Sir Albert

A baseball entry, so there goes half of my readership. See ya, Kirsten.

Anyway, it is getting to the end of the semester, which means grading, grading, and grading. Then some more grading. So most of this information comes courtesy of another blogger, Tybalt, who has taken Bill James's statistical analysis known as the "favorite toy," to indicate some of the probablities of what Albert Pujols might accomplish in his career. It should be noted that this year he has gotten off to an incredible start, and this year's numbers are not included in the analysis (so everything would be a little bit better). Tybalt, conveniently enough, has marked the current records, so you can see what Pujols's chances are of breaking them.

The point is that Pujols may well replace Bonds as the player in the game who can change its entire structure, how the other staff approaches pitching, etc.. (And we don't need to mention--or do we?--that he is evidently steroid- and attitude-free, a good teammate, and well-liked: these are not things that one tends to associate with Bonds.) Something special is going on in St. Louis; had Walt Jocketty followed my advice and gotten rid of Edmonds, maybe the Cardinals' offense wouldn't drop off so dramatically after Rolen. If one of the outfielders steps up and becomes productive, this offense could well take off. If not, it will be close in the NL Central. In any case, you have to love the fact that, according to Bill James's method, Pujols has a 5% chance of hitting 900--indeed, NINE hundred--home runs.

Here are Tybalt's results (established level is what Pujols has shown he does on a regular basis, more or less).

HITS (Has 982, Established Level of 198)
2000 86%
2500 67%
3000 38%
3500 21%
4000 9%
4257 4% <-- Record


DOUBLES (Has 227, Established Level of 45)
500 83%
600 57%
700 35%
793 21% <-- Record


HOME RUNS (Has 201, Established Level of 43)
500 79%
600 47%
700 28%
756 20% <-- Record
800 15%
900 5%


RBI (Has 621, Established Level of 120)
1500 73%
1700 50%
1800 42%
2000 28%
2200 18%
2298 14% <-- Record
2400 11%
2500 8%
2700 2%


Runs (Has 629, Established Level of 132)
1500 82%
1700 61%
1800 51%
2000 36%
2200 25%
2296 21% <-- Record
2500 13%
2700 7%

Whales, Nazis, Big Ideas

OK: I took my own Spring Break off, but little did I know how little time was allowed me during my own childrens' Spring Break. So I took that week off, too. I'm back.

Ms. Cokesbury, of frequent mention here, asked me the other day what I was reading. This seemed to be sufficiently boring to discuss here; I'd be interested in hearing what others are reading, so let me know.

I have a tendency to read a bit eclectically, so if you are looking for a pattern or "strategy," I'll make it easy: I buy a lot of books--even better, I let my university and various presses buy me books; if I really want to read it, I go for it when it arrives or I get home with it. Otherwise, it goes through the aging process, just as does a fine wine. Hence, Iso Kern's Husserl und Kant continues to age, along with Hobbes's translation of Thucydides' History. (It doesn't mean I won't get to them, but eventually can be a long time.) Someday I might be walking around my house, or spot something in my office; I say "that looks interesting," and then I read it. One could call this a strategy; one could call it utter randomness. Personally, I think there is plenty of room in this world for stochastic intentionality.

So here is what I've just finished or am currently engaged in.

Christopher Moore

I just read three of his novels--Lamb : The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal, The Lust Lizard of Melancholy Cove, and Fluke: Or, I Know Why the Winged Whale Sings. I compare him a bit to Carl Hiassen, although he has better metaphors. (E.g.: "it made a sound like an ambulance driving through pudding.") He has what one might call an "offbeat" sense of humor and plot; Lamb is his version of "Jesus: the Missing Years" (he quotes John Prine for an epigraph), with some interesting stuff, as well as a very hot Mary Magdalene, and a particularly hilarious version of early drafts of the Beatitudes, including the suggestion that the meek--rather than inheriting the earth--shall be given fruitbaskets. Jesus also wants to know what follows "Blessed are the dumbfucks," in that they, just as the poor, are always with us. That one got edited out.

His books are fun to read, and occasionally you learn weird things, about whale penises, the three wise men, or the possibility that your dog thinks of you exclusively as "food guy." They go fast, as well. I'm looking forward to his new one, A Dirty Job; for those of you in the Dayton area, he is reading at Books and Company April 12, at 7 (p.m.). I hope he doesn't mind that I've never actually bought one of his books; all library copies.

Kevin Phillips

Phillips is an interesting character; not particularly loved by the Republican Right (especially the Bushes, about whom he wrote the interesting American Dynasty), but he has some credentials in having been largely responsible for devising the "Southern Strategy" that led to the traditional Solid Democratic South to becoming the most loyal Republican section of the U.S.. (I don't think he should be held responsible for such things as Reagan beginning his 2nd Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, site of the deaths of 3 civil rights workers, an act that I think speaks volumes about Reagan, the Republican Party, and racism.) Phillips has a standard sort of trope: viewing contemporary America through a historical lens, largely through the events of Imperial Spain, the Dutch of the 18th century, and the British Empire. In his new American Theocracy, he argues that three things--oil consumption, religious fervor, and debt--threaten U.S. hegemony just as similar kinds of economic and ideological views threatened those earlier world powers. Well worth reading, if open to a wide variety of critiques (such as from international economists who might have a different view of trade deficits and so much paper being held by the People's Republic of China); it is nice to see someone suggest how scary, when taken to its logical conclusion, is the combination of the eschatology of the Left Behind series and the power and implicit overweening violence of the military-industrial-complex (hey, it was Eisenhower!).

It makes very interesting reading as a complement to Thomas Franks' What Happened to Kansas? Franks wants to figure out why people--such as poor and working class people who have lost their jobs--vote against their economic self-interest. I didn't think he answered this as well as he can--and has--but he does make the good point that someone in Sedgwick County Kansas should regard Monsanto or Archer Daniels Midland as more of a threat than a lesbian in Palo Alto wanting to get married, or some Salvadoran trying to get into the U.S. to improve his "material conditions." Phillips' take on it is nicely summarized here:

Economic conservatives often warm to sects in which a preoccupation with personal salvation turns lower-income persons away from distracting visions of economic and social reform.

Juliet Schor

I'm currently just starting a book she edited, with D.B. Holt (a marketing professor!), that contains a fairly wide (albeit leftish) range of views on consumption in America, how it drives the economy, determines values, and structures not just our thought but those of our friends, enemies, and/or children. Starting with, unsurprisingly, Horkheimer and Adorno, it ends with folks such as bell hooks and the above-mentioned Thomas Franks.

I like Schor because she writes well, and thinks about interesting questions, such as why have we developed a country that is, allegedly, so damn pious and all, but seems to be so invested in buying, in consumption, and in upgrading that consumption? What does it accomplish, and what does it tell us about ourselves? In some sense, this is more-or-less Thorstein Veblen goes to the mall and watches TV, but it is good to be reminded how our souls are at stake here. It is also worth remembering that the Religious Right, which likes to pound "liberal" heads for its moral failures, rarely--RARELY--ever speaks to the message of their boy Jesus:

What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
(Mt. 16:26)

Or, as Socrates puts it in the "Apology" (29e):

are you not ashamed of your eagerness to possess as much wealth, reputation and honors as possible, while you do not care for nor give thought to wisdom or truth, or the best possible state of your soul?

These are good questions.

Tom Rockmore

Finally, just to keep my head in the game, I'm reading Tom Rockmore's On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy. There are friends of mine who think Heidegger is the most important philosopher of the 20th century, if not since Aristotle. There are friends of mine who regard him as the P.T. Barnum of philosophy, relying on the fact that there is an ontological (or is that ontic?) sucker born every minute. I have a little trouble taking him seriously, but that may be because I have yet to reveal the hidden Seinsfrage relative to Dasein, and thus remain benighted and tragically Sorgefrei. Or maybe I just think he is overrated, gets Kant (and probably Nietzsche, and almost certainly Herakleitos) wrong, and the fact that he was a Nazi doesn't exactly make me think more of him.

I just started this, and it makes me wonder not just about Marty, but the wider range of philosophers who failed to resist the NSDAP and its rise to power. Rockmore cites a book--almost exclusively for his information on this period--the name of which I have conveniently forgotten (auf Deutsch). Clearly, a good history of German philosophy (say, from 1924 [the death of Hermann Cohen] to 1944) would be a valuable study.

Rockmore mentions that some of Heidegger's students and/or acolytes are unwilling to criticize the "master," by employing what analytic philosphers (and others) would reject (correctly) as a horrible argument: one must understand Heidegger extremely well to see that he wasn't "really" a Nazi; if one insists that he is a Nazi, that just means the understanding is insufficient.

I don't think any philosopher should have "disciples": they should have informed, smart, and energetic critics, who can read well and engage the relevant texts.