A non-fan
Hey Jay
I couldn't help but notice you didn't write much about Sleepy Joe's first press conference.
If Trump had done this, you would have written about it every day. So typical of the lame stream media!
Worse part is I thought you were one of us.
(Bleep)hole!
ANF-
Wow, lots to unpack here.
I'll start at the backend first, and no not the backend of the anatomy.
Here's the thing Mr./Mrs. Fan, and maybe this is where the disconnect has become so extended: I'm not one of you. I'm not one of them either. I am a journalist, first and foremost. Yes, my job is different than a reporter's. I offer my opinion, which more times than not is conservative.
And maybe that's the rub. It's the void that the tilted cable networks have jumped into and dragged the public opinion of us lame-streamers with them.
If I'm forced to choose a side, then here's mine.
American. And know you're welcome to join our side at any time.
As for President Biden's news conference, well, I did watch it. My thoughts cover a large swath.
First, because of what I do, my primary takeaway was that these should be the best in my profession and the questions were insane. The President meets the media for the first time after a historic delay and a sizable chunk of the conversation is about four years from now?
As for the President, well, here are a few things:
- His delivery and speech did little to reassure those among us worried about his mental state;
- I thought his subtle and deadpanned "I miss him" about Trump was hilarious;
- He did not comfort me about where we stand in our diplomacy with North Korea and China or his ability to navigate those dangerous waters with strength;
- I appreciated his honesty, especially saying directly that there's no way to know when the troops will leave Afghanistan even though he campaigned on a promise to end these 'forever wars' as he called them. "I don't know for sure" came across to me as transparent more than lacking in anyway, and Lord knows we can't get enough transparency and honesty in our federal branch these days;
- The hubbub over notes and talking points is way, Way, WAY overblown in my view. Who wouldn't bring some hard numbers and facts with them to a news conference? And, as much as I loathe the "Previous President did it" and it's identical, inbred cousin "If Previous President had done it, he would have been crucified" Trump made notes before and during his speeches all the time. That said, I now am quite confident in my knowledge where the U.S. ranks in infrastructure spending;
- The other side of that discussion and blowback that is a deal to me - and should be discussed - is the cue card with the photos and names and organizations of the reporters.
My problems with it are two-fold.
First to revisit the mental state, how in the world can the leader of the free world not memorize the names and faces of a room with about as many folks in it as my daughter's fourth-grade class?
There were 25 reporters in that room. Twenty-five. I've been in Masters media event with 10 times that many, and Phil Mickelson called every one of them by name after dropping arguably the biggest monkey off his back in sports.
In truth, so what if he didn't call them by name - Saban pretty much just points these days or lets the verbal herd thin to the point there's one person asking a question. Heck let a staffer call the folks.
Second, as I said above, we need more transparency not less, and with all the doubt among us, this thought kept creeping circling in my head. A predetermined order could mean submitted questions and potentially worse, but the perception of media collusion is almost as bad as the collusion itself.
But know this: I am rooting for Biden to be great, because he's the president of our country.
Another non fan
Jay
I've noticed you and your conservative (bleep)hats are trying to rig elections by changing voting laws and principals.
You should be ashamed but I know you're incapable of that.
You voted for Trump after all.
ANF-
Big picture, when my email gets roughly an even amount of blowback from opposite sides, well, that has to be a good thing, right?
(Side note: Chas, I know you're shaking your head, and you're right, I do get more angst from the left, but the heat from the Far Right - like above - is way more heated if noticeable less frequent. That said, in a mild upset, each side has a filthy, filthy keyboard. Egad at the curses. You folks hold food with those nasty fingers?)
Anywell, as we deep dive into political parlance - rest easy JTC, last political question of the day, so if any of you want to skip down to the silly, go right ahead - your question is about voting laws.
OK, and it's an important one. One the President addressed in his news conference too, although the 'makes Jim Crowe look like Jim Eagle' line fell as flat as Kyrie Irving's planet.
(Side note: one of the things that hurt Biden's performance yesterday that a lot of folks are not discussing is the disjointed nature of the entire hour-plus meeting with the media. And it was so disjointed not because of anything he did per se, but because it was his first news conference in office. And I'm sure you agree, regardless if you're in AOC's camp or part of Mitch's masses, there's been more than a little happening in Biden's 65 days. So the questions were all over the place, with only an occasional follow because each of the 10 reporters who got to ask a question had something specific to address. In fact, did you know there was not a single question about COVID. Yes, Biden discussed it in his opening statements, but not a single question.)
As for the voting laws, here's the required caveat:
No law should be even considered that limits the voting rights of legal U.S. Americans. None. This is not a controversial take.
But I am for exploring ways to make the process better and more trusted. I like the idea of repositioning the early voting so that the early votes and the absentee votes are counted before election day.
A whole lot of this discussion is not new - there was a lot of it after the Bush-Gore election, remember. Only then Democrats were demanding changes and Republicans were against them because the Ds lost that one. Now it's reversed.
War America.
OK, that was a fun way to start, now to the important stuff.
From Todd G
Jay, read everyday. Still miss you in the afternoon.
You wrote something (Wednesday) about sugary cereal and it got me and my brother talking.
Our mom would only get the bland cereals and me and Ted would only get the sugar-packed ones when we spent the night with friends. We tried to do that as often as we could and maybe it was in some ways about the breakfast.
I know you asked us our favs - Corn Pops and it was not close - but what would be on your Rushmore of sugary cereals.
Todd G-
First, call your mom and thank her. I have no doubt my young weight issues - I was 5-foot-1, 145 pounds as a sixth-grader before growing 10 inches in the next two years and being a 5-11, 170-pound eight-grader - were my less-than-ideal diet.
Yeah, I know, we all ate junk. Well, I was Fred Sanford of the junk food.
The sugary cereals were a given. Went through a ton of bologna too, as well as a river of actual Coke-a-Colas. (Mom loved those mini-bottles, and she was right. This side of Mickey D's Coke, the mini-bottles were like the soup at Mindy's. The best, Jerry. The best.)
Which also brings us to our almost daily visit to the Mickey D's or the KFC. And during the summertime, well, know that our family had a running tab at the ballpark - seriously, Pop would settle up at the end of the week - because we spent so many nights there.
As for my sugary cereal Rushmore, well, this one is mine and far from universal. Because I loathed Honey Smacks, but if that was your cereal jam, hey, you be you.
CrunchBerries are there. Froot Loops (narrowly over Fruity Pebbles) are there. Apple Jacks was way, Way, WAY underrated. And the still great Frosted Flakes.
I feel like I need to brush my teeth.
As for the other Rushmores, let's go this way:
Rushmore of Elton John songs: Buckets this was way more difficult than I expected, because I love the Lion King too. Jules crushed this one because Tiny Dancer is there. Candle in the Wind. Your Song. And Daniel.
Rushmore of worst fruits. Raisins are there. Honeydew is far left. There's a reason it's the space eater in every fruit salad/cocktail everywhere. And with a visor tip to Fat Vader, apricots and pomegranates too.
(Side question: The Mrs. and I were talking about this, and she continues that raisins are not their own fruit. "Are dried bananas not bananas?" she asked making her point that raisins are simply grapes and my hatred of raisins is a testament against grapes big picture. Thoughts?)
Rushmore of Otis. Otis Redding. Otis Campbell. Otis Day and the Knights - "Otis my man" - and Otis Spunkmeyer. Those gas station cookies are LEEEEE-git.
Rushmore of Reese Witherspoon (which is better than I realized because she was great as a youth - what's a yute? - in Man on the Moon): Walk the Line, Election, Legally Blond, Cruel Intentions. (And she was aces in Big Little Liars which is not a movie but was excellent on HBO.)
And for the other house-cleaning, here's today's A2 column on episode 700 of The Simpsons.
And you know the rules. Here's Paschall on UT's start to spring practice.
From Chas
Dayn Perry at CBS Sports says the top five in MLB are: Trout, Betts, Soto, Acuna and deGrom. Freddie Freeman is #27 and Marcell Ozuna is #50. Is he right?
Chas-
I saw that you posted this last Thursday. I also saw the reference to our editor Alison Gerber's column about the TFP looking for conservative responses about the growing lack of trust between the right at the media. Here's the link to more on that discussion and I would encourage some of you cats around these parts who, like me, view themselves as conservatives to participate.
As for the baseball question, this is both a pertinent topic and a chance for a mea culpa in that I have not previewed baseball as much as should.
That five is pretty good, but I have a pivot. I would divide the list between everyday dudes and pitchers. Yes, I think pitchers in elite circumstances could be the MVP, but they never start the season on an even playing field when Jacob deGrom, at best, will get 35 games and Mike Trout will get 160.
Trout is on a career track that puts him among the all-timers. The numbers are surreal. He's .304-39-103 per 162 games with a .418 OBP and 26 steals and 122 runners per season in a time when strikeouts are commonplace.
With the exception of his 40-game first season - it was not considered his rookie season because he did not get enough ABs - Trout has played nine seasons. He has finished top-five in the MVP voting nine times. Nine times. Nine times. Nine times. I don't remember him being sick nine times.
Betts is great too, and Soto is drawing Ted Williams comparisons. But Acuña's elite level defense shouldn't be undervalued so I might flip three and four.
Great question, and did you see SI's baseball issue has Acuña as the NL MVP and our Atlanta Braves winning it all?
Good times.
From Matt
Wow, I don't know how people tolerate you.
Matt-
Me neither.
Have a great weekend.
Jay Greeson