whom.

She is an animal lover, and claims that her dog was murdered in cold blood on her ranch, shot right near the heart, extinguished forever.

This is a heinous crime, and I do feel her pain.

I am sure that "Dogs Lives Matter" protests are ready to be launched from coast to coast, but sorry, Salma, you are a beautiful woman, but I am too busy to join such protests.

My computer broke down yesterday, died in cold wires and electronics, and I need to attend to that first.

My PC is dead. And to show you how I believe in diversity, I have moved over to a Mac.

I had an old Mac that I bought from my work a few years ago, one that is probably also on its last legs, but it will have to do for now, as I am not going to run out and buy another computer just yet.

It is sturdy, but the screen has vertical lines running up and down on its both sides, moving toward the middle. All of our computers had this problem at work, and that is why we got rid of these computers a few years back and got new ones.

It is a quirk that makes these computer look kind of funny when they are being used, but for now, I have no choice.

I have tried to adapt all of my peripherals to the new computer, and since they were all geared to PCs, it has been difficult.

Some are computer bi-format--they go both ways, can be used by both PCs and Macs--but others are only for PCs, so I have had to do some legwork to get them Mac-ready, which can be done.

I haven't done everything yet, although I spent hours yesterday getting this thing in as good a running shape as possible.

Anyone who has done this knows that it isn't easy to do, but right now, I am typing this Rant out on my old new Mac, or is it my new old Mac?

How long this Mac will run is anyone's guess, but it will have to do for now.

So far, it is doing what I want it to do, so that is my one consolation.

But yes, I miss my PC.

No, I am not going to organize any "PC Lives Matter" protests, but yesterday, I have to say I was fit to be tied with this situation.

I am sure that this entire week, I will be getting this thing up to snuff.

Happily, I didn't lose that much data from the other machine when it went kaput. What I lost is either replaceable or just not worth replacing, so that really wasn't my main problem this weekend.

The main problem was getting this thing ready to go, and I am about 50 percent into that now.

So when people are screaming and yelling about diversity, I have bought into the plan lock, stock and barrel now that I am a Mac user both at work and at home.

And again, sorry about Hayek's dog, but I had my own dog of a weekend, and really, what's more replaceable, a dog or a computer?

Just joking, but I felt that the "death" in my family was at least as important as the death in her family.

Meaning, in plain English, that we will both survive.

I know that I will.