Author: notesfromnokomis@gmail.com

1941, the book

World War II was a defining event of the 20th century and we continue to celebrate pivotal moments of the war.  A friend traveled to Normandy, France last summer with his father to commemorate one:  D-Day.[1] That was the day the democratic empires struck back against Hitler’s totalitarian regime, landing over 150,000 soldiers on the shores of France to begin taking the battle to the Germans from the west in earnest. 

For those who don’t follow these things closely, it happened rather late in the war, in June 1944.[2] Journalist Andrew Nagorski thinks the outcome of the war had long since been determined.  His book 1941 The Year Germany Lost The War makes a compelling case.  Told largely through the eyes of Great Britain and the Soviet Union, who were bearing the brunt of Hitler’s might, the book depicts the conversations, deal-making, and decisions that were to prove decisive.

1941 dawned with Germany ascendant, the lord of Europe, save for Great Britain, which was under constant air assault. Germany was never able to achieve aerial or naval supremacy, and therefore could not invade the home island of the British Empire.  But immunity from tanks did not guarantee that Great Britain would prevail.  It had few fighting allies, just the remnants of various overrun European countries, particularly France and Poland.[3] And it had many other issues to contend with, including attacks by Germany and Italy in Africa, preserving access to oil from the Middle East, and protecting a host of territories around the world.

Then Great Britain got lucky.  Instead of pressing his advantage, Hitler turned on his putative ally, the Soviet Union.  Hitler couched his many territorial depredations in terms of “lebensraum,” meaning “living space.”  The Soviet Union was the mother of living space. In Hitler’s eyes, Germany was great and deserved to have more territory and resources for its great people.  The obvious counterpart is that other people, in particular Slavs, Jews, and gypsies, were weak and disposable, essentially in the way.  

The decision to attack the Soviet Union was not guided by experts, but by Hitler’s gut instincts. A great albatross of autocrats is that they think they know everything and don’t like to take advice, even from those with superior knowledge and experience.  This tendency hurt both Hitler and Stalin.  Hitler refused to believe his economic and logistical experts, who told him that attacking the Soviet Union would lead to a breakdown in resources – because Stalin had been supplying Hitler with a vast store of natural resources as a means of placating him. 

Stalin refused to believe his experts, who told him that Hitler was preparing to attack the Soviet Union. He preferred to continue the placation game to the full extent. Hitler believed that his successes against Poland and France were just a precursor to greater success – without considering how much smaller in territory and fewer in soldiers those countries were than the Soviet Union.  Stalin so believed in his treaty with Hitler that he refused to relocate critical assets or shore up defenses in case (as all his spies warned him) Hitler did attack.[4]  In this, the author states that “Stalin was demonstrating that he was even more delusionary than Hitler.” No small task.   

The German army’s early success led to concerns that it might take Moscow, the heart of historical Russia and modern Soviet Union. That may have ended the war for the Soviets. But stung by his earlier refusal to believe his experts, Stalin heeded intelligence that Japan would not attack Siberia, and transferred 400,000 soldiers from the east to Moscow in time to save the city.

Meanwhile, Winston Churchill was trying hard to convince the United States to commit to the war effort.  It wasn’t easy – there was a vehement group of isolationists in the US, led by Charles Lindbergh and his America First movement.  President Roosevelt had marginal support in Congress to supply Britain and the Soviet Union, but not enough to declare war.  It would take another misguided decision by an autocrat (this time in Japan, against the advice of the senior leader with the most knowledge about the US) to effectuate that decision.

When Japan attacked the US, the stay-out-of-the-war America First crowd suddenly lacked a safe harbor. When Germany supported its ally by declaring war on the US, the US reciprocated, leading three and a half years later to D-Day. Churchill considered these declarations of war against the US the beginning of the end. Ultimately, he was proved right. (I don’t think I’ve spoiled the ending.)

One of the reasons to read history is to avoid repeating the mistakes of others. See Santayana, George. So, while reading, I often think about lessons for our own times; this time, I found at least two.  The tyrants’ disdain for experts disquietingly reminds me of President Trump and the anti-science wing of the Republican party. Churchill’s belief in an inevitable victory is similar to today’s optimistic Democrats as they seek to unseat President Trump. But nothing in history is inevitable (except when viewed in hindsight). Winning WWII was not preordained, and neither is the continued success of our experiment in republican government.  If you like history in general or WWII in particular, you will enjoy this book, which accessible and interesting. It might even give you a few insights into our current crises. 

[1] Kevin Diehl movingly describes his father Harry Diehl’s D-Day experience, including their visit to the 75th anniversary celebration at https://www.neelawfirm.com/post/d-day-75th-anniversary

[2] The war started in 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union carved up Poland; the Nazis annexed western Poland and the communists annexed eastern Poland.  The war ended a little over a year after D-Day:  in September 1945.

[3] One American commentator at the time declared that London contained so many governments in exile that it was the capitol of six to eight countries.

[4] One of the great what-ifs of history is what if Hitler had not attacked the Soviets Union, but instead had redoubled his attacks on Great Britain, taken the island, and stood down.  He would have controlled the vast majority of Europe and been essentially at peace, with a continued flow of resources from the Soviet Union. It is possible that the European Union would be called “Germany” to this day.

Podcasts

I am not typically an early adapter of technology.  I purchased my first personal computer, HD TV, and smart phone at least five years after they had hit the mainstream.  And I was usually complaining about the price and unnecessity of the item right up until the moment I started using it.  At which point:  Eureka!

So it is with podcasts.  What took me so long?  These things are awesome.  They come is so many flavors and sizes, there is something for everyone.  

First, what is a podcast?  According to Wikipedia, “a podcast is an episodic series of digital audio or video files that a user can download in order to listen.” [1]  A podcast does not involve a person reading a book or a series of lectures, which have their own charms, it’s much better.  The podcaster might be reading, but it’s something that was written specifically to be presented in a podcast, something intended to be listened to.  Some podcasts allow modest interaction, not during the podcast of course, which is recorded, but after, often in the form of questions or a supplementary website.    

I came by podcasts slowly, fending off many recommendations from friends because – why do I need podcasts.  After reading Lost to the West, by Lars Brownworth (which I recommend), I discovered that he had produced a podcast called 12 Byzantine Rulers.  Turns out, he wrote the book after attaining some acclaim from the podcast, which is a bit sensationalist for my amateur historian sensibilities.  Brownworth tends to highlight the most salacious or vicious stories and rumors from antiquity.  His style is entertaining, but it left me wanting more.[2]

My search led me to The History of Byzantium; I was captivated.[3]  The podcast is not for the faint of heart; I’m up to episode 195 (which covered roughly 550 years, starting in 500 A.D. or so) and there are still 400 years to go.  The podcaster, Robin Pierson, is outstanding: great voice, sense of humor, terrific research and writing skills.  He also provides a complementary (as well as complimentary) website and Facebook page with maps and pictures.[4]  I have read many books about the Roman Empire, but I had done nothing systematic.  Pierson is systematic and it has helped me better understand the scope and nuance of the empire. 

He recaps the centuries.  He highlights social features (marriage, education, etc.) with special episodes.  He surveys the provinces and provides much general information about empire-wide practices and changes.  And, of course, he provides the nuts-and-bolts of the historical narrative — battles, wars, assassinations, and plagues, both mighty and petty.  The podcast is a tour de force.  I cannot recommend it more highly.  I am so glad I have many episodes left.

Because I was late to the party, I didn’t realize that Pierson was reprising Michael Duncan, whose The History of Rome podcast might be the seminal history podcast.  He starts at the beginning with Romulus and Remus being raised by wolves, continues through the fall of the republic and the rise of the empire, and concludes with the fall of the west.  I’m on episode 161, the Vandals and Goths and Huns (oh my) are ready to assert themselves.  The podcast ends on episode 179, so I’ll be able to wander back over to the History of Byzantium and finish off the entire 2,100-year history of the Roman polity. 

Pierson and Duncan both turned their podcasts into careers.  Duncan has subsequently published books.  Both have led Roman history-oriented tours.  Both have embraced their topic, which was not a significant part of their former professional lives.[5]  The lesson for all of us – pursue your passion, pick a subject you love and champion it, perhaps you’ll create a new career for yourself. 

In the meantime, I’m going to need a new podcast at some point.  I’m open to suggestion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast  Should it be “listen to”?  Shouldn’t it be “listen to”?  Well, should it or shouldn’t it?  I enjoy when seeming opposites are actually the same – consider:  flammable and inflammable, thaw and unthaw, loosen and unloosen. 

[2] Brownworth is not a historian.    

[3] I have always been fascinated by Rome.  Through the years, I have been increasingly interested in the lesser known latter part of the empire, which is usually referred to as the Byzantine Empire, even though it shouldn’t be.

[4] https://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=history%20of%20byzantium%20podcast&epa=SEARCH_BOX

[5] Duncan was a fishmonger and Pierson a TV producer before turning to researching and delivering podcasts. 

Empty Planet

In the fall of 1980, I took a class entitled “Human Population and Natural Resources.”  It satisfied a science requirement, without forcing me to engage in either the scientific method or lab work – important for this fledgling English major.  It also got me thinking, in a way I never had, about the carrying capacity of our planet.

We have been taught that the Earth has finite resources, that we can only produce so much food.[1]  And at some level, it’s probably true, although the world’s population has been growing as if it isn’t — from 1 billion people in 1800, to 2 billion (1927), to 4 billion (1974), to over 7 billion today.  The United Nations projects a population of 10-11 billion by 2100.  That’s a lot of people, who will all need food and water every single day, along with other necessities and a few luxuries.

Not to worry (about that) say Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson, the authors of Empty Planet,[2] because we are facing an even worse problem than too few resources:  too few people.  They attribute this primarily to urbanization and educated women.  The world is now over 50% urban, which leads to fewer births because children are no longer treated as farm assets.  When women become educated, they have more options, exercise autonomy, and inevitably have fewer children.

One of my favorite (small) takeaways from this book is a definition for extreme poverty.  A person lives in extreme poverty when it is a daily challenge to feed his or her family.  I doubt anyone reading this post has ever lived in extreme poverty, but in 1800, 85% of the world did.  Today only 14% of the world does.  “Only,” in this case, means about a billion people.

The main thesis of the book is that the birth rate across the planet is plummeting, it is already below replacement level (2.1 live births per woman) in most countries.  Italy’s birth rate is 1.4, which resulted in fewer babies being born in 2015 (population 60 million) than in any year since 1861 (when the population was 25 million).  In the US, the birth rate is 1.7, which led to fewer babies being born in 2017 (population 325 million) than in 1953 (when the population was 160 million).  Most other countries have seen birth rates dip below replacement level, including Brazil (1.8), China (1.6), and Thailand (1.5).  South America and the Caribbean are at 2.1, but dropping, down from 5.9 in 1960.  Africa is the only continent whose birth rate remains above replacement level, but even there, the birth rate is falling.    

Current projections indicate that Bulgaria will decline from 9 million people today to 5 million in 2050.  South Korea’s population could drop by a third over the next 50 years, its birth rate is already below 1.0.[3]  You might be thinking – this is great, fewer people will reduce the demand for resources.  But think again, who is going to buy your house or the product or service you sell. 

Fewer people means fewer consumers, which means less (or worse, no) economic growth.  Japan has been grappling with this problem for decades – without success.  It now has the highest debt level in the world (250% of GDP) and is the oldest nation, with 64 people of non-working age (retirees and kids) for every 100 of working age.  That is not sustainable.  For comparison purposes, the US is pretty high too, 52; China is 39.

The authors provide an easy solution to the problem of low birth rates and the subsequent declining population.[4]  It’s rather obvious and it is one that has benefitted the US throughout its history, even when we had a high birth rate.  Unfortunately, the obvious answer is not currently politically palatable.  The answer, as most of you probably already guessed, is immigration.

One nation has embraced this solution.  As Europe, Japan, and other countries deal with the consequences of a declining population, Canada has committed to welcoming immigrants—though not without limits.  Canada has determined that it can assimilate immigrants at 1% (of its population) per year.[5]  This is good for immigrants, who are seeking better opportunities, and Canada, which would otherwise have a declining population.

The authors paint a compelling narrative centered around immigration.  Countries must either embrace it or lose population, which will lead to lower economic growth, productive capacity, etc.  For those who imagine a future where birth rates trend hight, don’t get your hopes up.  In Sweden, where women are allowed up to 480 days of paid leave (at 80% of income) when they have a child, the birth rate has ticked up, but remains below replacement level.  And, of course, that policy is rather expensive.

We must either allow immigration[6] or we will inevitably suffer a population decline and concomitant economic decline.  Professor Austan Goolsbee estimates that immigration at 200,000 per year (last year’s level) instead of a more usual 1,000,000 per year will result in GDP being $1 trillion lower over the course of a decade.[7] 

There might be a plus side for those of you worried about climate change, the authors believe that a declining population is one of the surest ways to address it.  I recommend Empty Planet, reading it might change the way you think about the present and the future.

[1] Proto-economist Thomas Malthus posited that human population increases geometrically and that food production increases arithmetically leading inexorably to an inability to feed all the people.  This prediction caused Thomas Carlyle to dub economics the “dismal science.”

[2] Most of the factual references in this post come from this book.

[3] https://www.yahoo.com/news/forget-north-korea-south-koreas-160000907.html

[4] This solution will not work for the world, only for certain countries.

[5] According to the authors, the less nationalist a country, the more easily it can absorb immigrants.

[6] Neither the authors nor I advocate uncontrolled or illegal immigration. 

[7] New York Times, October 13, 2019.  The professor also noted that immigrants (or their children) started almost half of the current Fortune 500 companies.

Bucket Lists

At the local library recently, I saw a chalk board, which said:  Before I die, I want to _____.  The venerable Bucket List has been co-opted by our library into a talking point.  The Bucket List is a tried, tested, and true concept in our culture. 

1000 Places To See Before You Die, by Patricia Shultz, available on Amazon for small dollars, but hard to pull off without big ones;

100 Things To Do Before High School, a TV series that I have never heard of and a bit passe[1] for anybody reading this blog;

30 Things to Do Before You Turn 30 (https://gentwenty.com/bucket-list-30-things-to-do-before-you-turn-30/), I did about 10 and it’s too late to do more;

40 Best Books to Read Before You Die (https://www.listchallenges.com/independents-40-best-books-to-read-before-you-die), I’ve read 26 and the others seem pretty good.  This list is certainly easier to deal with than

400 Books to Read Before You Die (https://www.listchallenges.com/400-books-to-read-before-you-die), I’ve read 171.

I could go on, the list of things-to-do lists is practically endless.  People love telling other people what they should do.  Some people make their own lists.  The year my friend Philip turned 50, he decided to do 50 things that he had never done before.  I pretty sure he met his goal; he can be quite maniacal. 

Even people without a Bucket List have Bucket List items.  It is beyond a cliché[2] at this point.  Do any of you have a literal list – written down or typed?  Or is it just in your head? 

I have three literal lists:  American Film Institute’s 100 Greatest American Movies of All Time (I’ve seen 81), a list of the 100 greatest novels of all time (I’ve read 35), and a list of the 100 greatest non-fiction books (I’ve read 22 and most of the rest do not interest me).  The lists of books were from reputable sources at the time, but I didn’t make a note of them.  Even though it seems that I don’t care anymore (because I haven’t checked anything off these three lists in over two years), I still have the actual paper lists.  I might still care.

For many people, the Bucket List is primarily about travel:  Iceland, Antarctica, Mount this or that, some island somewhere warm, a museum, a wall,[3] a game of some sort (the Olympics, World Cup, etc.)  There are many great things and events waiting for all of us to visit and enjoy.  My Bucket List is different.

I had two “conversations” (by text) recently with two different friends about my Bucket List with markedly different results.  John sent a group text to a few friends, something along the lines of “hey, let’s get together, how about a trip to Vegas.”  I replied “It’s on my Bucket List” and he responded “I know what that means” because he does.  Laura was in Laos on business and sent me a text about getting together when she returned.[4]  I typed “Laos is on my Bucket List,” and she replied “Oh my gosh . . . take it OFF” because she didn’t know what I meant.

You see, my Bucket List consists entirely of things I don’t want to do.  My Bucket List is opposite world.  Africa is on many Bucket Lists, including mine.  I actively plan to never go there.  I realize that makes me seem a bit small-minded.  I don’t care.  I don’t like being uncomfortable and every time I think about Africa, I think about how hot it is, how warm the water is, who little safe water there is, how many bugs and snakes and etc. there are, how may nonfunctioning governments there are, how many people with nothing to lose there are, and I remember that in America, there is air conditioning, safe cold water, and plenty of awesome things to see and do.  I have no intention of ever going to Africa. 

I know that I am missing many awesome things:  Victoria Falls, the Pyramids, Cape Town, mega-fauna (lions, rhinos, and hippos, oh my), mega-deserts, and much more, including many fascinating cultures and foods.  I don’t care; to me, it is not worth the discomfort and fear that I would endure.  Watching lions hunt buffalo on NatGeo is not the same as seeing it live and in person.  Then again, very few tourists actually see lions hunt buffalo live and in person. 

Many completely normal things are on my Bucket List — mowing the lawn, attending the ballet, growing a beard, drinking bourbon, wearing a tank top, body art, piercings.  The Bucket List I’m talking about now is not a literal list – it’s a virtual list, but one that I enjoy putting together.  And it is essentially infinite, there are many things that I do not want to do.

Don’t get me wrong – there are also plenty of things that I want to do.  I just don’t put those things on a list.  I can’t think of anything that is so important to me, that not doing it will cause me to be disappointed.  I’ve already accomplished the most important things in life:  good education, great wife, wonderful kids.[5]

Maybe I will go to Istanbul and see the Theodosian land walls, maybe I’ll attend a Duke/UNC basketball game, maybe I’ll sit down and drink a beer with my friend Charlie Poole.  But it won’t be because it’s on a list—though that last item really should be.

[1] No automatic accent.

[2] Word added this accent automatically.  Is that a good thing?

[3] There are lots of walls in the world.  They tend to do better as attractions than as obstacles – Wailing Wall, Great Wall of China, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall – though the walls of Constantinople served their makers well for hundreds of years.

[4] Laura is currently in New Zealand.  She travels a lot.  New Zealand is not on my Bucket List.

[5] I want to mention two other “accomplishments” of note, that were not important:  a hole-in-one at Pinehurst and attending the Red Sox win that clinched the 2004 World Series.   

NFL Draft Graders

The NFL draft was a week ago.  The fanfare associated with it seemed a bit muted, possibly because of lack of star power at the top of the draft, possibly because I am finally maturing and no longer consider it must-see TV, possibly because the local teams (Browns and Bengals) had no high picks.  I could probably go on for a while, from the reasonable to the absurd. 

I’d rather talk a bit about the draft graders.  Mel Kiper turned his obsession with the NFL draft into a career.  He was the first and remains the best.  Many others have followed in his wake, but though their knowledge is often impressive, they don’t convey the same “this is my life” monomania that radiates from Kiper. 

The NFL draft produces a bevy of people who review what has been done by each team, based on need and talent available, and grade how well each team did in the draft.  For years, I have enjoyed reading what the graders have to say, especially for the teams I follow (Cowboys – favorite team from youth, Patriots – first local team, Browns and Bengals – current local teams).  People are always happier when their local team does well.  The funk in Columbus when the football Buckeyes lose is palpable.  Fortunately, they don’t lose very often.[1]

Because I am me, I decided to create a spreadsheet to compile a few of the grades produced by various organizations or publications.  There are so many, that I had to cut it off somewhere – so I went with eight.  The eight I chose are putatively neutral.  Every NFL city and most NFL booster clubs offer their own grades, but they are not are likely to be impartial as these eight. 

(Charts do not transfer well to WordPress.  I’ll do the best I can.  But I know that the top labels will not work, so I’m providing them here. Moreover, I had to use some strange abbreviations for the cities, I trust you can adjust.)

Column 1 – SBNation

Column 2 – NFL.com

Column 3 – si.com

Column 4 – Tom Downey

Column 5 – profootball focus

Column 6 – sporting news

Column 7 – touchdown wire

Column 8 – bleacherreport

Column A – average

If I were to tell you that the average number of “A” grades was 9 and that one of the above grading entities gave out 21 As, would you be able to guess which one?  I think most of you would get it in one try – it’s the NFL.com.  When the NFL grades its own owners and their draft selections, there are sure to be a lot of As.  I wish they had been grading me in law school.[2]

This list in is alphabetical order so you can easily look up your favorite team.  As you can see, there are not many Ds and As were handed out like cups of water at the Boston Marathon.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A
Arizona 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.5
Atlanta 2.3 3.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.2
Baltimore 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.2
Buffalo 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
Carolina 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.3 3.2
Chargers 2.3 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.3
Chicago 2.0 4.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.3 2.7
Cincinnti 2.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.0 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.7
Cleveland 2.3 3.7 1.7 3.7 2.0 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.8
Dallas 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
Denver 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 3.5
Detroit 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.3 1.0 2.3 1.7 2.7 2.4
Giants 1.3 3.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.0 1.8
GreenBay 2.7 4.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.1
Houston 2.3 2.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Indianpls 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.7 3.0
Jacks’ville 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.4
Jets 2.7 3.7 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.9
Kans Cty 2.3 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.6
Miami 3.0 3.7 4.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.6
Minnsota 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 3.0
N. Englnd 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6
N. Orlens 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.5
Oakland 2.0 3.3 1.7 2.7 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.6
Phildelph 2.7 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.0 3.7 3.3
Pittburgh 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Rams 2.3 3.3 2.7 3.7 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
S. Frncsc 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.
Seattle 2.7 3.7 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
Tampa By 2.7 2.3 3.7 2.3 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 2.4
Tennesse 3.7 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.7 4.0 2.3 3.3
Washgtn 3.7 3.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
Average 2.8 3.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9
As 4.0 21.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.8
Ds 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

The following list is in order of average grade, so you can see where teams rank.  The top six teams received a grade of B or higher from every grading entity.  The bottom eight teams all had at least five grades of C or lower. 

Graders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A
Washington 3.7 3.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
N. Englnd 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6
Buffalo 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
Arizona 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.5
Denver 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 3.5
Jacks’ville 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.4
Chargers 2.3 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.3
Phildelph 2.7 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.0 3.7 3.3
Pittsburgh 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Tennessee 3.7 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.7 4.0 2.3 3.3
Baltimore 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.2
Carolina 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.3 3.2
Green Bay 2.7 4.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.1
Minnsota 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 3.0
Indianplis 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.7 3.0
S. Frncsc 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0
Jets 2.7 3.7 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.9
Cleveland 2.3 3.7 1.7 3.7 2.0 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.8
Chicago 2.0 4.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.3 2.7
Rams 2.3 3.3 2.7 3.7 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
Seattle 2.7 3.7 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
Cincinnati 2.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.0 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.7
Oakland 2.0 3.3 1.7 2.7 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.6
Miami 3.0 3.7 4.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.6
Kans Cty 2.3 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.6
N. Orlens 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.5
Tampa B 2.7 2.3 3.7 2.3 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 2.4
Detroit 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.3 1.0 2.3 1.7 2.7 2.4
Dallas 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
Atlanta 2.3 3.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.2
Houston 2.3 2.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Giants 1.3 3.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.0 1.8

Every team thinks they had a great draft – even the Giants.  But we won’t know the real grades for about two years – as expectations collide with reality.  You see, the ultimate grader of NFL drafts is not SBNation, The Sporting News, or even Mel Kiper, it is each team’s subsequent winning percentage.  We see that in the newspaper each week and we learn who is held responsible when the owners start firing coaches and general managers. 

[1] Shortly after moving to Columbus, my wife and I were at a neighborhood party.  We met a woman, who mentioned something about her husband, and we asked where he was.  She said, and I quote “home, he doesn’t leave the house after the Buckeyes lose.”  I knew then that we were not in Boston anymore.

[2] I had the highest grade in my class in crim law – it was an 89.  And no scale.  I didn’t get an A.  They have loosened up and now curve every class, but there is no retroactivity.

Smorgasbord

When a topic strikes my fancy, I start researching and writing.  If I like the product, I publish; if I don’t, I don’t.  Over the past few months, for a variety of reasons, I haven’t been happy with the results.  But I have a few little ideas to get off my chest, so here goes.   

1.  In the last post, I asked you to ask me about the fourth-out rule.  I’m pleased to report that at the next baseball game I attended, a friend approached and asked about the fourth-out rule.  To say he was underwhelmed would overstate his level of interest in my explanation of the, admittedly, rarely utilized rule. 

2.  Our President loves mentioning good things.  For instance, it was announced this week that our economy grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter.  That is great news and our President was quick to take credit for it.  It also was recently reported that measles cases are at a 25-year high[1] and that pedestrian deaths from accidents are at a 28-year high.[2]   It is difficult to see how President Trump could be at fault.  But I’m not sure he deserves credit for the economy any more than he deserves blame for the increase in pedestrian deaths.  The only thing we know for certain is that both things happened on his watch.[3]

3.  Thursday night was a sports smorgasbord for me. 

The Red Sox were playing and won.  After winning the World Series last year, they are off to a poor start this season, with a record of only 11 and 15. 

The Bruins, my favorite team when I lived in Boston, were playing the Blue Jackets, my favorite team now that I live in Columbus, in the NHL playoffs.  The Bruins played with outstanding energy early and late to beat the Blue Jackets in overtime.  It was a terrific game.  There is nothing quite like the intensity of a close Stanley Cup game.

The NFL was hosting the first round of its draft in Nashville.  Broadway looked even more crowded than usual.  For the first time in recent memory, the Cleveland Browns did not have a selection in the top three.  Because of a trade, they didn’t even have a pick in the first round.

The NFL draft engenders inane commentary.  There is so much talking time to fill and so little of substance happening, that the commentators end up highlighting things that aren’t worthy.  It’s one thing to mention that two tight ends were drafted from the same college team in the first round for the first time ever.[4]  That is interesting and might even be significant.  It is quite another thing to state “this is only the second time since 2004 that the second defensive player chosen by an NFC team after the third pick was a defensive lineman, who weighs less than 300 pounds.”  The quote is from a text a friend sent me last night, which purportedly quoted a commentator.  If the quote is real, I’m glad I missed it.  If it’s not, well, it is a close facsimile to some of the things that are said during the draft.

4.  Third, the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, was a massive government program that (in very short) dammed rivers in the Tennessee Valley and provided electricity to a part of the country that previously had little access.  Question:  when the project was completed, did the TVA provide the highest cost electricity in the country or the lowest cost?[5]

5.  Forbes magazine provides much great information and commentary.  I stopped subscribing years ago when I realized that publisher Steve Forbes was rabidly anti-attorney.  (I recently re-subscribed to give him a second chance.)  Forbes is avowedly determined to convince us of the volatility of great wealth – or something akin to that.  Over a decade ago, I sent them a letter, which to their credit they published, chastising them for saying that great wealth is more likely earned than inherited.  I pointed out that the prevalence of people in the Forbes 400 (of richest Americans) who inherited their wealth was orders of magnitude higher than of people who earned their wealth. 

Well, Forbes is at it again.  In their 3/31/19 issue, they had a headline “Few Silver Spoons” over a pie chart showing how the 195 new billionaires in world garnered their money.  There are 2,153 billionaires in the world, of whom 56 inherited their wealth in the last year.  That means that 56 of the new billionaires came from .00000076% of the people in the world.  Meanwhile, the other 139 new billionaires came from the other 99.999934% of the world.  I’d say the silver spoons are still holding their own, despite Forbes efforts to convince us otherwise.

6.  In 2017, the average American over the age of 15 spent this many minutes per day (on average) doing the following:

512 sleeping

283 leisure (150 TV, 41 other/relaxing, 31 socializing, 17 sports, 16 reading, 16 games, and 12 computer)

275 working

 99 housework (34 cooking, 30 cleaning/laundry, 35 other)

 67 eating and drinking

 44 taking care of children or other people

 41 grooming

 41 shopping

 37 education

 14 social/civic/religious

 12 communication

 15 other

I think I’m glad that, on average, we spend more time leisuring than working – those numbers are, of course, significantly affected by a person’s stage in life.  I’m a bit concerned that we spend less time socializing or getting educated than we do grooming.  Not that I want people to stop grooming.    

[1] http://time.com/5577562/measles-highest-level-25-years/

[2] The Week, March 15, 2019, p. 14

[3] I have long believed that presidents and quarterbacks get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go poorly.

[4] T.J. Kockenson and Noah Fant, formerly of the Iowa Hawkeyes.

[5] The TVA provided the cheapest electricity in the country.

The 2019 Baseball Season Has Begun

Baseball’s opening day has come and gone with little fanfare.  Even I barely noticed.  There is something weird about starting the year with games in a foreign country.  And Cincinnati fans will perhaps never recover from losing their long cherished first-game-of-the-year privileges.

Did anyone care about seeing Ichiro retire?  Contrived sports events do not resonate well with me.  To let a guy play two games in his home country and then retire during the second game isn’t per se wrong.  But it doesn’t seem right either.  He was a tremendous player in his prime and, although he still thinks he can help a team, no team agrees.

Who knows what a “check swing” is?  Be honest.  Who thinks a swing is checked as long as the bat doesn’t cross the plate?  Or the player didn’t “break his wrists”?   Who thinks there is a specific standard?  There isn’t.  A player attempts to hit the ball or he doesn’t.  It’s as simple and ineffable as that.      

In the second inning of game five of the 2017 World Series, Chris Taylor looked like he wanted to bunt, had the bat ready to hit the ball, but didn’t.  The umpire yelled “yes, he did.”[1]  The “did” was attempt to hit the ball.  That is the swinging strike rule.  There is no check swing rule.  Nothing in the rule book mentions check swing, despite the constant references to it by players, coaches, and announcers.  The concept of “attempting to strike at the ball” is undefined.  It is a pure judgment call.[2]

Also in game five, an announcer said “if you give Kershaw three runs, he knows what to do with it.”[3]  This statement suggests that Kershaw pitches differently with a lead than without.  Perhaps he does.  Is he the only such pitcher?  Is it a rare skill?  Is it a skill at all?  Or is it just another announcer saying something that he heard someone else say?  Most likely, the last.  All credible research suggests that pitchers perform roughly the same whether they have the lead, the game is tied, or they are behind.  Pitchers do not pitch to the score; they pitch.

A common bit of tripe from announcers is that was “a great piece of hitting,” which you will hear all year long.  I have heard announcers say it about line drive singles, bloop doubles, long fly balls off the wall, just about anything hit that doesn’t result in an out.  If you watch even two baseball games, you will hear an announcer pronounce (after a batter reached base on a hit) “that was a great piece of hitting.”  They never say it about a vicious line drive that a third baseman dives and snares inches off the ground or a towering fly ball that the center fielder tracks down just before it sails over the outfield fence.  They only say it when the batter reaches base.  They say it without regard to whether the swing was good or bad.  It is an entirely results based comment and is therefore almost wholly without merit.     

The announcer stated that game five of the 2017 World Series was “one of the most unique game fives in history.”  Who knows, maybe it was.  But how can you tell?  Is there any way to judge?  Is there even a way to contemplate “most unique?”  BTW, Don Larsen threw a perfect game in game five of the 1956 World Series.  That was pretty unique.  Maybe not the most unique, but it has to be right up there.  (I’d be interested in hearing what you consider the most unique thing you have done, seen, or heard of.)

These notes from 2017 are helping me get ready for another baseball season, a season that now is full of questions. 

–Will the Red Sox repeat despite losing significant contributors off their roster? 

Not unless they add players during the season.

–Will the Yankees win the division after being only the ninth team in history with 100 wins to finish in second place? 

They made several significant additions to an already loaded roster and have a good chance to usurp the Red Sox.

–Will the Reds, who are undefeated, be competitive after four consecutive years with over 90 losses? 

I think they will, but they need solid seasons from newly acquired Yasiel Puig, Sonny Gray, and Matt Kemp, among others.[4] 

–Will the Indians be able to win the relatively pathetic Central Division yet again? 

Few teams in MLB are as lopsided as the Indians – they have two offensive stars (Francisco Lindor and Jose Ramirez), outstanding starting pitching, and precious little else.  Still, I think they will win the division. 

–Can the NL win the World Series? 

Probably not, the Yankees, Astros, and Red Sox figure to be the three best teams in the majors

Don’t forget the little guys.  Go watch a youth or high school baseball game.  The players are fun, if highly flawed.  You might uncover a gem.  The best baseball in the world is played in our country and it starts at the youth level.  In a typical year, I see games involving players from age five all the way through the majors.  Every person reading this lives near a college.  Most of them have baseball free for the watching, certainly every high school does.  Go watch America’s pastime safe in the knowledge that you probably know more about the non-existent check swing rule than the coaches do.[5] 

[1] I hate it when players, fans, and coaches yell “yes, he did.”  I’m ok with umpires doing it.

[2] In the 11th inning of game five, Yasiel Puig looked like he might have swung at a pitch, but no strike was called, the announcer stated that “he went a long way.”  Apparently, that is his standard. 

[3] The announcer seemingly believes that most pitchers have no idea what to do with a three-run lead. 

[4] The Red last 90 games four years in a row from 1930 to 1934, when they managed the “feat” five years in a row.  On the other side of the ledger, the Big Red Machine averaged over 100 wins a year from 1972 to 1976.

[5] If you see me at a game, ask me about the fourth out rule.  It’s one of my favorite topics.

Three Sports Snippets

First a personal note.  I resigned from Ubihere[1] last fall and cast about for something to do.  When offered a position at the Supreme Court of Ohio (where I had previously worked for over 20 years), I jumped.  I hope to resume regularly publishing blog posts now that uncertainty is behind me and I am happily ensconced.

1.  The college football season is over, and Clemson is a worthy champion.[2]  I confess that I did not see a single play of the championship game.  Without a rooting interest, I just couldn’t force myself to watch.  I couldn’t root for Alabama because I generally dislike dynasties, unless they are my favorite team.  I couldn’t root for Clemson because coach Dabo Swinney thinks the players, whose skill and effort enable him to earn millions of dollars a year, are too entitled.[3]  

2.  It is nice to see a national consensus building toward having eight teams in the college football playoff.  The Power Five conferences should choose their representative any way they see fit – championship game, highest ranked team, most expensive or obnoxious coach, fastest wide receiver.  Who cares – each of these conferences should have a team in the playoff.  Then there should be three at large teams chosen by the existing selection committee, which would also seed the teams.   

That would be simple and would avoid the travesty of having the worst of the Power Five conferences essentially having two teams in this year’s playoff, while the second best conference was outside looking in for the second year in a row.[4]  Notre Dame, although its 12-0 record was deserving, is essentially an ACC team.[5]  They should have played Clemson in the ACC championship game, not in the national semifinal.  And the Big Ten should have a team in the playoff, even if there were legitimate reasons not to select Ohio State the last two years, most notably two blowout losses to mediocre teams.

3.  I care less and less about the baseball Hall of Fame each year because of the sanctimony and hypocrisy associated with determining which players get enshrined.  This year, the Baseball Writers Association of America rose above the fray and elected four terrific players.  Mike Mussina, Edgar Martinez, Roy Halladay, and Mariano Rivera are all eminently qualified and will raise the overall standards of the Hall.  

Martinez was a great hitter but has been excoriated as primarily a designated hitter, like that is some kind of crime.  He played 592 games in the field, comprising 4829 innings of defensive work, or roughly 3.5 times as many innings as Mariano Rivera pitched.  Rivera went to the plate only seven times in his career, but nobody has ever accused him, as they have accused Martinez, of being a one-way player. 

Mussina was criticized for being merely good, not great.  Sure, I guess, it depends on what your standard is.  He won 270 games,[6] only 32 guys have won more, and only 13 of them threw a pitch after 1970.  Being one of the 14 best starting pitchers of the last 45 years is more than enough to warrant being in the Hall of Fame.  Along the way, he pitched roughly 2300 more innings than Mariano Rivera (the equivalent of ten years at 230 inning a year) with an excellent ERA, 23% better than league average.  (Recent inductee Tom Glavine was elected on the first ballot even though his ERA was 18% better than league average.  He won 305 games but with a lower winning percentage than Mussina.)

Roy (Doc) Halladay was criticized because he won only 203 games.  Quantity should matter, but quality is more important when considering whether a player is a Hall of Famer.  Doc’s ERA was 31% better than league average and his winning percentage was a stellar .659, the 20th best of all time.

Rivera was an outstanding relief pitcher, in my opinion the best relief pitcher of all time.  Still — throughout baseball history, relief pitchers became relief pitchers after establishing that they weren’t good enough to be starting pitchers.[7]  In Rivera’s only year as a starter, his ERA was 5.51, 84% as good as league average, and he had a WHIP of 1.5.[8]  Well over 1000 pitchers have had a career WHIP better than 1.5.  As a relief pitcher, Rivera’s WHIP was under 1.0, the third best rate of all time.  It is easier to be great when you pitch one inning at a time.        

Rivera belongs in the Hall of Fame, but given the insults hurled at the other electees,[9] it is frustrating that Rivera receives nothing but encomia.  He was great, he was not perfect, as the few extant Diamondbacks fans will happily attest. I’m back, baseball is almost back, and the writers elected an all-star Hall of Fame class.[10]  Life is good. 

[1] You can see what the company does and a picture of me at https://ubihere.com/.

[2] Shout out to THawk, the only Clemson grad I know.

[3] He didn’t say exactly that, but it is what he meant.  Here is the quote:  “As far as paying players, professionalizing college athletics, that’s where you lose me.  I’ll go do something else, because there’s enough entitlement in this world as it is.” https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/13/11420408/dabo-swinney-clemson-salary-raise-players   

[4] According to Jeff Sagarin’s College Football rankings, conference strength based on the 2018 season: 

SEC 81.57, Big Ten 77.39, Big 12 77.35, PAC 12 75.43, ACC 75.19

[5] Because it is contractually required to play five games a year against ACC teams.

[6] A flawed team-dependent stat that is nevertheless a useful proxy over the course of a career.

[7] Today many relief pitchers, especially closers, are not failed starters.

[8] WHIP = walks plus hits per inning pitched

[9] Microsoft Word tells me that “electees” is not a word, but my on-line dictionary considers it an acceptable British usage.  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/electee

[10] I’m less thrilled with the selections of the Today’s Game Era Committee.  Harold Baines and Lee Smith were very good, not great.

The Baseball Playoffs Have Begun

With the stupendously unfair wild card games out of the way, we can focus on true playoff baseball.  “Unfair” because one game in baseball is irrelevant, a rounding error over the course of 162 games.  The outrageously bad Baltimore Orioles won 61 fewer games than the Red Sox, but they still won 47 games.  A good NFL team needs at least four years to win 47 games.

Bad as they were, the Orioles had a four-game win streak and two three-game win streaks.  In late July, they won three games in a row by scores of 15-5, 11-2, and 11-5, against a Tampa Bay Rays team that won 90 games.  That was after the Orioles had traded away their best player, Manny Machado, and their best relief pitcher, Zach Britton.  They did it again in late August, after trading away a starting pitcher, their closer, and their starting 2nd baseman.  That time, they won three in a row over the 73-win Toronto Blue Jays by scores of 7-0, 12-5, and 10-5.  A really bad baseball team can still win consecutive games convincingly.

My general point is that one game in baseball signifies almost nothing, it certainly doesn’t prove anything.  But, over the past two days, one game consigned the Oakland Athletics and the Chicago Cubs to the 2018 dustbin along with the Orioles.  This, despite the Cubs winning 95 games, the second most in the National League, and the A’s winning 97 games, more than any NL team.  Life isn’t fair, and neither is the MLB playoff format.

Now the real fun begins.  There will be four five-game series to (essentially) send teams to the Final Four.  But because it’s baseball, they don’t use exciting lingo, they use “AL division series” or, even worse, “ALDS,” which don’t convey anything meaningful.  The series doesn’t determine a division winner.   Perhaps “AL semi-finals” would be better. At a minimum, it conveys something comprehensible.

The chart shows the playoff teams, their wins (out of 162 games), and their run differential, the number of runs they scored above the number their opponents scored against them.

Team Wins Run Diff.
Red Sox 108 229
Yankees 100 182
Astros 100 263
Brewers 96 95
Dodgers 92 194
Indians 91 170
Rockies 91 35
Braves 90 102

Three of the teams (Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros, all from the American League) are great — many wins (100+) with a huge run differential.  Two of the teams (Dodgers and Indians, the other AL team) are very good — over 90 wins and a huge run differential.  The other three teams are good — 90+ wins and a positive run differential.  Each of these eight teams is good enough to win the World Series.  And each of them could lose to the Orioles if they played one game today.

If baseball were like hockey, which reseeds teams after each round of their playoffs, the Red Sox would play the Indians.  That is, the playoff team with the best record in the AL would play the playoff team with the worst record in the AL.  But baseball deems the Yankees inferior because they did not win their arbitrarily assigned division, even though they won 100 games.  And the Indians are deemed superior because they won a division, never mind that it is the only division with just one team over .500.

Looking at these numbers, the Astros should play the Dodgers again in the World Series.  (The Astros won last year.)  But looking at the numbers, the Cubs, with 95 wins and a run differential of 116 should have defeated the Rockies.  The numbers don’t matter, what matters (generally) is whose starting pitcher is better today.

The game one starters suggest what we already know:  that the best teams are in the AL.  In the Rockies/Brewers game, the 144th best starting pitcher Antonio Senzatela (Rockies) is matched up against Brandon Woodruff (Brewers), who isn’t even ranked because he has only started four games in 2018, none since June.  I’m not expecting a pitcher’s duel.  In the other NL game, Mike Foltynewicz (Brewers), the 25th best starting pitcher, is up against Hyun-Jin Ryu (Dodgers), the 91st ranked starting pitcher.

The average starting pitcher ranking in game one for the NL is 87, ignoring Woodruff’s non-ranking.[1]  Meanwhile, tomorrow in the AL, Justin Verlander (Astros 3rd) is matched against Corey Kluber (Indians 5th) and Chris Sale (Red Sox 2nd) faces off with J.A. Happ (Yankees, a relatively paltry 17th).  The AL game one starters average 7.

A 100-win team will lose in the first round of the playoffs.  Maybe two.  Because all three 100-win teams play in the American League, only one of them can make the World Series.  There is no question that the cream of the crop plays in the AL.  But – for the first time in years, the NL won more inter-league games than it lost.

As you watch games, consider this:  the eight teams remaining averaged 4.95 runs scored per game and 3.98 runs against per game.   It’s not rocket science and it’s not revolutionary, but I predict that five runs will win most games this post season.  Enjoy.

 

 

[1] All of these rankings come from billjamesonline.com, one of the great websites in America.  The rankings are based (roughly) on the last season and a half.

Good Samaritans

I went to a football game recently with three friends.  One of them is the father of the other two.  I’m going to be intentionally obscure on some details to protect their privacy, but I want to tell this short story because, well, I think you’ll understand by the time I am done.

We drove to a venerable football stadium to attend a college football game between two power conference teams.  It was a beautiful day for football, if a bit warm, hot even.

As we approached the stadium, which we had never been to, we asked for help finding the best place to drop off a 70ish year old man with some mobility issues.  The various gatekeepers were respectful and, more importantly, helpful.  Kudos.

After dropping them off, I went in search of a parking space and found one (at a mere $40) within a twenty-minute walk of the stadium.  All things considered, not too bad.

By the time I rejoined my friends, the father was in a first aid station at the stadium.  Leaving my car and walking in the heat and humidity had exacted a quick and heavy toll.  A few minutes sitting in the air-conditioned first aid station while drinking cold water refreshed him.

We entered the stadium and watched most of the first half without further incident.  Sometime in the middle of the second quarter, we started walking toward the concessions and bathrooms.  We had taken only a few steps, when the father of my friends became very weak and couldn’t continue.  His son held him up.  When I noticed what was happening, I returned to assist.  We asked the usher to call for a medic, which he did.

A woman walked by, and said “my husband is a doctor, should I get him.”  Yes.  A step in the right direction.

The son and I continued to hold the father upright, hoping the medic would show up quickly.  A man walking by noticed our situation and said “I’m going to get on my hands and knees.  He can sit on my back.”  He dropped to the floor and we settled the father on his back.

After just a few seconds, a doctor showed up (the woman’s husband) and asked us to place the father flat on his back with his head pointing down (we were on a ramp).  By now another doctor had stopped to help, followed by a third.  The man, who had hitherto been on his hands and knees, returned with a cup of water.  He was my favorite of the good Samaritans.

The doctors were terrific.  They spoke calmly and authoritatively, reassuring the father that they would stay with him as long as necessary.  One was constantly monitoring the father’s pulse, which remained strong and steady throughout.

The father had not lost consciousness and had not suffered a stroke, heart attack, or anything else with a specific name, he had simply become extremely fatigued extremely quickly.  Eventually the medic showed up, he was in high demand as the heat intensified, and the father was put on a stretcher and taken back to the first aid station, which was full.  (Somewhere along the line, a fourth doctor, a cardiologist, had stopped to help, though we were already in good hands.)

At the first aid station, the father rested in a bed, receiving hydration and some much-needed air conditioning.  He remained conscious and aware of his surroundings throughout the incident and was able to converse while watching the game on TV.  He acted and sounded like himself, just weaker than normal.  Ultimately, he was transferred by ambulance to a local hospital, where he was admitted and spent the night.  He is now home, still weak, but otherwise little the worse for wear.

The “crisis” did not last long, but the number of people who helped in small and large ways was impressive.  It was a wonderful reminder of the kindness of strangers.  It heartens me to realize that Americans are willing to help others in distress, whether in small events like ours or large events like Hurricane Florence.

We are a great country, always have been, always will be.