Pure free market is not be-all, end-all

"Scrooge McDuck"

"AOC" has said "no one needs to be a billionaire." Let that bounce around in your head. 

Can you even tell me how much a billion is? The purpose of acquiring wealth should be to live comfortably, to live securely. Once you get past a certain figure, are those your real objectives any more? Or, are you trying to exercise influence? 

The influence that can affect a presidential campaign? And why is that so important? You need to defend free enterprise? Because you figure, freedom is how you were able to exercise your talents to get so ridiculously wealthy? Is it all really due to hard work? Or at a certain point do you capitalize on networking with other well-heeled folks? 

Free enterprise as opposed to what? Well, a system where government encourages a little re-distribution of wealth. The ultra-wealthy are revulsed by this. The Republican presidential candidate complements all his absurdities and sheer offensiveness by wanting to assert that the Democrats are "communists." We've heard such talk down through the years. Seems too easy to assert sometimes. 

After WWII we reviled the Soviet Union as "communists," felt we needed to fight communism in various places like Vietnam. 

No one approves of pure communism. Is Vietnam a communist country today? They would say they are. But I have heard analysis that the country is really "nationalistic." Not so cut and dried. 

The problem is that the U.S. right wingers want all this to be simple. Argue for a little more government intervention in our lives, well that makes you left-leaning and then on comes the terms "communism" and "socialism." I think most people see such talk as a caricature. Oh, but maybe not everyone. 

The Republican presidential candidate has so many people eating out of his hands, so many people with blinders on. So many people who have been persuaded that supporting the political right reflects how proper Christians in their church pews ought to believe. 

But what if instead we have been seeing an oligarchy take root? What if the aims down deep are selfish and sinister? 

I feel you must take a broad-minded approach to this. And that means you should listen seriously to what the Democrats have to say. On everything. Be discerning when the Rudy Giulianis of the world talk about the "far left." They're trying to scare you. 

 

Haven't forgotten this guy

Again I am reminded of my old college friend Brad from the Iron Range. He was a Democrat who saw and understood the big picture that I'm trying to lay out here. He came right out and said that conservatives/Republicans are very strong on pure principle. Chalk one up for the right wing. But it does not tell the whole story. 

Brad asserted that even though conservatives were very good at winning political debates - maybe even unbeatable a la William F. Buckley - there's a defect embedded within them. Brad pointed out: they don't care about people. 

And of course the conservatives would absolutely bristle at that, profess dumbfoundedness. As Shakespeare wrote, "they protest too much." They get so aroused we have to wonder if there's something in their subconscious bothering them. A psychologist might say they are afraid of the broad public getting a hint of the truth. They should know that when Democrats win, it may reflect unease with the pure laissez-faire attitude of conservatives. 

My train of thought today is due to the extensive reaction I received when posting a comment to a Yahoo! News article. This is the most reaction a comment of mine has ever garnered. I claim no genius with what I wrote, just maybe some insight based on the experience of being alive nearly 70 years. It has been a long journey. You'll see the comment and some reactions at the close.

 

Idyllic Christian?

And I am astounded by the tenor of the current political campaign. I am astounded by how this very bad, shallow and old person DJT commands so much support, has been able to sell himself as the idyllic Christian even. It makes me wonder about the quality of our education system in America. 

Or, let's weigh the effects of our media world which has fragmented to a stupefying degree. It has fragmented beyond where the old "gatekeepers" are able to enforce any restraint, any discipline in the public conversation. I mean to enforce guidelines with basic decency, a modicum of civility and reason. 

So DJT says "climate change is a hoax." Can we not reject that out of hand? 

There were always oddball political players on the margins in the old days. We'd hear about the Libertarian candidate for example. Interesting ideas those libertarians have. The "mainstream" held firm in the old gatekeeper days. Prime example was the 1976 presidential campaign. We worried about Gerald Ford stumbling, not committing sexual assault or being dragged into court (dragged into court repeatedly).

 

The legacy of this

Today we have DJT and his lackeys out in front of us daily. Don't you worry about how future generations will remember us? As I sit here on the day after Halloween, 2024, I am having to realize that Trump could still win. And then what? Eliminate the income tax and have a 20 percent national sales tax? Tariffs? Clamp down further on abortion? 

The raw free enterprise advocates are largely sticking with Trump or so it would appear. They cannot give ground to any politician who might want to advocate for some redistribution of wealth. Deploy the term "communist." It scares people. Well, that's what the ultra-wealthy want. 

If you study world history you'll see what happens when the underclass gets fed up. Like in France. It's unfortunate and we must be vigilant to avoid it. But these things happen. The communists tracked down Mussolini, killed him and had his body hung on meat hooks for abuse. People can get really ticked off, eventually, when they realize that an unaccountable order has been making their lives miserable. 

The wealthiest people get cocooned so much, they can fail to notice until it's too late. And history can repeat itself. 

 

Franklin Roosevelt

FDR's arm-twisting

FDR had to appeal to his own class of wealthy folks to sell the New Deal and it was not a slam dunk. I have read that only about half of his fellow gilded folks were really willing to go along with it. But that was enough. But what was wrong with the other half? 

It's what I'm seeking to point out here: the wealthy focus on their own comfort and security, never mind the broad public of really challenged folks. Maybe they're saying "let them eat cake." You know what that quote was a part of, right? 

I'd advise the "Scrooge McDucks" to stop throwing around the terms "communist" and "socialist" so much. Get in the real world. Realize that we're all in this together. Oh my, such a statement will probably fall on deaf ears. 

I smiled as I read some of the many reactions to my Yahoo! News comment. I was not surprised, as many took sharp umbrage at my suggestion that history teaches lessons we ought to heed. 

So many people think the "work ethic" will just solve everything - people just pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Well, it's easy for them to say. Again I quote "AOC" with "no one needs to be a billionaire." 

I sent my late mother on a motorcoach tour to Washington D.C. when the FDR monument was new, I believe not even finished yet. I told her that if this was not on the itinerary, maybe she could ask the tour guide to go there. She succeeded! She took several nice pictures of the place including one of a sculpture that includes FDR's dog "Falla." 

My comment to Yahoo! News:

 

Humanity is always having to be reminded that in order to reduce the wealth gap, the less-well-off have to demand it, as the very wealthy will never give up any of what they have.

 

"Gus" responded:

If you were part of the wealthy, would you willingly give up what you have?

 

"Bryan" responded:

Humanity is always having to be reminded that in order to reduce the wealth gap, the less-well-off have to earn it, as no one wants to give up what they have. 

 

"Kevin" responded:

LOL. Brian the poor in France demanded wealth like you suggest and they got Napoleon. The 1930s Germans followed your advice demanding wealth and they got Hitler. The 1917 Russians listened to you demanding wealth and got Stalin. May Be... just maybe... instead of demanding wealth the less well off should try WORKING FOR IT.

 

"George Washington" responded:

If the less-less-well-off want something then they should work for it. Someone worked hard to get well off. If they decide to pass it on then that's on them and not the government to take it and hand it out like they are tossing candy at a parade.

"Matt" responded:

How do they demand it? Demand it be "given" to them?? I am not "rich" but everything I do have, I did not obtain by taking it away from someone else or demanding it as a "right" owed to me somehow. For one person to become wealthier DOES NOT require another to become poorer. The poor will always be with us, no matter how rich they get.

 

"Bergbros" responded:

Yep, everybody wants a piece of the other person's success. You get there by working hard not by government redistribution of wealth. 

 

"SuperSam" responded:

The less well off should 100% demand jobs, education and opportunities. In a well run free market society the wealthy can keep what they've earned and the less well-off have opportunities to become wealthy and know they can keep what they worked hard to earn for themselves. It's not a zero-sum game.

 

"Rachel" responded:

That's what Kamala Harris at least says she'll do. Trump has promised to make sure the rich get richer.

 

"John" replied:

Progressive nonsense.

 

"Millabout" responded:

And you don't see the "demand" by the less-well-off as greed? Using the government to steal from an entity to give to another does not shield the fact that it is still greed. 

 

"Realist" responded:

Welcome to America, Brian.Since day #1...

"Anthony" responded:

In order to acquire wealth, you work hard, not taking away from wealthy individuals.

 

"Charles" responded:

Demand what exactly? Free money?

 

"Tom Cruise" responded:

The poorest never give it up either. The way to get money is to provide a good or service that’s in demand and be good at it. At a certain point, you can manage others that are good at it. “Demand it”? Sort of. Make sure your good or service is demand-worthy and consistent and you will never have a problem getting money in America. Then you spend significantly less than what you have over a long period of time and you will eventually have wealth.

 

"BigToad" responded:

We have built an oligarchy out of the ashes of the middle class. 500 golden families absorb 95% of all profits from the GDP.

 

"Nick" responded:

It makes sense that those with the most to lose are the most fearful.

 

"Herb" responded:

Correction - "what they worked for" is the reality for most Americans NOT what they have--get a clue.

"Brian" responded:

How about the less well off working hard, waiting to have children until they are married.

 

"Jeff" responded:

Great news for you, Brian; you have the ability to reduce your wealth gap right now. .

 

"Mike" responded:

Why should they give it up? Go earn it yourself. Just because they have the money doesn't mean you can't go make more yourself. Go invent something, take risks and start a business. That is what a lot of rich people do. They have skills, intelligence, drive to get them to a point of being rich. Just because they have a lot doesn't mean you can't go make some yourself.

 

"Bluedog" responded:

Here’s an idea, how about work hard for it and earn your way, some people refuse do just that. Yes a small portion needs a hand out, so what did this administration do? They let in tens of millions of illegal immigrants unvetted and expect hard working Americans to foot the bill. And that is a slap in the face for all the other legal immigrants that went through the proper process and vetting, some waiting years. And I have zero doubt that there was thousands that are hardened criminals which is just the beginning. 

 

"Susan" responded:

That worked out great for the Bolsheviks in Russia and the backers of the CCP in China. They demanded a “redistribution of wealth” only to have oligarchs and party leaders seize all of the wealth and leave them starving for decade after decade.

 

"Bonnie" responded:

And why should I have gone to college, pay my bills, pay my taxes and budget what is left so I can give it away to whoever does not want to contribute but wants a free ride? That makes zero sense.

 

"Lily" responded:

Maybe you need to spend some time in a communist socialist country before you give any opinions of the utopia you describe. Ask any Cuban where they would rather live.

"Jim" responded:

I would rather have wealthy doctors who work their butts off keeping me alive - have as big as wealth gap as necessary.

 

"Russell" responded:

Work harder. Why do you deserve what someone else risks everything in their life to gain?

 

"Paulus" responded:

You are Robin Hood ... steal from the rich and give to the poor.

 

"Jack Frost" responded:

The only way to have true equality is for everyone to have nothing.

 

"Eduard" responded:

You are not quite right. Why should the poor demand? Or maybe they should work more and live within their means. There have already been many examples in history when they took from the rich and gave to those who did not want to work. And the results are also visible. 

 

(The above is just a sampling of the comments received! The moral of the story is that the topic touches a nerve.)

 

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

School board candidates, their pretense, airs

Here's the official photo of our Morris Area School board.

Stumbled onto the "candidates debate" for Morris Area school board last night. It's "Morris Area" and not "MACA," the latter term devoted to the athletic teams. It can get complicated like when referring to tennis which is actually in with West Central Area. 

The parents with kids in sports can learn this stuff fast. For the rest, it can sometimes seem a little head-scratching. And this applies to understanding the post-season for sports too. So much more complicated than in past times. "Past times" in my mind evokes the boomers' young years. Up until 1971, no varsity girls sports. Girls were left totally out in the cold. I mean, can you believe it? Again and again I am astounded thinking about this. 

And for boys we had the one-class tournament evoked with such dripping nostalgia in the movie "Hoosiers." I think it's the "old oaken bucket philosophy" that suggests that past times were preferable to today, which they most certainly were not. 

So in 2024 - this election year for the school board - we have girls and women's sports bathing in the spotlight of attention. It really should have happened sooner. For whatever reason the year 2024 is a huge step for that. And then we take it for granted. As a boomer aged 69 I can offer a lot of perspective. 

And before we drop the subject of "Hoosiers," why didn't we get to know the cheerleaders? They were definitely there. I don't recall a single line spoken by those girls. We have seen a comeback for cheerleading in our MACA system. Got my attention at Big Cat Field early-on this autumn. I remember so many seasons where cheerleaders were a staple of the experience. 

I weigh different interpretations of why it was phased out and why it came back. I have talked with certain people about this. The most "innocent" explanation for the cancellation was the purported unavailability of an advisor. Hmmm. Sorry but that doesn't really cut it with me. We have always been a totally viable school with the commensurate resources. 

The less-innocent reason would be "political." That would be: cheerleaders were "eye candy" from an earlier age when it was boys who handled the serious business of sports - what the public came to see. Cheerleaders were just supposed to help us cheer louder. So it seemed a rather regressive, uninspiring proposition. You might say it was in line with females' role in the "pre-libbers" days. 

Now in the year 2024, while we totally embrace the widened opportunities for women, we have lightened up on some of the old hard-line attitudes from the land of Gloria Steinem or whatever. Steinem's nature/persona would grate on a lot of us now. 

The typical American would watch the movie "Hoosiers" now and get misty-eyed, right? The sheer power of the Republican Party now means we are not wedded to progressive attitudes, even though it's those attitudes that made the development of girls/women's sports possible in the first place. 

If you went around now talking about how "regressive" the concept of cheerleaders is, people would look at you funny. "What's your problem?" 

Best of both the old and the new? Is this Nirvana? We'll see if we really reach Nirvana if the Republicans take complete command of our national leadership. If Trump comes back. If he doesn't, are we really done with him? Will the cult of Trump remain viable all around us? 

 

Board answers to who?

So another school board election is upon us. I'm sure I watched most of the Wednesday night debate/discussion. Everyone seemed to be trying to say the "proper" things so it was rather yawn-inducing. 

My first question or reaction would be: Why was the teachers association putting on this thing? I assume that MATA stands for "Morris Area Teachers Association." 

The school board members do not work for the teachers - heaven help us - they work for the public. And there is always a major risk of a schism between the public and the self-interested teachers. I use the team "teachers union" rather than "association." It is most certainly a union. And only a child would not see that teachers present a self-interested agenda. 

 

The teachers like this

I heard the candidates talk about high standards, accomplishments and goals. The teachers like such talk because it hints that we need such highly-qualified (and richly compensated) teachers because, what would we do without them? I have written before that teachers like to make their courses hard because it gives them a feeling of importance as teachers. 

Teachers have in fact been forced to back off on this. Best illustration: "honor rolls" that are substantially longer than when I was in school. Why on earth did our parents permit a system where maybe only 3-4 kids made the 'A' honor roll? What did those kids know that the rest of us did not? Teachers played mind games with us with how they developed assignments and exams where a majority of us would come up short for one reason or another. 

Perhaps my philosophy of education is winning in the long run. It is winning in terms of practice even though the school board candidates like to talk in such lofty language about things like standards and goals. Oh to hell with that - if I'm a parent I would want the teachers to be primarily gentle caretakers who are not going to shoot down my child's sense of self-worth with boot camp-style discipline. 

Well I'm a boomer and our fathers quite literally went through boot camp for WWII. Maybe they felt there was something to be said for that kind of discipline. These same fathers turned a blind eye basically to what was going on in Vietnam, the escalation and the "body bags." If you think MAGA is crazy today and I do, it can't be any worse than turning a blind eye to Vietnam. 

 

Vote for Steve Just? You should hear him when he substitutes for our pastor at First Lutheran Church. Some church members think he goes over better than the regular pastor. He projects levity and personality. I'm not sure how independent he'd be on the board but I'd give him benefit of the doubt, for now. Let me add that I'll vote for anyone who has a Hispanic name! I find that those people do not put on the usual airs.

 

So as a parent I would want teachers to be fundamentally gentle to guide my child to basic maturity. For most of the kids a solid mastery of reading, writing and arithmetic is going to be good enough. If you want to be a doctor you'll have to seek more. Don't try to push all the kids in that direction, in the name of promoting "all kids have potential for greatness." That's nothing but a sick cliche. 

So much pretense in the statements made by school board candidates. A public school is not out to change the world so knock it off. Take care of our kids, be empathetic with them, impart some knowledge along the way. The kids really will enrich themselves with their electronic devices. Oh yes they will. I enriched myself with comic books. 

And above all, I think our school should lift up the co-curricular phase which I think is even more valuable than academics! Don't you hate the term "academics?" Do you even hear the term "cramming for finals" any more? I would guess that our colleges have backed off on thrusting this miserable experience on kids - colleges need students! Hear that, UMM? Yes, Provost Imholte would roll over in his grave. 

 

Drum roll?

Who will I vote for? First I'll have to make sure it's safe to vote (at the armory) because there could be MAGA poll-watchers there to intimidate. I'd scram if that happens. The MAGA people think they are doing God's work. Yes, God's work to make favorable comparisons to Hitler. Maybe Trump is being substituted for Jesus and God, both of them. I think he's a dangerous, vain, fat fool. 

"Beware false prophets." Oh heck, most of y'all like at Good Shepherd Church will not pay heed. May God have mercy on their souls.

 

Addendum: The board candidates sought such a convivial air with the MATA last night. But remember the whole progression of teachers showing up for school board meetings and complaining with some intensity? Enough intensity that a spokesman accused the board of "lying." A bridge too far. I have seen teacher unions get too big for their breeches through the years. I have seen teachers try to organize boycotts of businesses. The board should never feel in concert with the teachers. Don't find out the hard way. If the North Dakota property tax revolt spreads to MN, we may realize we cannot even allow teacher unions anymore.

 

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Asante Adams flirts w/ 100 yards on 8 carries

Minnewaska 56, Melrose 14

You might remember that the MACA Tigers defeated Minnewaska Area in the season opener. Pretty impressive score for the Tigers too: 46-27. But the Lakers showed they really had "chops" for playing competitive football at the end of the regular season. The regular season always ends on a Wednesday. So let's consider the winning score for those Lakers in their home game vs. Melrose. Pretty impressive: 56-14. 

Now the post-season awaits for both those Lakers and our Tigers. The Tigers did not fare so well in their final regular season test. It was a loss to the Fergus Falls Otters at Fergus. The Lakers have lost only twice since the season opener. They shut out Montevideo 37-0. 'Waska is 5-3 in overall W/L, 3-1 in section, 5-2 in conference, 2-2 away from home and 3-1 at their friendly home venue. 

'Waska owned the first quarter vs. Melrose with a 14-0 advantage. The first score was by Riley Dell on a run from the four. Zach Guggisberg kicked the PAT. Then it was Levi Johnson scoring for the home team: a run from the one. Guggisberg again nailed the PAT. 

The teams traded touchdowns in the second quarter. First it was 'Waska striking again as Asante Adams had a big run of 50 yards. Melrose got on the board with a big run of their own, as Riley Elfering raced 31 yards. 

The third quarter was huge for the Lakers. Fans were inspired to cheer loudly as their team scored 28 points! Adams began the deluge of scoring with an 18-yard run. Guggisberg drove the ball through the uprights. Then it was Dell adding six with his run from the nine. The PAT kick: good. Miles Wildman broke loose for a 28-yard scoring scamper. The PAT kick: good. 

Kaiden Harvey of the Lakers gained possession of a fumble and converted this into a TD: a return of 34 yards. Guggisberg's toe was true.

Melrose's Jackson Mayers ran ten yards for a score. The Dutchmen went for two on the conversion and it was good: Mayers passing the ball to Samuel Wehlage. 

Minnewaska polished things off with a crowd-pleasing 61-yard run that had Austyn Schuler clutching the football. Evan Armstrong ran for two on the conversion. 

A look at the numbers shows the winning 'Waska crew with 13 first downs. The rushing yards were spread out very nicely to showcase balance. Adams got lots of mileage out of his eight carries: 96 yards. Schuler got boffo mileage on his one carry: 61 yards! Dell charged forward 13 times for 79 yards. Kearri Dickens had seven carries for 39 yards. Miles Wildman's numbers: 2-32. Levi Johnson contributed with 3-17. Other rushing yards came from Carter Meyer, Caleb Kath and Evan Armstrong. 

The 'Waska ground attack in total was 345 yards. The ground game was premier in 'Waska's offensive efforts. No pass attempts! 

Wildman and Joshua Hippe each had an interception. Dickens and Kaiden Harvey each had a fumble recovery. 'Waska had a team quarterback sack. 

Melrose's top ballcarrier was Riley Elfering with 36 yards on seven carries. Jackson Mayers completed two passes in five attempts with one interception for 17 yards. Elfering tried his hand at passing but did not complete a pass. Hudson Bitz had a reception for 15 yards. Melrose had three team quarterback sacks. 

Bring on the playoffs!

Berlynn Green

Volleyball: Lakers 3, Benson 0

On the volleyball court the Minnewaska Area Laker cause is coming on very strong. How about the W/L record of 18-8? They're 11-3 in conference. Their last standard dual was on Oct. 15 and it had the struggling Benson Braves as the opponent at Benson. 

Benson has been getting swept a lot. Well, that's just what happened to them at the hands of the Lakers. So 'Waska took care of business 25-11, 25-15 and 25-13. 

Haillie Schulz was on the attack with serve aces as she sent four over the net. Berlynn Green had three aces and Dacia Fleury two. Schulz was the go-to setter and got 29 assists. Fleury had two and Eliana Marthaler 1. 

Fleury was on top of her hitting form as she often is. On this night she got 13 kills at the Benson court. Marthaler and Avery Lewison each had four kills. Then we see Emma Hellermann with three followed by four of her mates each with two: Green, Schulz, Addyson Kath and Mya VanLuik. Taylor Schulz performed one kill. 

Three Lakers each had an ace block: Lewison, Fleury and Hallie Schulz. In digs we see three Lakers sharing team-best, each with seven: Green, Fleury and Emma Poegel. Hallie Schulz contributed six digs. 

For Benson, Sovia Schwiderski had two serving aces. Julia Claussen contributed 12 set assists for the Braves. Yes they're still the "Braves." 

Carly Tolifson and Jada O'Leary each had three kills. Kaida Helgenset, Madison Osterbauer and Lexi Hoberg each had an ace block. Sophie Krusemark supplied ten digs. 

Bump, set, spike, into the post-season!

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Here's hoping an eye injury is transitory

Needs no introduction

Raise a toast to the WNBA? The league might still be looking at a bumpy road even after capitalizing on the "CC effect." We all know what that is. 

"CC" gives us another exhibit of celebrity in America. Obviously it's a delicate thing, like a high-wire act. Once you get into a fishbowl like this, it's a mixed bag for what can happen. Whatever it was that made you famous, you will have competitors. I am assuming that CC has an agent, part of whose job is to guide her through the potential shoals of "celebrity." 

We used to see household names go on the Larry King show on CNN to ask for redemption. Famous people are human beings who can succumb to peccadilloes like the rest of us. We shouldn't act surprised but we do. We want someone like "CC" to be perfect but we know down deep that a slide downward is possible. 

Is Garth Brooks guilty?

You know the kind of things that could happen. Too unpleasant to even cite them here. 

One that would be totally innocent is the career-ending injury or career-impeding injury. We as fans don't feel any of the pain or limitations of an injury. There was the scary eye-poke incident with CC on the receiving end recently. We can sometimes overlook how frail the human body is. I pray with all Caitlin backers that it was a passing incident. 

I think we as fans assume too often that when an athlete gets back on the court or the field after an injury, it's "all systems go." Remember Keith Millard of the Vikings? He had injury issues that may not have driven him out of the game, but he was no longer the player he was. 

And let me cite here the best example for how an injury does not routinely pass. That would be Tony Conigliaro. Pro sports has so many dangers for players - in Tony's case the incident was a "beaning." The biggest danger in baseball, right? 

A somewhat comparable incident happened with our Minnesota Twin Jimmie Hall in the 1960s. That is getting to be a long time ago. Well I'm 69, I remember, I was part of the first generation of young Twins fans who got so emotionally involved in the Twins. Our enthusiasm could get out of proportion. We loved Jimmie Hall. Twins legend has it that we traded original Twin Lenny Green because Hall afforded more power at that position. 

I cite Hall with emphasis in this post because it's a good example of how injuries don't just "go away." In the next breath I must note that not all are agreed on how Hall's career declined. A top theory is that the "beaning" by Bo Belinsky in early-season of 1964 was the cause or catalyst. Other players through baseball history have picked up the reputation of having been permanently affected by such a thing. 

To be a superstar athlete, you must court risks. Could Hall's eyesight have been affected? Or, maybe on a psychological level he developed a fear that affected his normal focus? Getting hit in the head with a pitched ball is highly concerning. 

 

A resilient attitude, yes

Would you believe Tony Conigliaro of the Boston Red Sox actually had his best home run season after his major incident of getting beaned? First he had to take a whole season off. He resumed play but with mixed success, the highlight obviously being his 36-home run season of 1970. All mended, then? Not at all. Even his eventual death was attributed to what happened to him. 

In Jimmie Hall's case, the beloved early Minnesota Twin made the All-Star team in 1965. The year after the beaning. All mended, then? While we can't know for absolute certain that the beaning took a toll, well-circulated speculation points this way. The Twins of course made the World Series in 1965. It was a major chapter of joy in Twins history. But by the arrival of the World Series, our manager had decided to platoon Hall. Hall the A.L. All-Star was being platooned. And he was being platooned with very pedestrian hitter Joe Nossek. 

What about 1966? Twins fans hardly remember 1966 because we placed second instead of first in the A.L. in a time when only the pennant winner advanced to post-season. Strange. Only six years earlier, Minnesota didn't even have a major league team. We had the minor league "Millers." So in '66 we were second in league and it made no splash. Let's say "anticlimactic." 

Jimmie Hall, popular early MN Twin

And what about Jimmie Hall? Now he really was platooned. His home run frequency went up some but his batting average dipped below where it needed to be for an outfielder. He got shipped off after '66. Then he really bounced around. I suppose teams were happy to sign him in the hope he could find his earlier form. 

In later years, Hall could not be persuaded to come back for Twins reunion events. Sid Hartman wrote that Hall was "bitter about baseball." Well, Hall's prime was before players started getting the substantially increased $ compensation. The players union with Marvin Miller got dug in. Players got paid better and treated better. Because of the $ invested in them, pitchers got handled better, protected from injured arms. Hence the "pitch count." 

I have plunged into all this background about Hall and Conigliaro because I was reminded of this by the Caitlin Clark incident with getting poked in the eye. Pray to God it's a transitory thing. Sports injuries can sometimes be "degenerative." In other words, they can only get worse - that's what happened with basketball player Ralph Sampson. 

Again we must remember how frail the human body can be. My goodness, fans overlook this, don't want to be bothered to think about it. Well, we want to be entertained. We wanted Keith Millard to keep being the bruising defensive lineman. He could still play, he just couldn't play as well. 

 

Wunderkind's future

So now what will develop with this total wunderkind of America, Caitlin Clark? If she fades for whatever reason, we'll slowly lose interest in her. She has the very delicate game of making the "logo 3's" for which, well obviously, sharp eyesight is her raison d'etre. 

So what will happen? Can she stay on course to being the "straw the stirs the drink" with a WNBA team? That's asking a lot even for someone with CC's talents. Will her sheer celebrity status stay on course? America can do cruel things with its "celebrities." This can happen when we simply discover they are human. CC is a pro now - she's no longer in the college environment where there is a benevolent purpose with how she's handled. Now it's wins and money, baby. And hey, with money comes temptations, pilgrims. 

So maybe we'll have to hold our breath with Caitlin on that count. We wouldn't want her to be in a position like some of Larry King's guests of old, in effect asking for a "second chance." We lost Larry to covid. His talk show approach on CNN was eventually judged to be dated. Sometimes I feel nostalgia for it. If anyone needs "redemption" it's Donald Trump, but this man might be on the verge for being president again. Larry King, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com