This Last Night in Baseball Week Tonight

I watched a baseball game last night. Yankees vs. Astros. Neither team I am interested in but a game is a game so I watched. First off, it seems that the Yankees have continued their practice of selling their collective souls to the devil in return for success. Nothing surprising there.

I was listening to the commentator guy talk and it seemed like I was listening to Irwin Fletcher who somehow faked his way into the on-air booth and was calling the game with his usual panache and "making it up as I go along" attitude. He spoke at length about how the Astros pitcher was "basically unhittable" and then the pitcher gave up 2 home runs and a walk. After the second home run and an awkward pause, the guy said "but, yeah, when he doesn't open up his shoulder and keeps his release point in the middle of his body, he's basically unhittable then." He then proceeded to explain the pitcher's motion with the conviction of Bart Simpson saying "turn the middle side topwise."

And I'd like to close with an apology. I am sorry. I apologize to a certain ethnic group because I started assembling a potentially racist joke in my head. It was wrong of me to try and craft something referencing the Houston, Texas team playing the New York team and including something about "busloads of fans headed to New York." I am so, so sorry.

Random Musical Notes

I spent some time watching a concert last night so I have a series of music based commentary to share. If you don't like it, click on "like" and you won't get any more posts like this until I feel like I want to write more. You're in my house; take off your shoes.

There are 2 kinds of rock and roll drummers: beaters and bangers. I'm a banger and proud of it. While I know a little of the technical stuff, I play be listening and doing, and I build myself on unpolished, innate sense, blundering ahead by feeling my way there. I can't do fancy but I can do earnest. No beater I, even though, as I figure it, almost 100% of professional, famous, "good" and lusted after rock drummers are beaters and I respect that. It makes sense that bangers are the amateurs and I'm ok with that. My future was never written amidst the stars.

But beaters play at being bangers because they know that bangers have more fun. When Hollywood wants to present the stereotypical rock drummer, does it go for the guy who can cold read a chart during a commercial session and one-take it flawlessly? Or one who eats metronomes for breakfast and works on rudiments as foreplay? No. Hollywood calls Animal.

So I'll never do the work to cross over to Beater-ville, and I'll never have a past to be ashamed of, or to be ashamed of missing.

Questions for discussion:

Is Meg White a banger or a beater?

Is Paul McCartney the most successful banger of all time? This leads to a tangential point: is there a distinction between bangers and beaters in all areas? The person who doesn't have to work at anything to be a natural but will never be as good as the guy who builds skills by the book in order to be great. Or the person who reaches "great" by divine gift and is still making it up as he goes along (a rare commodity who makes gold without knowing a bit of chemistry).

---------------------------

I get told that I was an old man even when I was younger. This might be true -- I'll have to check the kinetoscope. Some people, it seems, were never young. They might have been less chronologically advanced, but they were still old souls. I see this in musicians especially.

Eddie Vedder, Neil Young, the members of The Band, John Fogerty, Keith Richards were all born wizened, wrinkled and jaded. They, even as children were a ragged blend of angry, cynical and aloof.

But others, like Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney will never be old regardless of what any piece of paper proclaims. They will always have the twinkle in the eye of a 17 year old boy who is just discovering joy and anger, greed and celebration in the same moment and who still see the world with an innocence and excitement that has lost since passed away in others. They have found a way to be their youth, not reminisce about it.

---------------------------

I just now realized how totally bass forward CCR's music is. The bass lines themselves are smart, flirty, insistent and incredibly solid, and the production refuses to let the bass melt into the music bed or be a supporting, background player. The bass is pushed up until it leads, growling like a horn, melodizing like a guitar, driving like a drum. I watched a 1970 concert film (Royal Albert Hall) and I have to say that they are TIGHT and their balance and mix are spot on.

Me forget not

Maybe here's what I fear -- forgetting.

In my old age, I need to have recall of all the trivia and infotainment that never lets me get bored during my internal dialogues.

Just today, I sat on the sofa for 6 full minutes because I couldn't remember Keither Richards' name. Just his name. I could picture him; I could recall one hundred and one memes about him. I could name and sing songs he wrote. I could yell "Glimmer Twins" as loud as I wanted and only mean "Mick." But I couldn't remember the name "Keith Richards." I refused to look it up and, finally and fortunately, I remembered. But the delay scared me.

I figure I will need an aide with an encyclopedic knowledge of popular culture (then and now), history and me to act as interpreter and be able to translate my half completed thoughts and sentences, my gap filled statements where I struggle to fill in important details that have camped on the Cape of My Tongue and refuse to leave on the long trek to conscious thought. That person will have to intuit my thoughts and references and provide missing facts that make my nonsense sense. Imagine how scary I'll be without my translator, lost in the middle of a thousand thoughts, none within my grasp, flailing about for words flying away.

This is what I fear -- an inability to remember, express and interact.

Rethinking Parshat Zachor

 

Before I begin I want to make very clear that I presume everything I am about to write is a product of dire ignorance on my part. I’m more than happy to be educated on this so if you know of any commentaries or midrashim which clarify, please let me know. Also, I want to make it clear that none of this is meant to cast aspersions on the Jewish practice of reading Parshat Zachor. My concerns are nit-picky. I gotta be mean.

 

Each year, we are commanded to hear the reading of Parshat Zachor, Devarim 25:17-19 which retells of the attack by Amalek. As this is in Devarim, we can assume that it was spoken/recorded/written towards the end of the Hebrews’ journeys through the wilderness. The text of this reading is as follows:

 

זָכ֕וֹר אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֥ה לְךָ֖ עֲמָלֵ֑ק בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם׃

אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כׇּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹהִֽים׃

וְהָיָ֡ה בְּהָנִ֣יחַ ה אֱלֹהֶ֣יךָ ׀ לְ֠ךָ֠ מִכׇּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ מִסָּבִ֗יב בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר ה־אֱ֠לֹהֶ֠יךָ נֹתֵ֨ן לְךָ֤ נַחֲלָה֙ לְרִשְׁתָּ֔הּ תִּמְחֶה֙ אֶת־זֵ֣כֶר עֲמָלֵ֔ק מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם לֹ֖א תִּשְׁכָּֽח

 

I looked at the commentaries (thank you Artscroll and Sefaria) and found that this was referencing an event originally recorded in Sh’mot 17, starting in verse 8. The problem is that the version recounted in Devarim is strikingly different from the events of Sh’mot! I’ll go through the various phrases and show what I’m talking about.

 

1.       בַּדֶּ֖רֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶ֥ם מִמִּצְרָֽיִם

 

When the events of Amalek’s attack took place, the people were in Refidim. It was there that the people had complained about a lack of water, shown no appreciation for Hashem’s presence and were therefore attacked by Amalek. But, again, the people were not “baderech” on any particular road. They were camped. Additionally, this encampment was on the 23^rd or Iyar according to the Seder Olam, a month after Yam Suf, after 2 other stops and the revelation at Har Sinai (see Bamidbar 33:14 for more). Why is it still reckoned by the Exodus and not marked as the path to Israel or from Har Sinai or just a next stop on their travels. In fact, 17:1 speaks of Refidim as being one of the stages of travel but does NOT connect it to yetzi’at mitzrayim. But let that be for a moment.

 

2.       אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ

 

According to the Rambam, the people had been camped at Refidim for a few days (17:1 “ועמדו יום או יומים”). So they weren’t on any literal road. But more than that, the version in Sh’mot says vayavo Amalek – not that Amalek happened upon them (korcha -- לְשׁוֹן מִקְרֶה Rashi, Dev 25:18) but that they intentionally approached the Hebrews.

 

3.       וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כׇּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ

 

Amalek, according to Devarim, cut off the stragglers. Devious and cowardly, right? Except the people were camped and had been for a couple of days. How were there stragglers?

 

4.       וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָגֵ֑עַ

 

Rashi explains that Ayef (tired) means thirsty. But according to the text, they had already been the recipients of a miracle and there was water! Why would the people be thirsty? [the more homiletic sense that they were thirsting for Torah would at least reflect the loss of faith that brought about the attack, especially since Torah is equated with water, and then the “lo yarei elokim” might even refer to the Hebrews who were absent of Torah and therefore did not show proper yir’ah, but I haven’t seen, via a quick look, anyone who sees the phrase as applying to the people of Israel] Maybe the “atah” is not the people but Moshe who might have been thought to be tired and ineffective after the people’s challenge so Amalek thought that when Moshe was weak would be a good time to attack.

 

So the surprise attack on the stragglers who had fallen behind on the arduous journey is not the way the story is told in Sh’mot and one would think that details like this, the exact ones which inspire an eternal commandment would be given when the event happened, or the details given should be in accord with the way the story is retold 40 years later.

 

Then we have this notion of an obligation to erase the memory of Amalek. In Devarim, we are told that…

 

5.       וְהָיָ֡ה בְּהָנִ֣יחַ ה אֱלֹהֶ֣יךָ ׀ לְ֠ךָ֠ מִכׇּל־אֹ֨יְבֶ֜יךָ מִסָּבִ֗יב בָּאָ֙רֶץ֙

 

When Hashem gives us a respite from the enemies that surround us in our land, THEN timche the memory of Amalek (we will erase). Has that happened yet? Are we at peace with all the surrounding countries? Is there really any rest in Israel even when there isn’t a shooting war taking place? A country with peace doesn’t need a compulsory draft, doesn’t need to build walls, doesn’t need metal detectors at every entrance and doesn’t need to worry, daily, that its children might not come home. We are clearly not at the time when the name will be erased, and those enemies are not Amalek, because we will only have to deal with Amalek when all the other enemies are done, and they are not.

 

That hearkens back to what Hashem actually said in Sh’mot. There, Hashem said that at some indeterminate, future time “macho emche” I will certainly erase. Hashem will do the erasing and not just yet. This is a promise that Hashem will do his part, a first person declaration of certainty (the doubled verb indicates the absolute inevitability) for us to rely on. And if we look at the verb in Devarim, the text reads “timche et…” you will erase, but not as a tzivui/command! This comes as a statement of future fact. We are not being given an order, we are told what will happen.

 

It could be that Hashem is promising us that at some future time, he will take care of the physical Amalek, the one who came up to us while we were encamped and who attacked us for no reason. We will fight them and Hashem will make sure that they are bodily destroyed. But when Moshiach comes and Hashem has helped us reach peace with our surrounding neighbors, then WE will automatically erase the thoughts of Amalek from our knowledge base – but not the physical group. Their nefarious deeds and history will still be known, but the evil that they represent, the kind that is capable of attacking the weak and defenseless, will simply be gone from the world and we cannot forget that promise that Hashem will make us a world in which no one will want to pursue the kind of evil epitomized by Amalek. This is a conceptual/spiritual erasing, as human nature will go through a shift. We won’t have to be commanded – that erasing will just happen.

 

So why, then, are we commanded to read Parshat Zachor each year? Is it to stoke the flames of our hatred and give us a convenient scapegoat which we can blame for everything that has gone wrong? No, quite the opposite. Evil is everywhere now – we can run into it at home or on the road and it attacks us in open and in secret ways. But Parshat Zachor is a promise of a future time when that will no longer happen, creating an opportunity to reinvigorate our faith: not to remember what happened in Sh’mot, but to look forward to the promised change that will come once we merit the arrival of the future king Moshiach.

Take That

My schoolyard taunting skills were both strong and weak. Because they were more technical and complex than the traditional taunts, they were more involved and took longer, thereby making them witheringly mean but inevitably less effective.

The old stand by of "I'm rubber, you are glue" was delivered as "I'm rubber, like a vulcanized rubber, and you're glue, but a glue that doesn't work on rubber -- it works on words, though, so if you say things, they are repulsed by my elastic surface and adhere to you, thereby being applicable to you and not me."

When I saw two young people near each other, I began the sign-song "I see ____ and _____ sitting in a tree, and this is dangerous enough but they alse are sharing germs and practicing unhygienic behaviors at an age too young to be engaged in such activities."

I was also a master of attacks on parentage -- "Your mother is very large, which, in and of itself shouldn't be something we call attention to, but in her zeal to eat food, she often disregards your emotional needs!"

And let's not forget "U-G-L-Y is what you are and you have no recourse and cannot hide your identity under a presumed name. And your ugliness is more than skin deep. I mean, you are just ugly through and through. Dang. Wow. I mean, really, really ugly."

I like to think that I encouraged good health as people got many steps quickly walking away from me.

A Basic primer on truth

 My BASIC skills are rusty but I going to do this to make a point. I can't guarantee the precision of the code, but I hope you get the idea.

What follows is a Random Number Generator* that I wrote. It will generate a Random Number* between 1 and 50.

10 Let X=RND(50)

20 if X= 46 goto 10

30 print x

40 print "type 1 to get another random number. Type anything else to exit"

50 input y

60 if y=1 then goto 10 else end

*except not 46

=======

If you didn't see the code, you would believe me when I said that this is a random number generator. We defer and don't investigate when we get numbers from a supposed authority.

A quick movie follow up

Just for posterity's sake...

I watched Ip Man 2 last night. 

It is, technically, far superiod to the first movie. The quality of camera and film are much improved and the acting is also much better. It seems somehow more "professiona;" and on the whole, the movie holds together as more organized. That being said, there is much more of a traditional story-telling vibe about it. In fact, I would say that the movie, still exploring the same themes of loyalty and family, plus the quest for superiority over other pugilistic forms (which, symbolically, still stand in for the larger political and social influences of various cultures while the Chinese voice struggles to stand firm and unique even as it fights within to find its single, representative style), morphs into Rocky 3.

Friends become enemies, enemies become friends, lessons are learned, good prevails through tragedy. Babies are born, dust is raised and sandwiches are served. Fin.

On to Ip Man 3 I think...