Waffle House

Belgian_Waffles.JPGAfter spending the last three days in Brussels, it isn’t a stretch to say I have waffles on the brain. Frites and moules, too, of course, but mainly waffles. I mean, if you can’t get a good waffle in Belgium, where can you find one?

Well, after further consideration of that question, there are two answers that pop into my head. Major League Baseball and American politics. Let’s start with politics.

Of course we all remember the 2004 election and John Kerry’s famous non-answers that led to his being described as a waffler. I’m no fan of George Bush but right or wrong or just plain misguided, at least the guy could give you an answer. Kerry was so far inside his own head he practically turned inside out.

And even more recently, Joe Lieberman seems to have taken up the mantle with his seeming indecision on the necessity of a “public option” in the health care bill. Despite proposing a de facto public option in the past, he said he couldn’t vote for the bill this time around with the plan in it. Of course he attempted to parse his words in true Clintonian fashion but at the end of the day we all saw him for what he was. A waffler.

Those two guys don’t have anything on Bud Selig, though. He has been getting away with murder on his watch. Like a modern-day Nero, he’s fiddling (or waffling) as MLB is burning. The whole PED debate? It never should have been a debate. If MLB under Selig’s not-so-watchful eye had simply instituted a testing program similar to what other pro sports were doing, there’s no way that guys like Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa would have ever gotten away with their shenanigans. And more than that, we wouldn’t have to argue about the inclusion of asterisks in the record book.

Here’s what it all comes down to. Waffles may be delicious, especially when topped with whipped cream, strawberries and hot chocolate sauce, but they aren’t so great when they affect our lives and the things we care about. I’m pretty sure even a Belgian could agree to that.

-A

9 comments

  1. bklyntrolleyblogger

    I passed through Belgium in ’89. I remember paying 45 francs for a Coke. I’m down with Bud Bashing. He deserves it. And I hear what you’re saying. But Mr. Blue and Mr. Red, our problem lies with the Union unfortunately, not Bud “thenuttyprofessor” Selig. To our dismay, testing and everything you can imaging to rid the game of PEDs, HAS to be collectively bargained. Baseball, like any other collectively bargained unit, i.e. any business with union employees – the company, or in this case, Baseball, can not unilaterally impose it’s will. They have to sit down and hash out careful contract language about the Do’s, Don’ts and Absolutely Nots. Then both sides must abide by contract language when dealing with eachother. I know it sucks. I’m with you and would love for Bud to have been more proactive and intrusive. He could have screamed to highHolyheaven, but the union was not contractually obligated to respond or act upon anything. Donald Fehr was the true Phantom Menace of the steroid era. He knows who’s on THE LIST. Trust me though, I am no fan of Selig, Donald Fehr is your man. Additionally, he split town just like Spiro Agnew broke out on Richard Nixon just before things were going to get hot. Please tell me you get that reference. Blog ya L8tr.

    http://theBrooklynTrolleyBlogger.mlblogs.com/
    http://baseballtrolleyblogger.blogspot.com/

    Reply
  3. greg1969

    Appropriate reference to Agnew indeed, TrolleyBlogger.
    I could not agree more with TrolleyBlogger, though. Selig could have been more forceful at times, but, as the Mitchell Report delineates, Selig was somewhat AHEAD of the curve, even more than some of his predecessors. His main problem was that he was weak, and sought consensus more than forceful action. But the Union, unfortunately, between Fehr and Orza, was even more complicit in stonewalling most of the actions, incl. partial ones, that Selig did encourage. (Before that, the Ferguson Jenkins Decision further tied his hands on being able to act unilaterally). Selig was far from a great commish, but he gave it the old college try. But unless and until these issues are collectively bargained, the issue will not be resolved without court actions.
    The fact that there is almost no regulation of the GNCs of the world, the manufacturers and distributors of these “supplements”, does not help. (Leave aside that these laws are so different from country to country!) Fehr made the point that if Congress is REALLY serious about the issue, they’ll do something about the supplements industry (and so-called “training institutes” could be added to that “to-do” list). Point is, there is only so much Selig can do. To his detriment, he wanted to be all things to all people, and so left himself in an even weaker position.

    Reply
  4. redstatebluestate

    Because Al is off gallivanting in Europe, let me speak for him here (cuz believe it or not, we actually agree on this)…
    You both make valid points and I respect your opinions… still, it’s a lot like sayin’ Calvin Schiraldi was responsible for the ’86 BoSox loss, not Buckner. Yeah, it makes sense and I’m sure if we dug enough we could find even more culprits, more mishaps to blame, but in the end — the last stop was Buckner. He missed the ball. Likewise, Selig muffed this one. The Union definitely stonewalled… but what were they gonna do? Go on strike again? No way… not unless they wanted to see baseball die. Selig was weak, as Greg points out. And if you’re the last stop, ya can’t be weak. You just can’t. You gotta get in there and stop it before it’s too late and he didn’t. He dropped the ball. It went through his legs. He failed.
    –Jeff

    Reply
  5. greg1969

    Only partly true, Jeff. Buckner’s play was only the end of Game 6, not Game 7. Yes, he was the LAST (not the only!) culprit in Game 6, not, though, of the entire WS.
    Selig has muffed this one, but it is largely because he doesn’t want a court fight, which is what would happen if he were to act unilaterally–and we’d reprise the Jenkins decision. Selig, or the next commish, may have to resort to that to resolve the issue. Perhaps the next commish, and the next MLBPA rep, will act more forcefully. Unless the new commish does this, though, the result will be more of the same.

    Reply
  6. redstatebluestate

    Fair enough. Rare is it that someone uses my own analogy to prove me wrong. Haha. I blame Al. He wrote this. LOL. No matter what, I think we’re all in agreement that change is necessary… not just a change in the office, but in methodology — in protecting what it is we baseball nuts hold as sacred.
    –Jeff

    Reply

Leave a comment