Brandon Webb handcuffed the Stros with his array of sinkers and dinkers as the Arizona Diamonbacks beat the Stros 4-1 Monday night in the first game of their four game series at the Juice Box.
Webb was masterful, giving up 6 singles and one run in 7 1/3rd innings. This game was essentially infield practice for the DBacks as Webb’s sinkers had the Stros pounding the ball into the ground with futility the entire game.
Andy Pettitte only gave up three hits in five innings, but the problem was that two of them were back to back gopher balls in the first inning to Gonzo and Hairston. That was all Webb needed on this night. Pettitte left after the fifth game because of soreness in his left elbow, a problem that has bothered him all season. Given the club’s disminishing playoff chances, the Stros will soon have to give serious consideration to shutting Pettitte down for the season.
The best news for the Stros on this day was the signing of Troy Patton, the Tomball High School lefty who was projected as a high draft choice until he announced that he would be attending the University of Texas on a baseball scholarship. Most major league clubs backed off on him as a result of that news, but the Stros took a flyer on him in the ninth round of the draft earlier this summer and the bet has paid off. Patton will report to the club?s affiliate in Greeneville of the Appalachian League.
Patton was 12-0 with an 0.91 ERA during his senior season at Tomball High. He struck out 142 hitters in 77.1 innings pitched, while walking only 24 and allowing 24 hits. Patton threw three no-hitters this spring, including one perfect game, and opponents hit only .122 against him in 2004.
Roy O tries to get the Stros back on track on Tuesday night against some fellow with a 12+ ERA for the DBacks. The way this season is going, the game will probably be a nailbiter.
Daily Archives: July 26, 2004
More on the politics of bashing
Awhile back, Professor Ribstein and I discussed (here, here. and here) the unique nature of current vitriolic criticism of President Bush.
Today, the always insightful Virginia Postrel weighs in with one possible reason for the intensity of the Bush-bashing:
When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters’ fears of terrorism. It’s not rational, but it’s psychologically plausible–blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over.
I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd’s column and read this sentence, “Maybe it’s because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again).”
That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids’ baseball team. You’re upset that you’re in pain (we’ve all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn’t make the pain any better.
Professor Ribstein is not buying Ms. Postrel’s speculation, and contends that an underlying condescending nature is the root of the Bush bashing.
Addressing the obesity epidemic
Clinical psychologist Gerard Musante was the first person to adapt the principles of behavior modification to the eating habits of significantly overweight people. For the past 30 years, Dr. Musante has taught these principles at Structure House, the residential weight loss facility he founded in Durham, N.C.
In this Tech Central Station op-ed, Dr. Mustante addresses that the national debate over responsibility for our society’s obesity overlooks the effect that the debate has on how individuals perceive their personal battles with being overweight or obese:
[O]ur national debate on obesity is evolving into two camps. One emphasizes that obesity results from such factors as genes, a disease state or physiology. The other focuses on the role personal responsibility plays and possibly defines obesity as a personal failing.
While the first camp paints the individual as a victim of forces beyond his control, the latter argues from a moral or social viewpoint. While I strongly support personal responsibility, even the discourse to this effect fails to address the most critical reason for espousing such a perspective. What is too often absent from both viewpoints is a direct consideration of the ramifications these arguments themselves can have on how individuals view their personal battles with overweight and obesity.
Dr. Mustante points out that the biggest problem is defining the issue as being out of an individual’s control:
If one defines a problem as out of his control, then he remains powerless to influence it. However, nearly all experts acknowledge obesity ultimately results from violating a simple principle: calories consumed should equal calories expended. The idea that individuals are victimized by their own bodies or a toxic environment is problematic. For starters, it’s untrue. But as importantly, it stymies their motivation and perceived ability to control their weight loss.
The key lies in a related psychological concept called self-efficacy, which was defined by Albert Bandura, a noted Stanford University psychologist, in 1977. He theorized that people’s expectations of their ability to be effective influence whether and how they will act. It will affect how much effort they expend, and how long they will sustain their efforts in the face of challenges. If a person believes he lives in a “toxic food environment” or is suffering from a disease state, how can he have confidence in his ability to change his predicament?
Dr. Mastante then points out that “quick fix” diet plans are usually counterproductive to obesity because the personal sense of failure that an individual experiences triggers a false sense that the individual is powerless to overcome the problem. And that false sense of powerlessness is becoming more popular:
Worsening the problem, we now are seeing efforts to sue food establishments, to demonize various industries, and to rid schools of vending machines. By blaming industries and products, society only makes individuals feel increasingly powerless about their ability to lose weight, and that perceived lack of control makes them less likely to attempt or experience success. Frivolous lawsuits against the food industry and the classification of obesity as a disease only reinforce the idea that obesity is something people cannot control.
Read the entire article, and then take a look at this piece in which the authors point out that the obestiy epidemic is partly the unintended consequence on the anti-smoking campaign over the past generation.
Debating American foreign policy
John Lewis Gaddis is the Robert A. Lovett professor of history and political science Yale University and Paul Kennedy is the J. Richardson Dilworth professor of history at the same school. In this NY Times Book Review interview, the two debate their views on American foreign policy. The entire piece is well worth reading, and the following are a couple of tidbits of their insights:
How Did 9/11 Change America’s Thinking About Foreign Policy?
GADDIS. The whole premise of our thinking had been that threats come from states. Then suddenly, overnight, levels of damage were done exceeding those at Pearl Harbor by a gang most of us had never heard of. That is a profound change in the national security environment. It exposes a level of vulnerability that Americans have not seen since they were living on the edge of a dangerous frontier 150 years ago.
KENNEDY. I’d agree, and then add another slant. The whole system of international law was predicated upon states. There’s no thought given in the U.N. Charter to nonstate actors. There needs to be agreement on what states can do now with threats from nonstate actors.
Does the United States Have an Empire?
GADDIS. The really important question is to look at the uses to which imperial power is put. And in this regard, it seems to me on balance American imperial power in the 20th century has been a remarkable force for good, for democracy, for prosperity. What is striking is that great opposition has not arisen to the American empire. Most empires in history have given rise to their own resistance through their imperious behavior. For most of its history as an empire, the United States did manage to be imperial without being imperious. The great concern I have with the current administration is that it has slid over into imperious behavior.
KENNEDY. John has put his finger on something very interesting, which is this dominant position of the U.S. not yet causing the emergence of counterweights. And I say ”yet” because I think there’s quite a considerable danger that it will. We now have a Europe with a larger G.D.P., and we have a China growing so fast you can hardly keep your eyes on it. Our great power status is unchallenged at the orthodox military level. But it’s beginning to look a little bit more fragmented in other dimensions.