The general consensus concerning the financial markets bailout is that not only was it a good idea, but also that it was necessary. The financial system, for myriad reasons, was at the brink of collapse, probably closer to disaster than most of us realized, and the infusion of taxpayer money saved the day.

Granted, this is a counter-factual argument, since it is difficult to ascertain where we would be if the bailout didn’t happen. I for one will agree the bailout was a good idea. The stock market (Dow Jones) has crossed the 10,000 mark, although no one seems to know exactly why or whether that level is sustainable, and the banks in such dire straits a year ago are now reporting record profits and rewarding themselves accordingly.

So what’s changed? Unfortunately nothing has—except for the free money, of course. The financial infrastructure that led us to the brink a year ago is untouched and that is inexcusable. The public opinion hot button right now concerns Wall Street profits and, specifically, compensation.

This is understandable, but misses the point. Hoping financial services execs would do the right thing—unclear as to exactly what that is—or even worse, trying to shame them into acting responsibly, is ludicrous. If a gambler in Vegas loses everything—and then some—you don’t make him flush him again and turn him loose in the Bellagio casino hoping he’s learned his lesson.

This is exactly what we’ve done with the bailout money. I’m not knocking the financial services community here. With the only incentive being to make money; most of us would do the same thing—go back to the tables and hopefully bet right this time. This year, the banks have bet right, but what happens next year if they’re wrong again? All we’ve done is created another financial bubble—the tech bubble that morphed into the real estate bubble is now the U.S. Government bubble. We can’t afford to have this one burst. 

I don’t have a simple solution, but I do have a simple starting point. How about open, transparent trading exchanges for these mysterious derivatives? Don’t worry if you don’t quite understand what a derivative is, you’re not alone. But unlike stocks, bonds and commodities, many of these financial instruments that got us into so much trouble—and are now so profitable—are not openly traded and therefore are not transparent to you or me. Now that our money is being traded it’s time to open the proverbial derivative kimono. Free open markets are a good thing, remember?

And as a tax-payer I want my loan paid back, not just with interest but with the same odds that our money is being leveraged. Conservatively, we covered Wall Street losses when banks were gambling at 40-1. Payback should be at the same odds. We’re partners, right?

The health care debate has devolved in a similar manner, pretty much missing the forest for the trees, specifically with respect to the public option. The big worry prevails that government will simply take over health care and screw it up. If getting out the swine flu vaccine or the recent cash for clunker program is any indication of government efficiency, this is a valid concern.

On the other hand the, only people I know who are happy with their health insurance are covered by government or pseudo-government programs—teachers, police officers, senior citizens and of course, members of Congress.

The critical component of the public option is the word “option,” which means a choice. All of the eye-glazing rhetoric concerning the debate again misses the central point. For many of us, health care is controlled by a monopoly either because of where we live or for whom we work. There’s no choice, no options, and no competition. The last time I checked monopolies were bad for consumers, no matter what market. That our health care is dependent on the whims of a monopoly is—again—inexcusable.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) has supposedly made a big gamble this week by including the public option in “his” bill with the caveat that states can opt out of this provision. This looks to me a lot like passing the buck. Senator Reid has made the decision to not make a decision all the while framing it as a “Big Decision.” Call me a cynic, but if Senator Reid spent half as much time on leadership as he does on schemes like this maybe there would be some actual progress in Washington.

Again, I don’t have a simple solution but a simple starting point. Let’s rid the health care system of monopolies. God only knows what could fall out in the break-up. For all we know drug companies may be taking advantage of us.

If the term monopoly is too complicated for your senator or congressman to follow, simply request that you want the same health care plan he or she has. That doesn’t sound like too much to ask, does it?

  When the Yankees and Phillies begin the 2009 World Series in the Bronx tonight, it will have baseball historians reminding fans of the last time these two teams played for a championship 59 years ago when Philadelphia’s surprising 1950 “Whiz Kids’’ captured the heart of the country.

  But there will be no “first-hand’’ accounts of how these young upstarts gave the “City of Brotherly Love’’ its first National League pennant in 35 years, dating back to Woodrow Wilson’s days in the White House.  The sportswriters who actually covered the ’50 Series are long gone, as are all but a handful of the players on that historic team.

  But a little background on the long suffering Philadelphia franchise is needed to put things in perspective.  After replacing Worcester (Mass.) in 1883, Philadelphia could lay claim to being the oldest continuous one-name, one-city franchise in all of professional American sports.  So it is easy to understand why it also holds the dubious honor of having lost more games than any pro sports team.

  It waited 32 years to claim its first N.L. pennant in 1915.  Legendary Grover Cleveland Alexander won 31 games, including 4 one-hitters, and outfielder Gavvy Cravath set a major league record in the dead ball era by slamming 24 homers, a record that stood for five years before Babe Ruth began his slugging reign.

  Alexander would beat Boston in the opener, but the Red Sox would sweep the next four games to kill the Phillies’ dreams of an initial championship.  No wonder the 1950 “Whiz Kids’’—the youngest team in baseball with an average age of 26—brought so much excitement and expectation to a city that was constantly mocked for the team’s dreadful history.

  It had gotten so bad, that when Bob Carpenter, Jr., a DuPont family heir, purchased the team in the late 40s, he tried changing its name to “”Blue Jays.’’ The fans balked, and the Phillies were reborn.

  But the “Whiz Kids’’ had to give their faithful heart palpitations before clinching the N.L. pennant. They got off to a fast start, winning 16 of their first 25 games, but the defending champion Brooklyn Dodgers quickly closed ground and by mid-season were running neck-and-neck.  The youthful Phillies then went on tear, winning 34 of their next 50 games to lead the Dodgers by 7 and ½ games on September 20.  Just when fans began inquiring about Series tickets, the team went into a tailspin.  The lead shriveled to two games, and, poetically, the last two games were scheduled for ancient Ebbets Field in Brooklyn

  Naturally, the Dodgers won the first game, 7-3.  Another win for the home team would force a playoff.  Both managers started their aces— veteran Don Newcombe, a 19-game winner for “Da Bums’’ and 23-year old Robin Roberts, who had posted a 20-11 record for the Phillies .

As one might have expected, the two future Hall of Famers were deadlocked 1-1 after nine innings. Newcombe suddenly faltered in the 10th, allowing a pair of singles before Dick Sisler, a 29-year-old “”greybeard’’ belted a 3-run homer that provided enough cushion to assure the Whiz Kids an October match-up with the Yankees.

  Youthful energy and exuberance were there trademark. Some of their star players—precocious 21-year-old southpaw Curt Simmons (17-8), sure-handed shortstop Granny Hammer and centerfielder Richie Ashburn (.303) both 23, were barely of drinking age. Slugging third-baseman Willie Jones (25 homers) was 24, and outfielder Del Ennis, who led the team with 31 homers and 126 RBI, was a 25. The rest of the regulars were almost eligible for Medicare. Second baseman Mike Goliat, 26, pennant-hero Sisler and grizzly catcher Andy Seminick were both 29.  When Seminick died in 2004, Roberts said he was the unquestioned leader in the clubhouse and on the field, where he would signal to the infielders how to position themselves and control the youthful pitchers with an iron hand.

  The only real “ancient’’ on the team was 33-year-old reliever Jim Konstanty, who was voted the N.L’s “most-valuable player’’ by making 74 appearances and winning 16 games.

  But despite all the hype over the “Whiz Kids,’’ the Yankees, who had become a baseball dynasty in the Forties, first with manager Joe McCarthy and, then Bucky Harris for two years, with a team featuring Joe DiMaggio, Bill Dickey, Red Rolfe,  Phil Rizzuto, Red Ruffing and Lefty Gomez, were a far more interesting and enigmatic team under the guidance of one-time baseball clown Casey Stengel.

  In fact, then New York Telegram columnist Joe Williams, who had questioned Stengel’s hiring by Yankee general manager George Weiss in 1949 after his past failures as manager of the Dodgers and Boston Braves when he never finished higher than fifth, labeled Casey’s second-straight pennant a “baseball miracle.’’

  Rizzuto, a native New Yorker, who at 5-foot-5, had beaten all odds by making the Yankees in 1941 and replacing team favorite Frank Crosetti as the starting shortstop,  was one of Stengel’s biggest detractors.

  In retrospect, Rizzuto told author Peter Golenbock, ‘Bucky Harris could have had that big dynasty that Stengel inherited. He was a great guy like McCarthy. But   he was also tough as nails and he treated everybody differently. But Weiss fired Bucky in 1949 and brought in Stengel. Prior to that, Stengel was regarded as a nice man, very funny, but he had never won anything.

  “He inherited a great team of players coming up. You and I could have managed the team, gone away for the summer and still won three pennants .That’s how good we were.

“Of course, Casey and I never got along that well anyway,’’ added ‘The Scooter’ who, ironically, was voted the American League’s MVP his first year under Stengel. “By the mid-50s, I was the last of the old guard. Tommy Henrich was gone, Charlie Keller and Dickey were gone. Casey wanted to get all the old-timers out so he could get all those young kids—(Yogi Berra, Billy Martin. Jerry Coleman and Gil McDougald).  And really let them know who was boss.’’

  But Stengel’s’ awkward handling of the legendary DiMaggio in 1949 and 1950 was probably the biggest reason the veteran New York sportswriters turned against the “Ol’ Professor.’’

  In mid-season, the Yankees were in a tight race with the Tigers, managed by ex-Yankee Red Rolfe. Stengel worried about ‘Who’s on first?’ An aging Henrich was ailing and replacement Joe Collins wasn’t hitting. So, on July 3, he shocked the baseball world by moving the classic centerfielder to first base.  DiMaggio, an extremely proud, introverted man, was visibly petrified over the possibility of embarrassing himself at his new position.  He was also upset over the fact that Stengel had asked team president Dan Topping to request the move rather than Casey, himself.

  But the experiment was short-lived. Slugger Johnny Mize, obtained from the Giants, but sent to the Yankee farm in Kansas City, was called up to replace Joe D. at first and quickly proved a timely hitter. As imaginative columnist Dan Parker wrote, “Your arm is gone, your legs likewise. But not your eyes, Mize, not your eyes.’

  But it was DiMaggio who saved the Yankees in a three-way stretch run with the Tigers and the Red Sox, who won 23 of their last 28 games. Teaming with cocky rookie pitcher Whitey Ford, winning 9 of his 10 starts after a mid-season call-up, DiMaggio carried the offense, hitting safely in the last 19 games while batting .373.  A “”washed-up’’ DiMaggio ended 1950 with a .301 average and 32 homers.

  But there was still this unfinished business against the fuzzy-cheeked Phillies. Their manager, Eddie Sawyer, started with a decided handicap when Simmons was called to duty during the Korean War.  There was no sense appealing with Sen. Joe McCarthy fear-mongering about the Communist takeover of the Far East. So Simmons, awaiting his induction, watched the opener in civilian clothes

  But Sawyer shocked everyone in Game 1 at Shibe Park by passing over Roberts, the 20-game winner who had appeared in three of the last five games in the frantic pennant race, in favor of Jim Konstanty, his matchless bullpen stopper. Konstanty allowed the Yankees only one run and four hits in eight innings, but Vic Raschi, who was sizzling mad after discovering thieves had broken into his hotel room and swiped 140 box seats he had purchased for relatives and friends, was even better, blanking the Whiz Kids on two hits.

  The patent continued in game two, matching Allie Reynolds against Roberts. Reynolds fell two innings short of breaking Babe Ruth’s record of 22 scoreless innings in Series competition, by allowing a run in the fifth when the Phillies tied it, 1-1. It stayed that way until the 10th when Roberts tried to sneak a fast ball past DiMaggio and then watched dejectedly as it sailed into the stands. Reynolds had little difficulty finishing the job.

  The momentum seemed to change in game three at Yankee Stadium when lefty Ken Heintzelman out-dueled reliable, old softballer Eddie Lopat to enjoy a 2-1 lead through seven innings.  But he unraveled in the eighth, issuing three straight walks.

  Konstanty got the call and induced pinch-hittter Bobby Brown to hit a grounder to Hammer, who bobbled the ball, allowing Brown to score the tying run.Russ Meyer replaced Konstanty in the ninth and retired the first two batters.. But after two infield hits,  Coleman’s blooper to center ended it.

  The precocious Ford, who was also headed for the Army, was rewarded with the game four start, and rewarded Stengel;s trust by pitching a shutout for eight innings while the Yankees grabbed a 5-0 lead against Bob Miller. But the Phillies mounted one final rally, thanks to a two-out fly ball Gene Woodling lost in the sun. They cut the deficit to 5-2 when Casey summoned Reynolds, his ace in the hole, who promptly struck out Stan Lopata to complete the sweep.

  Stengel didn’t gloat.  He confided that the teams were much closer competitively than the 4-0 margin might indicate. And so, 59 years later, the mystique surrounding the “Whiz Kids’’ still persists.

Since I began this exercise last year, I have written extensively about a couple of topics that I thought would keep your interest.  One was the slots issue, which is still totally screwed up, and local politics, which is never dull.

As events have been unfolding lately, my musings about Governor O’Malley’s poor leadership resonates.  I sometimes feel like the boy who cried wolf.  All I can do is put it out there for your edification. The same, old, same old keeps happening.

First I want to talk about O’Malley, who showed up a couple of weeks ago on Bill Maher’s show on HBO. He was terrible, and made no discernable impression, but some of it was not his fault. He was on a panel with Chris Matthews and Alec Baldwin, and the show never had any chemistry.  If he thought this was going to be a vehicle for him to shine in the national spotlight, he was sadly mistaken. He missed this opportunity.

Now, the slots issue has come once again to the forefront. The location in Anne Arundel County is still not decided. It is apparent that the county council in Anne Arundel County does not want to make this decision. The Cordish Company will not relent on its proposal for the site to be at the Arundel Mills Mall.  The whole thing is going back through the wringer again with a timetable scheduled before the end of the year. O’Malley, as I said previously, wants others to do his bidding for him and take the heat.

Also, another jag that I’ve been on concerns the budget deficits. Finally, the governor seems to be addressing this, but this upcoming legislative session will be critical. If he cannot get our fiscal house in order, he could be in a challenge next November.

On the local front in Baltimore County, I attended a fundraiser for State Senator Jim Brochin, from the 42nd Legislative District. Brochin, a bona fide maverick, sits in the last row in the chamber, a distinction that was made by pissing off the powers that be—Mike Miller. Brochin has no plans to modify his approach. He may have a race next year against a candidate that fits my most despised criteria—a right wing loony. Hopefully, Jim will prevail again. He’s a unique and special politician.

I bumped into former Senator Paula Hollinger and had a nice chat with her.  She encouraged me to run for the county council seat being vacated by Kevin Kamenetz, who is challenging next year for county executive.  Let me announce now that I will not run, nor will I seek the position, and all rumors concerning my political ambitions are false.  My loyalty is to my family and to my readers.

Speaking of right-wing loonies, Andy Harris and the club for growth will be going again against Frank Kratovil in the 1st Congressional District of Maryland. Last time around, I covered this race, and it will be déjà vu all over again with this one. Hopefully, Harris will finally be out of politics after this election.

Harris will have to give up his state senate seat to make the run. Primed to take that seat is none other than my old boss Jim Smith, who has changed his legal residency to the 7th Legislative District from Reisterstown.  Smith still wants to be a player. You can bet your sweet bippy that I will keep my eye on that one.

  After Steve Hauschka’s 44-yard attempt to complete a miraculous fourth-quarter comeback against the unbeaten Vikings in Minnesota’s domed stadium sailed wide left with two seconds remaining, the Ravens head coach and a number of leading figures in the heart-breaking 33-31 loss took a positive stand. To a man, they insisted that quarterback Joe Flacco’s extreme poise under pressure would serve as a “character builder’ and unify the team for the tough schedule it faces in its remaining 10 games.

  “We can build on this,’ said coach John Harbaugh.

  “We went down swinging. We can definitely build on this,’’ said mighty mite Ray Rice, who accounted for 194 yards running and receiving on only 20 touches and scored two touchdowns on spectacular runs in the second half to keep the Ravens’ hopes alive.

  “The way we came back behind Flacco when we were 17 points down with 10 minutes left speaks volumes,’’ said All-Pro linebacker and unquestioned team leader Ray Lewis, who helped slow down Minnesota’s dynamic Adrian Peterson (143 yards rushing) in the turn-around fourth quarter.

  “We’ve been begging for an offense like this for so long,’’ added Lewis, mindful of how the opportunistic defense was the team’s best offense in the days when Trent Dilfer and Kyle Boller called the signals. “And now it’s the defense that’s struggling. But we’ve got to keep grinding.  We’ve had a chance to win the last three weeks.’’

  Which raises the critical question, when do you stop building character and start winning games?’ Or is the truth too much to admit?  The team has undergone a complete change. As things now stand, a much-improved offense can not compensate for all the obvious shortcomings of a struggling defense which failed to cause a fumble or intercept a pass on Sunday.

  The Ravens take solace that their three straight losses to New England, Cincinnati and New England were by a total of 11 points.  They rationalize that each game was winnable, save for a questionable penalty (the Pats’ untouchable Tom Brady), too much macho (Lewis’s helmet-loosening collision with Bengals’ receiver Chad Ochocinco) or two late penalties by the shaky secondary during the Vikings’ game-winning drive.

  It all adds up to the Ravens being 3-3 instead of 6-0 going into a bye week.

But Harbaugh knows better. He noted that the Ravens were completely outplayed by the Vikings in the first half.  They ran only three plays in Minnesota territory and settled for a field goal with time running out to trail, 14-3, at the break

  Before the game, he had insisted the Ravens had to re-establish a running game to keep the fast-charging Vikings, led by defensive end Jared Allen, off balance. He started Willie McGahee in place of Rice, but the strategy backfired when McGahee finished the first half with minus yardage on his seven carries.

  As soon as the versatile Rice replaced McGahee, Flacco and the offense began clicking. But on a day when Flacco (28-43 for 385 yards, 2 TDs) actually out-dueled legendary Brett Favre (21-29 for 279 yards, 3 TDs), it wasn’t enough to compensate for the absence of a sustained pass rush and the inability of cornerbacks Domonique Foxworth and Frank Walker to cover any of the talented Viking receivers ‘1-on-1’

  It reached comical proportions in the second quarter when two Raven pass defenders somehow tackled each othe in the end zone while Bernard Berrian broke completely free to score the Vikings second touchdown in the first eight minutes.

  At this point, it seemed Favre was toying with the Ravens, taunting them with bootleg passes or handing off to Peterson who consistently bounced off would-be tacklers or carried two or three of them on his back for first down yardage. To rub it in, Favre even relished taking an occasional jolt, bouncing up with a grin on his face after being flattened by giant defensive tackle Haloti Ngota. He was sacked three times in the second half, but never rattled.

  Every time he needed a big play, he singled out Sidney Rice, who was just as effective as the Ravens’ Rice in catching 6 passes for 176 yards, repeatedly turning short tosses into long gains.

  “We just weren’t making plays in the middle of the field,’’ said Harbaugh. “Plus, if you give Favre time to throw, guys can’t be expected to cover ‘1-on-1.’

  Favre praised Rice with improvising on the 58-yard catch that set up Ryan Longwell’s 31-yard field goal with 1.58 left that proved to be the game-winner. “Give Rice all the credit,’’ said the 40-year-old master.  “He was supposed to run a 12-15 yard comeback route, but went downfield on his own.’’

  In the explosive second half, both teams were guilty of shoddy tackling, particularly the Vikings who let Ray Rice escape their grasp time and again.  As former Ravens’ defensive back Bruce Laird, turned analyst, noted, “Tackling shouldn’t be that difficult. You just wrap your arms around a guy and bring him down.’

  But lest we forget, the Ravens are “character building.’ They’ve got a whole week to work on it while awaiting a visit from another unbeaten team in the surprising Denver Broncos.

  “We’ve got to be much better against Denver,’ Harbaugh acknowledged.

  But for two precious seconds the Ravens dreamed the impossible dream as Hauschka lined up for his winning field goal attempt and the suddenly quiet Viking faithful held their collective breath.

  Haushka, who was favored by Harbaugh over old and reliable Matt Stover for purportedly having a stronger leg, has now made only 1 of 3 kicks over 40 yards. Baltimore Sun critic Mike Preston is already second-guessing Harbaugh who lost any chance of reclaiming an idle Stover when he was recently signed by Indianapolis.

  No wonder that the Sun’s Ken Murray suggested that Haushka should spend this week in the witness protection program.

That Rush Limbaugh was in the middle of a shitstorm hardly counts as news, but the subject matter and those making the arguments were most interesting and revealing. Limbaugh, wannabe NFL owner, got trashed by some of the usual suspects—namely Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson—but a couple of other notables hit their target with accurately fired shots and brought him down.  Rush Limbaugh and the NFL will not be bonding anytime soon.

Coincidentally this week, Barry Levinson’s ode to the Baltimore Colts band aired on ESPN. Titled The Band That Wouldn’t Die, the documentary chronicled the Baltimore Colts Marching Band. In relating the story, Levinson goes all out in detailing the origins of Baltimore’s history with the Colts. No Diner quizzes with this one, just a tale of endurance by the fans and the band that helped define Baltimore and its role in the mainstream of professional football.

Levinson’s story covers all the bases and talks to all the important participants, including former Baltimore Sun reporter Mike Olesker, who comes out of exile to appear as the social historian of record, and former Mayor/Governor Willie Don Schaefer, who is interviewed at the senior home where he resides, and who still has most of his marbles, former owners Art and David Modell, current Ravens owner Steve Biscotti and the principles of the band, who deserve all the kudos for persevering.

The killer film clip of the documentary, and one most familiar to Baltimoreans, is the one where Robert Irsay arrives at a press conference directly off an airplane at the airport with then-Mayor Schaefer vouching for his integrity and honorable intentions. Irsay is completely wasted, vulgar, and totally incoherent. Next comes the moving vans in the middle of the night.

Now of course, we have the Ravens. We’re secure in the NFL, and the loss of the Colts has been mitigated by time and Ray Lewis. We’re in and so is Indianapolis, and St. Louis, formerly the Cleveland and Los Angeles Rams, is struggling with their team. Unless a group of locals from St. Louis buy the team, they could be shopping for a new locale. Former Colts owner Carroll Rosenbloom’s widow, Georgia Frontierre, was the owner of the team. How’s that for karma?

So anyway, after Rush got blasted in the media by the Reverends’ Jackson and Sharpton, Jimmy Irsay, son of the despised Robert, added his two thumbs-down to the Limbaugh ownership maneuver. Irsay threatened a blackball.

Then of course, because these matters were of major national significance, right up there with the health care reform debate, and the discussion over what to do with Afghanistan. The venerable Wall Street Journal, now owned by Rupert Murdoch, chimed in Thursday with an editorial. Read a portion for yourself. The title to the piece is “Leveling Limbaugh.”

After this, opposition to Mr. Limbaugh emerged from Baltimore Colts owner Robert Irsay and, most disappointing of all, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.  Mr Goodell implied in a statement that Mr. Limbaugh’s off-the-cuff comment in 2003 about Donovan McNabb (that the media wanted a black quarterback to do well) violated the league’s “high standard.”

How amazing is that for a supposedly serious newspaper? Wrong team, wrong owner and wrong on the statement. Limbaugh was not off-the-cuff. He said his race-baiting remarks about McNabb on a pregame show on ESPN, and he knew exactly what he was doing.  He is a calculating wise ass, and does and says nothing that isn’t in sync with his dogmatic attitudes.  And then on Saturday, they gave Limbaugh his own opportunity to comment on the editorial page and he delivered another diatribe where he trashes all those who were out to get him.  The missive is titled “The Race Card, Football, and Me.” Read it at your own risk!

Next, the Journal will be editorializing on the Colorado Balloon Scam.  The title of the editorial will be “Blowing Hot Air Up Your Ass, or Why You Should Read The Wall Street Journal?”

Probably like most of you I woke up to the news last week that our president had won the Nobel Peace Prize and responded with “Really?” To his credit, it appears that President Obama had the same reaction.

Since then, debate has ensued as to whether he deserved it—“SNL” even weighed in—although I found Liz Cheney’s recommendation that the president send the mother of a fallen soldier to accept the award in his stead the funniest response. Not the suggestion itself—I just found the idea of anybody with the last name of Cheney giving advice on international protocol, let alone on proper etiquette, for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize a little like Roseanne Barr giving out singing lessons. But I digress.

The general consensus is that Obama won the Nobel because he isn’t George W. Bush, but more importantly this is an indication of what the rest of the world believes (dare I say, hopes) the president can do for the future. It is yet one more expectation to place on the tall stack of already precariously balanced high expectations for Obama. The concern is that the Nobel committee has been duped by President Obama’s rhetoric. The point that has these skeptics have missed—in fact, it has flown by them at light speed—is that words do matter. 

For instance:

“We the People,” “All men are created equal,” the 272 words spoken by Lincoln at Gettysburg, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” “We will never surrender,” “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country,” and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

Hopefully, I’ve made my point. Words can give us hope and unite us in the pursuit of a common goal, even the common good. If your hopes and aspirations are tapped out, that’s understandable since the last eight years have been difficult. But some of us haven’t tossed in the towel yet and surprise, surprise, some of us aren’t even American. Words can set goals, sometimes lofty goals.

The supreme irony here is that while being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize President Obama is weighing his most significant decision as commander-in-chief –what to do about the war in Afghanistan. Specifically, does he acquiesce to General McChrytsal’s not-so private request of adding 40,000 more troops to this eight-year war?

We can debate if the general went rogue or MacArthur on the president. I say no. The general hasn’t brought up nuclear weapons, the Yalu River and he doesn’t have a comb-over. I believe this public request is military backlash from the last administration. Generals who privately asked for more resources were fired—quickly and unceremoniously. McChrystal has simply gone on record—publicly—with what he believes he needs to do the job. I respect that, but it does beg the question: What’s the job? What’s the endgame in Afghanistan? This is where we need a little less rhetoric and a lot more specifics from all sides.

Maybe I’m a little slow, but I have no clue as to what our goal is in Afghanistan. Initially, the U.S. mission was very precise. We were going to destroy the Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps, rid the country of the Taliban and, of course, find and/or kill Osama Bin Hidin.

We’ve accomplished –I think—one of those tasks. We can debate all the reasons, starting with the invasion of Iraq, as to why the results after eight years are so meager. But before we start using terms like victory and cut and run or debate troop levels it seems readily apparent to this non-military person that someone needs to define what winning is. After that we can start figuring tactics, strategies, and resources needed.

This ambiguous or even absent set of goals is what I find most disturbing and most similar to what happened with the Vietnam War—particularly, the disconnect between Washington, D.C. and the battlefield. There are very poignant lessons we need to learn from the Vietnam War. Years after the fall of Saigon in a meeting between the military brass of both countries, an American general made the observation to North Vietnamese General Giap (I believe) that on the field of battle the U.S. military always handily defeated the North Vietnamese army.

Giap’s response: “Correct, but irrelevant.”

The explanation being that while U.S. military policy evolved into trying to convince the North Vietnamese government they couldn’t win the war, the North Vietnamese goal was simply not to lose it. Giap, among other things, masterminded the ambush of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 that sent the French packing and the Tet Offensive in 1968 that sent Walter Cronkite and LBJ packing. This isn’t a backhanded pat on the back for the North Vietnamese. This is about understanding your enemy, who in Southeast Asia were willing to die to the last man for their cause. Sound familiar?

This conundrum of military goals and strategy needs to be taken into account as the U.S. military and President Obama evaluate the Afghani War. History has proven that Afghanistan is just as big of a black hole as Vietnam—just ask the British and the Russians.

On the heels of winning the Nobel Peace Prize and with the international community’s full attention, President Obama has the opportunity to retool the plan for Afghanistan and strike a significant blow to Islamic terrorism while building a coalition of more than three countries. We may not be able to change the world, but we can make it safer. And we don’t have to do it alone.

Our recent vacation trip to San Diego coincided with the Ravens playing the Chargers, who failed to sell out the game.  So we were not surprised to see a number of Raven-maniacs, proudly sporting their team paraphernalia, visiting such lush sites as La Jolla and the classic Coronado Hotel where “Some Like It Hot’’ was filmed despite claims it was taking place in Miami Beach.

  It was a chance for the home folks to get a sun tan, enjoy the scenery and also savor the Ravens victory thanks to some highly questionable play-calling by Chargers’ coach Norv Turner in the final minute

  But these same fanatics will not be making early reservations for the Super Bowl in Detroit next year for two basic reasons: (1) It will be frigid outside the domed stadium and (2) really No.1, in their heart of hearts they now know the Ravens will be fortunate to even make the playoffs.

  Yes, the Ravens had an excellent chance of beating the under-rated Bengals here on Sunday, but in losing on a late 80-yard scoring drive deftly executed by Carson Palmer, all their inherent weaknesses were dramatically exposed.

  Maybe the first mistake was making Baltimore an eight-point favorite. Palmer simply added to his mastery over the Ravens, besting them for the seventh time in 10 meetings.

  Still, talk show hosts will be slavering all week, talking about how three untimely defensive penalties played a major hand in aiding the Bengals’ victory, just as they had the week before against the Patriots in Foxboro. Bitter fans will suggest that the referees view the Ravens in a much harsher light than their rivals and angrily note the disparity in penalty yardage

. You could argue that the final interference call Sunday against Frank Walker was ticky-tacky and Chris Carr’s earlier holding call was less than fragrant. But Ray Lewis’ head-jarring tackle of Chad Ochocinco was simply the foolish case of the Macho Man getting back at the Bengals’ wideout for his pre-game boast that he would hit the All-Pro linebacker in the mouth. Pride goeth before a fall, as Bible-belching Lewis should know..

  Ravens boss John Harbaugh, who was badly out-coached by Marvin Lewis, the team’s defensive coordinator in the 2001 Super Bowl run, was quick to admit that the ill-timed penalties were not responsible for the disheartening loss. Said Harbaugh, ’I just think we need to play better, to play so well these things become irrelevant….We have to make sacks, an interception, whatever it might be.’’

  Baltimore Sun critics were quick to place most of the blame on Raven cornerbacks Domonique Foxworth and Fabian Washington after they were repeatedly burned by Ochocinco, Chris Henry and Andre Caldwell who caught the game-winning pass in the end zone.

  True, Foxworth is undersized and mediocre at best, and Washington may be only a step quicker, but the absence of a pass rush and shabby tackling allowed Palmer to stand back and wait until a receiver broke free. Given so much time, even Grandma Moses could have completed a few passes.

    Outside linebacker Jarret Johnson recorded the lone sack for the Ravens, who now have a total of 11 in 5 games, hardly a statistic to strike fear in an opponent. The 2007 defection of Adalius Thomas to New England, and Rex Ryan’s successful wooing of Bart Scott to New Jersey this year are obvious reasons why the Ravens’ once-vaunted blitz now has the bite of a soggy bagel.

  Perhaps even more embarrassing was the way running back Cedric Benson   consistently broke tackles in gaining 120 yards on 27 carries, keeping the Ravens consistently off balance.  It marked the first time in 40 games that a runner had topped the 100-yard mark against Baltimore, but Benson made it look easy in getting key first downs, causing defensive tackle Haloti Ngata to proclaim, “It definitely stinks.’

  Save for brainy All-Pro Ron Reed, who intercepted a pass for a touchdown and stripped the ball from Ochocinco to prevent a Bengal TD, the defense was uninspired.

  And, if possible, the offense was even worse. Marvin Lewis seemed to anticipate every play, and somehow managed to keep the Ravens’ bread-and-butter receiver Derrick Mason without a reception.  In fact, only a single pass was thrown his way.

  So in a game where second-year quarterback Joe Flacco was supposed to be anointed as a future super-hero, the Ravens’ offense was held scoreless for 53 minutes before mighty-mite Ray Rice turned a screen pass into a spectacular 48-yard touchdown run.

  Flacco completed 22 of 31 passes, but garnered only 186 yards in playing it safe. He had a chance to put the game out of reach late in the fourth quarter, but overthrew Mark Clayton who had clearly beaten his defender.

  Rice rushed for 69 yards, but it was tough going against an improved Bengal defense.  Why Harbaugh kept Willis McGahee-who leads Baltimore with 5 touchdowns and averages 5.4 yards a carry, glued to the bench-was never fully explained.

  With major question marks surrounding both the defense and offense, it is difficult being optimistic about the Ravens’ future.  Arguably, they were given one of the toughest schedules in the league. Among their final 11 opponents, only consistent-patsy Cleveland, on the road, Nov. 8, and hopeless Oakland in the season finale, appear to be favorable match-ups.

  Otherwise, they face a killer schedule starting next Sunday in Minnesota where they not only have to face ageless wonder Brett Favre, but the NFL’s most gifted runner in Adrian Peterson.  After a welcome bye, they face unbeaten Denver and red-hot quarterback Kyle Orton who out-dueled Tom Brady in an overtime upset of New England.

  Excluding the Browns, they could or should be underdogs in a visit to Cincinnati, at home against Indianapolis and Pittsburgh and a visit to Green Bay.  The much-improved Lions are no sure thing, before the Ravens host the Bears and fearless QB Jay Cutler followed by a visit to Pittsburgh’s death trap.
  It just may be time for Harbaugh to replace Jim Mora, Sr. in that memorable Bud Light commercial where the one-time Saints’ coach famously rants:.  “Playoffs? Playoffs? You kidding me? Don’t talk about Playoffs!’ 

This past week, documentarian and auteur Michael Moore unveiled his newest polemic entitled Capitalism, A Love Story. He brings it close to home with a couple of scenes and situations that pertain to our home town.

During the movie, he has several discussions with Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) sitting on a park bench outside the U.S. Capitol, and in one of his comedic trades, he attempts to speak to former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who is ensconced in an office building that is home to the Paul Nitze School of International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Moore is standing outside the building, calling Paulson on the phone to no avail.

If you’re a fan of Moore, like I am, you’ll eat this one up. The movie opens with an old, grainy Hollywood-era film documenting the fall of the Roman Empire and gives all too-obvious parallels to our current status in the world scene, and ends with a short speech filmed in black and white given by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt talks about a new bill of rights that would endow freedoms to the working class. Ironically, after the end of WWII and after Roosevelt’s death, our defeated enemies of Japan, Germany, and Italy adopt some of the provisos.

In between the opening and the ending, Moore is all over the place with his perceptions of what has happened to our country, and what caused the problems.  He believes we began to fall off the rails when President Jimmy Carter went south with his notorious speech about America headed for the shitter. When Reagan took over it was “Katy, bar the door,” and the march to greed and destruction culminated with the last group of thieves and bandits that took control of the government during George W’s reign. Along the way, he examines the decline and fall of General Motors, a favorite topic carried over from Roger And Me, and then he goes off on Wall Street with a vengeance.

If I quantified the movie in terms of emotional toll I could attribute to Moore’s direction and storytelling capability, I would say that 33.3% of the movie is very moving and touching and hits you hard, 33.3% is hilarious and very innovative and creative as only Moore can provide, and33.3% is utter bullshit.

The most moving scene to me is when he goes with his father, a retired auto worker from Flint at the AC spark plug plant, to view where the plant was located, and to reminisce about his career. There is no plant now, just a big vacant, bulldozed lot, and Moore’s father puts it all in perspective.

Moore also films a family about to face foreclosure and lose everything, including their family farm that had been theirs for several generations. The best one, however, is the story about the workers at a Chicago plant who get notice their factory is closing and they are not going to get paid. The workers take matters their own hands, and occupy the building demanding that they be compensated for what is owed to them.  It’s the beginning of the revolution, according to Moore, and you become vested in the cause.

The funny stuff is Moore doing his schtick a la Roger and Me. He takes a bullhorn outside the AIG building on Wall Street and starts announcing that he is there attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of the criminals inside the building. He also attempts to enter several buildings to interview some of the major players involved in the financial freefall, and he is met at the door by security and is rebuffed, naturally. Moore is a master at milking those scenes. The best one, though, is when he takes yellow crime scene tape and wraps it around the complete perimeter of the Goldman Sachs building. That one was a classic.

As far as the superfluous, you can judge that for yourself. The movie has some filler and takes unnecessary diversions that aren’t critical to his thesis.

Moore has been at this game for a long time.  Some of his work is brilliant. His debut on the national scene, Roger and Me, was a critical and commercial success. That movie, as it turns out, was a prequel to Capitalism. His best movie was Fahrenheit 9/11, which focused on the war in Iraq and how badly the Bush Administration lied to the American public and how entangled our affairs are with the Saudis. This movie had it all. Again, in some ways, that was a prequel as well.

With Moore, there are no shades of gray. He affirms the belief that this country is in dire need of a critical self-examination and a turnaround that would equate to a revolution of thought, words, and actions. Moore believes we’re about ready to bring democracy back to the capitalist markets and with the election of President Obama, the tide will turn. I hope he’s right.

After JFK’s assassination and the 1964 election, with LBJ defeating conservative Barry Goldwater in a landslide, President Johnson viewed his popularity as a mandate in both domestic and foreign policy. Public backlash began almost immediately against his civil rights legislation, specifically any type of integration, be it in schools, housing, public places and the workplace. Violent racial eruptions across the country became commonplace.

The riots, looting, police actions—and the politicians involved—are covered in great detail in Nixonland. If you were too young at the time to truly understand what was happening or need a refresher—this book provides a harrowing narrative.

Coinciding with Johnson’s domestic policies was his administration’s escalation of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Although interesting, trying to “what if?” historical decisions is not always productive, but it is hard to imagine anyone else other than Johnson following the same ascent (or descent) into Vietnam.

More U.S. involvement meant more U.S. dollars, more U.S. soldiers and ultimately more U.S. casualties. As with civil rights, this too caused a sharp division within the country. Johnson’s less than straightforward explanations to the American people—specifically, with respect to the war—led to what was labeled “the credibility gap.” Public trust and confidence in him and the office faded with each decision and each press conference, and with every step forward Johnson was shedding supporters and gaining critics and enemies. This book does a very good job in chronicling this unrest in the country, especially on college campuses.

On the sidelines, but never out of the game, was Richard Nixon. With a political eagle eye he watched, listened, took notes and began his presidential bid for 1968—in secret, of course. This obsession with secrecy is a Nixonian personality quirk guiding his behavior throughout his life. Kissinger not only shared this trait, he also fueled Nixon’s penchant for concealment.

A few instances include publicly campaigning for California’s Earl Warren in the 1952 Republican presidential primaries while secretly cutting a deal with the Eisenhower camp, the secret bombings of Cambodia almost immediately upon taking office in 1969, and most strikingly, the dirty tricks of his 1972 campaign for re-election that culminated in the all-encompassing Watergate scandal. More on that later.

By 1966, Nixon had identified the electoral pressure points within the Democratic Party and had become the behind the scenes de facto leader of the Republican Party. Nixon’s strategy was to divide the Democrats along these fault lines. His gubernatorial election loss in 1962 and failed bid for the presidency in 1960 were evolving from liabilities to assets. This was the new Nixon learning from experience. All his actions were positioned as for the good of the Republican Party and the country—never for his personal gain—although of course that’s what his motives were all about.

Nixon sensed and then capitalized on the resentments coming to a boil among the American public. He spearheaded a movement that turned the liberal and progressive arguments on their collective ear. If you were for civil rights, then you were for the violence caused by the riots and demonstrations—which meant you were against law and order, i.e., an anarchist, thus you were not patriotic and even a criminal.

As the civil rights’ movement evolved into an anti-Vietnam War protest, this argument morphed accordingly—if you were against the war, you were anti-American. Phrases such as “America—Love it or Leave it” and “America—Right or Wrong” became the rallying cries. If one disagreed with the policy, one disagreed with the president and you were labeled anti-American.

In 1968 the Democratic Party imploded—the National Convention being the most striking example of this phenomenon—specifically over the Vietnam War. Republican nominee Nixon watched this and began dictating the topics of the campaign both in his availability and the substance of his speeches. For instance, he refused to provide any details concerning the war. His rationale was that he didn’t want to spoil any chances for peace President Johnson might be working on.

The on-again, off-again peace talks are a story in and of themselves. At the end of March 1968, in a televised message from the White House, LBJ, to the surprise of everyone, had removed himself from the November elections. Sincere or not, he claimed he would spend the rest of his tenure attempting to end the Vietnam War.

Nixon, concerned that such a breakthrough would squash his chances of winning the presidency, used a back channel—Anna Chennault, widow of World War II Flying Tigers leader General Claire Lee Chennault—to convince the South Vietnamese to delay any decisions on the war until after the election. He promised he would take care of the situation once he won and assumed office.

This is just one more tragedy concerning the Vietnam War. Could peace have been secured in 1968? It’s unclear. What most historians do agree on is that the peace settlement reached in 1972-73 was not much different that what was on the table in 1968—but it was four years and 20,000-plus killed in action later.

Publicly keeping the war out of his campaign, Nixon’s next step was to address civil rights, which he publicly appeared to agree. However, behind the scenes (while groveling), Nixon struck a deal with South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond and his southern cohorts. Both sides agreed to a public face of equality, but privately came to an agreement concerning states rights and the enforcement of federal integration legislation, which meant that under a Nixon presidency he’d never force the states to do anything they weren’t comfortable with. So with a nod, a wink and input on naming the next Supreme Court Justice, civil rights was taken care of and off the table.

This secret pact with Southerners, although not eliminating third party candidate George Wallace, minimized him enough to allow Nixon to squeak into the White House. Nixon had reached the pinnacle of his political life. He was now President of the United States and he now had the opportunity to implement his plan of governance—his view of the future for his country. The only problem? There was no plan—not for the war, the economy, civil rights and public unrest.

This lack of a plan once in power is one of the many ironies or paradoxes of Richard Nixon (Note the contrast here with Churchill or FDR upon assuming office). A man who had seemingly campaigned all his life for this very moment, a man who against all odds, and by any means necessary, was now the leader of the free world.

Nixon’s first reaction was to feel picked upon. This self pity, always an integral part of his psyche, would continue to grow and fester for the rest of his presidency and his life. Rather than trying to solve issues, Nixon and his administration quickly divided the world into friends and enemies. As events quickly began to overtake the White House and its newest occupant, governance and politics blurred further and everything became personal to the president.

Throughout his years in the White House Nixon’s actions, decisions and policies were not based on ideology or even personal vision, but how they would be perceived by the public and specifically how they would play in a campaign—the ends and the means, winning elections—becoming one and the same.

This doesn’t mean to imply that every move Nixon made was wrong or negative, some were very positive, such as detente. That being said, one of his first major actions as commander-in-chief was to begin bombing Cambodia in the hopes of destroying the North Vietnamese supply lines to the South—the Ho Chi Minh trail—as well as North Vietnamese sanctuaries there. The U.S. had not declared war on that country so this military action was done in secret.

The goal here was to appear tough to enhance his administration’s position at the negotiating table. Unfortunately, it didn’t work and in fact fueled North Vietnamese resolve and when finally made public raised the anti-war pitch in this country another notch. But this wouldn’t be known right away.

What was becoming clear was that much of the resentment stirred up by the Nixon campaign tactics was not going away. In fact, it was becoming much more prevalent and further dividing the country. Nixon the president reacted with a catch-as-catch-can strategy, with price freezes, opening the diplomatic door to the communists and revamping welfare. Some tactics were good, some bad, none of it ideological based or seemingly part of a larger plan. The goal was simply to get re-elected in 1972.

Nixon the politician once again capitalized on this ambivalence and resentment and pulled off one of the biggest electoral coups in American history—running a re-election campaign that in hindsight shocked many of his supporters and the tactics of which still haunts the country to this day. This split-personality—leader vs. politician—converges in a Freudian nightmare as Nixon desperately manages his re-election campaign, his victory and his ultimate demise.

Part Three: Re-election, Watergate, cover-up, resignation and legacy.

When the Orioles made their last visit to Cleveland, September 25, former major league outfielder Rick Manning, who now serves as the color man on the Indians’ TV broadcasts,  asked his Oriole counterpart, Hall of Famer Jim Palmer, “Do the Orioles do anything?’’

  That seemingly simple question carried more weight than any other theory offered as to why MacPhail should not have retained Dave Trembley as manager of the Orioles, who barely averted a 100-loss decision and finished 39 games behind the runaway Yankees in the top-heavy AL East.

  What Manning meant was that the Orioles he observed were glaringly lacking in such basic fundamentals as bunting, playing hit-and-run, running the bases with a sense of awareness and making the correct decisions on defense. He also labeled Brian Roberts as the Birds’ only base-stealing threat.

  From Day 1, Trembley has preached fundamentals. But shouldn’t this begin in spring training? Why not make certain that Roberts does not leave the batting cage until he has effectively bunted a number of balls that would have produced a hit or advanced a runner. Roberts would certainly hit .300 if he convinced rival infielders he could bunt besides swinging away.

  As it was, Melvin Mora, one of the slowest Orioles, was the most adept bunter on the team.  It is true, as Trembley remarked when his future was still in doubt, that players have to take responsibility for base-running blunders. But why not stress this point by immediately benching a Ty Wigginton or Felix Pie, who, far too often, ran the bases like drunken sailors.

  Trembley did get tossed a few times when he felt the umpires had blown a call, but, for the most part, he appeared ready for a nap in the dugout, his face showing about as much emotion as Buster Keaton.

  Ironically, it wasn’t until Trembley was rehired in the final week of the season that the Orioles bunted, stole bases and bedeviled the rival defense with their aggressiveness. Almost to a man, they approved MacPhail’s decision.  Our belief is that they prefer playing for “”Easy Rider’’ than a ball-buster like Earl Weaver.

  Palmer, who had a stormy relationship with Weaver, admitted that the pint-sized dictator always got positive results by simply preaching, produce or good riddance But Palmer, Gary Thorne (who even has trouble keeping track of the number of outs), and Buck Martinez all seemed to cover their eyes and ignore what was happening on the field. Perhaps they appreciated the fact that good-guy Trembley was always available in the clubhouse or dugout. Of all the broadcasters-TV and radio-only Joe Angel and Dave Johnson were willing to criticize the team’s obvious shortcomings.

  The print media was equally to blame for its “”see-no-evil’’ approach to Trembley. The two major beat reporters for the Sun, Jeff Zrebiec and Dan Connolly, all but gave the manager a free pass.

Even columnist Peter Schmuck wavered in the end. At first, he endorsed MacPhail’s decision, deciding, with some justification, that Trembley had been dealt a losing hand, particularly in the key ingredient-pitching.  In the last few months, he was forced to start unproven youngsters supported by an unstable bullpen.  Resurrected Chris Ray and Jim Johnson, who were cast in the roles as set-up man and stopper, proved major disappointments, making one wonder if George Sherrill was really that valuable?

  But a few days later, Schmuck would have some misgivings, suggesting that Trembley should be more authoritative with his players. ‘He needs to manage as if he’s their boss instead of their uncle.’ He also questioned the way Trembley went ‘with the flow of the game,’ and was ‘too predictable.’ But he quickly back-tracked, saying Trembley certainly knew more than he did about game strategy. Isn’t it a columnist’s job to serve as a critic when he believes his opinion is just.?

  But surely, MacPhail was equally to blame for the Orioles’ 12th straight losing season and their worst record since Cal Ripken, Sr. and Frank Robinson managed the team to a 54-107 mark in 1988.

  He began the year with his biggest blunder, paying a king’s ransom for Japanese reliever Koji Uehara. MacPhail somehow envisioned him as a No.2 starter, but Koji, who proved frailer than a hothouse orchid, managed to win just two games, pitching only 66.1 innings in 12 starts before shutting down in mid-season.

  MacPhail also decided it was too risky to allow promising rookie Brian Matusz (5-2) to appear in more than eight major-league games. Fellow rookie Chris Tillman (2-5) was also coddled. These two fuzzy-cheeked pitchers represent half of what Trembley envisions as his starting rotation next year, with Brad Bergesen (7-5), who missed the last two months with a leg injury, cast as the ace.

  Both MacPhail and Trembley see something in veteran Jeremy Guthrie, who has been serving as the No.1 starter, that makes you want to summon an optometrist. Guthrie (10-17)  led the league in losses,  had an inflated 5.04 e.r.a and allowed 35 home runs, almost one every four innings. If Trembley has to count on Guthrie as a starter, he should start packing now.

  It is not that the Orioles are bereft of talent. The outfield of Nick Markakis, Adam Jones and fast-developing Nolan Reimold has great promise, although Jones suffered a late-season slump after displaying more power and discipline at bat.  And Pie, for all his mental errors, proved a capable reserve when Jones was injured.

  The middle of the infield is now solid defensively with sure-handed shortstop Cesar Izturis teaming up with Roberts. And then, of course, there is rookie catcher Matt Wieters (.288), who after a dismal start, lived up to all the hype by challenging Markakis for the team batting lead

  .With $16 million to spend thanks to the trade of Aubrey Huff and the impending release of Melvin Mora, MacPhail will be looking for a potent right-handed bat to provide support for Markakis, or, less likely, land a proven starter, with few available in the current market…

  But MacPhail fully realizes the Orioles must dramatically improve next season to win back the fans that began boycotting Camden Yards in disturbing numbers.

  In our perspective, however, one of the major changes should be in how the media evaluates the g.m. manager and players.  They do a public disservice in sugar-coating everything.

  I saw the exact opposite in a recent visit to southern California where the columnists believe its imperative to criticize the coaches, managers and players on both the pro and college level.  USC’s Pete Carroll, who has won 90 percent of his games, was hammered for the Trojans loss to heavy underdog Washington. Wrote chief cynic T.J. Simers of the San Diego Union, “Carroll is going to have to coach these games like an NFL coach, and that’s scary given his record up there.’’

  San Diego Chargers’ coach Norv Turner felt even more heat for his play-calling in losing at home to the Ravens.  He got an “F’’ for his efforts, and the paper’s readers applauded guest columnist Mike Preston of the Sun for calling Turner ‘a knucklehead.’    After the dust settled, columnist Nick Canepa gave Turner a chance to dig a deeper hole by suggesting his team was over-rated. “I don’t think we’re as good as the writers who cover us, think or expect us to be. I don’t think we’re as good as the fans want us to be. But I believe we can get there.’’  Now how’s that for instilling confidence in your team?

  L.A. Times columnist Bill Plaschke, welcomed loose cannon Ron Artest to the champion Lakers under the headline, “He’s loony, but if he’s in tune with Lakers, this could work.’’ In his text, he wrote (Artest) doesn’t know where he is or who he is.’’

  Simers conducted a comic interview with zany Dodger outfielder Manny Ramirez, mired in a disturbing slump since the All-Star break. Said Simers, “You’re Manny, and you’re hitting .256.’’ And Manny protested, “I’m hitting good. I hit the ball right at people. What do you want me to do, move the fielders.’’

  The best story out of southern California concerned the wife of former oil baron T.Boone Pickens, who now preaches the gospel of alternative fuel. Madeline Pickens resides in a $35 million mansion in hoity-toity Del Mar. Her neighbor claims one of Pickens’ trees is blocking her aerie view and asked the community association to enforce an ancient ordinance that will force Perkins to prune her tree.

  You hear that Baltimore? Now sharpen your poison pens and pruning shears.

The football season has arrived with a monstrous amount of interest after last year’s surprise run in the playoffs. Expectations are rampant that this could be our year, and that the team could be headed for Miami in a return engagement to the Super Bowl. The dismal summer of suffering that has been pervasive and incessant with the Orioles is now over, and the good vibes of winning and anticipation for success is exhilarating.

Since we’re most definitely in a gloating mood, I thought it was an opportune time to bring you back to the mid-‘90s when this town was without a professional football team, and was sucking ass to get one through the expansion process orchestrated by then-Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. When the NFL decided to expand in the early ‘90s, they sent out the word and Baltimore was so hyped they had two bidders for our expansion team. One group was headed by Malcolm Glazer and his sons and another by Baltimore legend Leonard “Boogie” Weinglass.

The fix was in, and the deal was bent from the start. Tagliabue was in the pocket of Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke. He was never going to allow a team in Baltimore because Kent Cooke wanted this territory to become under the domination and influence of the Skins. Next to the Steelers, the Skins are the most despised team in Baltimore . Little did that matter to both of them. Kent Cooke, who had taken his act out of Los Angeles after he sold the Lakers and The Forum to Jerry Buss, was a self-made multimillionaire who believed that he was too rich and too powerful to die.  I’m not making this up. This egomaniac actually thought he could cheat death, and Tagliabue without reservation, did his bidding in the expansion screw job of Baltimore .

Two franchises were going to be awarded. One was clearly going to be Charlotte , which had all the proper pedigrees with the demographics, and the principal owner was former Colt Jerry Richardson, who had made his fortune on selling fast food at your local Hardees.  The other one was very much up for grabs.

The NFL and Tagliabue, in their infinite wisdom, awarded it to Jacksonville —approximately, the 60th largest market in the U.S. Jacksonville, home of the Gator Bowl and site of the annual Florida-Georgia game that was called the largest outdoor cocktail party in the world. In all respects, it is a city far below Baltimore in population and sophistication.  Then Tagliabue, at that time, made his infamous remark that “ Baltimore should start building a museum.” With that thinking, he figured he had sealed the deal forever, keeping us out of the fold.

Art Modell, of course foiled his and Kent Cooke’s plan when he pulled out of Cleveland a la the Colts, and later the Rams, and brought us back to the NFL. Modell had so screwed up his franchise he had to seek asylym in Baltimore. As they say, ” the rest is history.”

Like one of those Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation charts, the litany of those participants and those who are connected with the Ravens over the last 15 years are all tied into Tagliabue. Here’s the list for your edification:

  * Glazer and sons—fails to get Baltimore , gets Tampa Bay Buccaneers and a Super Bowl and owns Manchester United, the New York Yankees of soccer.

  * Boogie Weinglass—hangs out in Aspen , home of the Aspen Comedy Festival and Claudine Longet .

  * Jack Kent Cooke—his plan to cheat death did not work out the way he hoped and he leaves a mess with the girlfriend, wife and sons engaged in lawsuits over     the booty. Sells Redskins to Dan Snyder. Has new stadium named after him.

  * Dan Snyder—becomes one of the worst owners of football.

  * Jerry Richardson—has had perpetual trouble with attendance in Charlotte , fires his children as executives with the team, and is looking for a buyer.

  * Wayne Weaver—as owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars, he can’t fill up the stadium and is subject to blackouts for home games on TV. Weakest franchise in the league financially. A total loser.

  * Art Modell—busted in Cleveland, a hero in Baltimore , is forced out by the league and blackballed from the Hall of Fame.

  * Steve Bisciotti—buys the team from Modell. Makes a smart move to fire Billick and is headed for glory with hometown team.

  * Alfred Lerner—the former owner of the Browns, with Modell becomes majority new owner of the Cleveland Browns team in 1998.

  * Randy Lerner—Alfred’s son, who is now running the Browns, one of the most dysfunctional teams in the league. 

  * Baltimore Colts—goes to Indy with the biggest scoundrel, alcoholic Bob Irsay. Takes the Colt’s name with him, something that still irks Baltimorean. The only good thing about this is Peyton Manning, a class act and worthy successor to the greatest ever, Johnny Unitas.