A Curious Saying From A Great Man

"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives." -Jackie Robinson

"That's easy to say if you're Jackie Robinson." -Josh Burstein

The first quote appears in the Jackie Robinson Rotunda in the Mets' new Citi Field; the second, mysteriously enough, does not.

Jackie Robinson was a remarkable, courageous individual.  Clearly, his actions opened up opportunities for a countless number of people, and positively impacted a great many lives.  Not only that, but he changed the way baseball is played, and for the better -- he turned baserunning into a nuanced skill.

But I don't like this quote.  As a friend of mine pointed out, it contains a flaw in logic: if Robinson considers "other lives" to be important enough to impact, then isn't "the life"--i.e., the individual--that is doing the impacting just as important?  In other words, if it has been decided that all lives are important enough to be positively affected, how can we deem an individual's life to be unimportant because he didn't have a strong impact on other lives even though we have already deemed his life important enough to be affected?  Read that sentence a few times and I think you'll understand.  Questions and comments welcome!

This logic flaw ties into my core issue with the quote, which is a widespread issue in human nature; that we tend to believe that the only way, or the best way, to live is the way in which we have lived our lives.  That is why I included my take on the quote at the top; it is easy to prescribe a sole method of living when that method is the one that you have lived your life by.  Obviously, Jackie was well-meaning when he said this, but the idea that there is only one way to live life or to measure the importance of an individual's life is utterly ridiculous (How can the impact one has on other lives even be measured?).  A recluse with no family and no job may have a very different definition of importance than Jackie Robinson, but does that make him any less important?   I, for one, don't think it's selfish to say that it's okay to derive importance from based on how your actions impact your own life as well as the lives of others.

Star Trek: The Next Generation - It's So Underrated!

As usual, I'm probably not saying anything new in this blog, but the following bears repeating: Star Trek: The Next Generation is a vastly underrated television series.  There's no sarcasm in that statement; if there has ever been a better science fiction show, I haven't been made aware of it.

There are those who might disagree that TNG is underrated.  Characters like Data, Picard, Worf, etc. are part of Sci-Fi lore, they might say, or, the show has survived forever in syndication; how can it be underrated?  Well, the original Star Trek made it on Time Magazine's "The 100 Best TV Shows of All-Time" list, but TNG, which is a much more thoughtful and fully-realized product, is absent. 

 Startlingly, no major network ever picked up TNG, which I believe has led to its being underrated.  So yes, while it continues to exist in syndication today, syndication is the only existence that TNG has ever known.  There was never a CBS, NBC, ABC, or even a FOX to lend its brand name, its seal of approval, to TNG.  Unfortunately, human nature does not always allow us to be open-minded, myself included, and so when selecting shows to watch, we require that they belong to a major network that will "vouch" for the show's quality.  WPIX, as it was called then, did not carry as much weight as the network giants.

I probably should do actual research to see how the show was received by critics, but if memory serves, it earned largely positive feedback.  But when do people actually talk about TNG?  Although the show transcends science fiction, people who aren't science fiction fans haven't embraced it the way they should.  Among the various issues addressed by TNG are: the definition of life, the risk of making peace with a dangerous opponent as opposed to destroying your opponent when you have the chance, the effects of absolute power, and whether or not it is justified to interfere in other cultures.  As far as I know, these are still relevant issues.  

TNG is an allegory for the troubles we face in the modern world.  But because it was never on NBC, has relatively low-budget special effects, and is labeled "Science Fiction", it has not received the due it deserves, and that is to our detriment.  

Job-Hunting

Recently, I had a curious job-hunting experience. I'm reluctant to mention the field that the job was in for fear of being blacklisted, but let's just say it rhymes with "gublic schmeducation" and the name of the job location rhymes with "Sanhattan Punter Trience Nigh Stool."

In short, this is what happened. About a month ago, I interviewed for this job with the AP and the person whom I would be replacing (she was leaving of her own accord). The AP promised me that he would contact me within a week to tell me whether or not they were interested to see me for a second interview. True to his word, he e-mailed me in the middle of the week, asking me if I could come in the following Tuesday; I replied promptly that I would be available for that.

On the Friday before I was to come in, I e-mail the AP to set the interview time, and he replied with the information that the boss person's father had passed away and that he would have to put my interview on hold for a few days. Completely understandable. Not wanting to seem like a jerk, I wait 10 days (the next Monday) to contact them again. On that Monday, I e-mail the AP, who tells me that he is no longer with the school; he's the principal somewhere else. But he promised me that he would touch base with the boss and get back to me the next day. Of course, he didn't, because he's a new principal somewhere else. To make an already long story shorter, I take matters into my own hands and call the school three times before they finally told me today that the position has already been filled.

Look, it happens; you don't get the job you want. But I'm bothered by the level of hypocrisy here. As an employee or a potential employee, you're expected to have your shit together. Especially in the field of schmeducation. It is not unheard of for administrators to take pictures of teachers' classrooms and use them as evidence of a classroom that is undecorated, no matter how good the teacher may be. God forbid student work artwork is not up on the walls (in a 12th grade Social Studies class).

But administrators are allowed to give potential employers false hope or misinformation about a job? Imagine if a teacher waltzed in at 2 PM on a Monday and said to his supervisor, "Sorry Bob, I forgot I was supposed to teach this morning; I guess my wires just got crossed! My bad for making your life more difficult due to my incompetence." Even in a great union, administrators still have the wiggle room to be shady and deceitful.

Meet the Mets, Meet the Mets, wnfionrigogiwrhiogrwhouif

Essentially, that is the Mets new theme song; at least, the part of the song that can be heard on WFAN, the radio station that broadcasts Mets games.  I will explain.

This year, the Mets moved into Citi Field, their new ballpark, after spending 44 years at Shea Stadium.  It is important to mention this because the change in ballparks also necessitated a change in the lyrics to their theme song, Meet the Mets.  Here are the older lyrics, which were sung by a really annoying female singer.

Meet the Mets, Meet the Mets

Come to the park and greet the Mets

Hot dogs, peanuts, all out at Shea

Guaranteed to have a heck of a daaaayayayay!!!!

Obviously, the Shea reference is obsolete now.  So today, on Opening Day, WFAN unveiled its brilliant alternative, which is reproduced below:

Meet the Mets, Meet the Mets

Come to the park and greet the Mets

Hot d-jfjkbgeijtgbibieuugreufgreibgfrugfiuru

j rfijg bebgg   uurwoifgoprw!##%oingentigoet

I am barely exaggerating.  After the "greet the Mets", you can hear the singer start to say hot dogs but then all you hear is static, which I believe was meant to be fans cheering, but sounds like static.

My comment to WFAN is this: You had over 3 years to come up with a suitable alternative to the "all out at Shea lyric."  Why didn't you?  It's almost as if the producer of "Mets Extra" woke up in the middle of the night and said, "Oh shit, we can't use Shea in the song anymore!"  Off the top of my head, I came up with, "Hot dogs, peanuts, whaddaya say?" or, "Hot dogs, peanuts, come out and stay," OR, "Hot dogs, peanuts, watch the Mets play."  Now, if the singer who did the original recording is unavailable, it would sound awkward to have a new singer record the new lyric and insert it, but somehow, I think it would be okay to get a new singer; this wasn't exactly Bette Midler singing.

All that said; Let's Go Mets!  Putz and K-Rod were great today!  One game up on the Phils, baby.

Opening Day

As Opening Day starts tomorrow, my thoughts will naturally shift nearly full-time to baseball.  I think baseball is the best game, and it's unfortunate that expressing this sentiment makes people think you are from that Billy Crystal/Bob Costas generation that grew up in the '50s and the '60s; you know, those men who wax poetic about Mickey Mantle, who would have sold their own mothers into slavery just to get a pat on the back from the Mick.  No, I was born in 1983, and though football has been and continues to be the more popular sport among people of my generation, it has not captured my imagination in quite the same way that baseball has (watch someone criticize baseball for "capturing" something).

I must say that football is an excellent game, and I watch as much of it as I can.  The NFL is clearly much better run than Major League Baseball, but when speaking of sports, a distinction must be made between the sports and the leagues that organize them.  For instance, a common criticism of baseball is that season is too long, whereas that of football is 16 games long.  "Each football game means so much more than a baseball game."  That's true, because the season is so much shorter!  But there's nothing about a game football itself that lends itself to higher drama than a baseball game.  Wouldn't it be silly to say that a football game is "more meaningful" than a baseball game?  People who argue that football games mean more than baseball games REALLY mean that NFL games are meaningful than MLB games.

My argument here is that, in a vacuum with no leagues, baseball is the most interesting sport.  More than any other sport, it allows the audience to play along.  For fans both casual and hardcore, watching a baseball game is an interactive engagement;  keeping a scorecard or running through a manager's options in your head--against a tough lefty reliever, should the team keep its light hitting righty bat (who is a major defensive asset) in the game, or should he insert his powerful lefty hitter, etc, etc--allow the audience to use their heads and really participate during a game.  By contrast, basketball and football are more passive forms of entertainment.  They're often flashier, but the crowd doesn't have to do as much thinking.  Not to take away from the strategic element of those sports, but the rule in baseball that a player is no longer available once removed from the game makes each managerial decision of the utmost importance.  And if you take a look at the modern history of sports in America, most of the great controversies have belonged to baseball.

An acquaintance of mine, who is a big fan of basketball and hockey, once made the following pithy remark to me about baseball: "How can you like a game that stops?"  I didn't realize what my response should have been until some years later.  I should have said, "What is it about perpetual motion that gives a game a higher quality?"  His line of thinking, of course, was that basketball and hockey are superior sports because the players typically move faster and more frequently.  We might as well just televise the inside of pinball machines, if that is the case.  What gives baseball is charm is the space in between pitches, in between the action, to allow the audience time to play along and catch their breath and to think about the last pitch and prepare for the next pitch and all its possible outcomes.  The basis of a Jerry Seinfeld comedy bit is that he prefers the spaces "in-between life" to life itself.  Baseball is a sport in which there is time set aside for that "in-between life."