More fun with public transportation

Even after nine years of riding L.A.'s Blue Line (light rail), I still haven't seen it all.

One morning last week, at the next to last station along the ride into downtown, a middle-aged woman who had been sitting in a middle row of the car (and who had been speaking with quite vulgar language while talking with a man in another row) got up and walked to the front of the car as the train was coming to a stop. She didn't immediately get off. Just before the doors were to close she turned and spit at a man near the door, then she jumped off and high-tailed it down the platform as the doors shut.

The man had not, as far as I could tell, spoken with her at all.

And he was in a wheelchair.

Seriously. A wheelchair. (I didn't notice that at the time, since I was seated near the back of the car; I didn't spot that detail until we both got off at the last station, which gave the incident an even more bizarre tone that it had when I saw it happen.)

I wasn't paying attention to everything that happened during the 50-minute ride, but I got on before either of them, and had there been some altercation earlier (for which projecting spittle toward him was due payback) I have to imagine I would have noticed it. So, as far as I can tell, the man had said nor done anything to the woman. Perhaps he had glanced at her with a disapproving look, since she had (as I mentioned) been speaking loudly and including just about every profanity in the book.

I'm not sure whether she was racist (as the wheelchaired man was of a different race than she was) or prejudiced against the handicapped (because they get the good spots on the train?) or, my personal theory, she was kind of batshit crazy.

However, even that isn't entirely consistent; were she mentally impaired (let's put it that way), she wouldn't care about waiting until the last second and diving off as the doors shut so there was no possibility of pursuit (by anyone); that's conniving, and of course, cowardly, which are not traits I attribute to the even marginally insane. Thus, even that theory doesn't hold up. So, really, we'll never know.

Here's the thing: At no point did I notice the man make any attempt to wipe anything off his person or property. Therefore it appeared that despite whatever motivated the woman to launch the loogie at him she couldn't get enough distance or have sufficient aim to hit a man only four feet away.

So it boils down to this: If you're a loud, vulgar, inconsiderate, likely prejudiced, cowardly idiot who feels the need for very tepid vengeance toward a stranger, make sure you have sufficient saliva and practiced accuracy before attempting such a plan. Otherwise you'll not only look like an asshole, you'll also seem the fool.

Not making an out

Although I cannot attribute it to any specific source, I get the impression there is a general impression in American society that baseball is a sport which should no longer exist. I don't know whether attendance and TV ratings really are down, but I recall hearing or reading (or perhaps merely imagining) that it is accused of being too slow, of not having anything to capture the attention of a generation who (it is glibly alleged) can barely focus on this sentence all the way to the end.

While its popularity does not put it above football, or necessarily even basketball (sports with more inherent violence or a faster pace of action), baseball persists. Player salaries continue to rise, new stadiums (stadia?) continue to be built. Ticket prices continue to go up and make it difficult for families to afford to bring children to games—which is true of all sports, but baseball is the least interesting to watch on TV, and therefore should rely on attendance in person—and seemingly the game should be pricing itself out of business, but clearly it is not.

In the sidebar article to his latest Esquire column, Chuck Klosterman attributes the continued existence of the American pastime to the way baseball allows for variable scoring. Unlike football or basketball (or even soccer), where after a team scores they must turn over possession of the ball to the other team (and therefore a team behind by more than the maximum number of points they can score in a single possession must take risks to try to get the ball back without allowing the leading team to score again or just kill time on the clock), baseball allows for a situation where, in a single swing of the bat, a team can score as many as four runs; a team can be behind by three—and in baseball it's not uncommon for three to be a sizable lead—and if they can load the bases and the batter gets a good pitch to drive over the fence, they take the lead (or win). In other sports, a score is worth a set number of points; football and basketball have variations in what a type of play can score, but that play always only counts for what it does. And there's the possession turnover thing.

What I'd first argue beyond that: Not only can one team score different point totals for the same play, baseball allows the team on offense to continue to score as long as they can do so without making three outs. Heck, they can score by doing nothing; the team on defense can, through poor pitching or errors, allow the team on offense to score through no specific effort on their part.

I realize what I suggested about baseball (following on Chuck's lead) essentially operates as a counter-argument to George Carlin's famous "Baseball and Football" routine, where he declares football's superiority by mocking more or less the exact reasons I touted as baseball's strengths.

He first did that routine back in the '70s. Baseball was already out of step with the pace of society back then. And yet it continues to exist. Maybe it's nostalgia that has yet to expire that explains that, but I'd further allege baseball better represents America.

Much of the effort is exerted by only two of the nine guys on the field. If one of those two, the pitcher, does his job really well and strikes out all the batters, the other seven players on defense can spend an entire inning just standing around, not having to run or catch or throw; their entire effort was spent trotting out to their position and warming up. Similarly, if that one guy does his job poorly and walks four batters in a row, the other team scores without having to even make contact with the bat.

It's a game whereby one can achieve victory simply by allowing the other side to screw up. On the other hand, it's a game where one gets no breaks; just because one team scored does not mean the other gets its turn to score; they have to keep trying to stop the other team three times before they get their chance.

Unlike any other major sport, baseball involves a peculiar combination of possible laziness and tenacious effort. What's about that would not appeal to the American sensibility, in this or any other era?

Right this way

Many photos have been posted over at the useless photo site. You can head on down the not-quite-a-rabbit-hole by clicking that link.

What's your function?

Take the line "George W. Bush is an idiot" and precede it with the declaration of either "I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat" to make a compound sentence. What conjunction would you choose to combine the clauses?

For the elephant, likely it would have to be "I am a Republican but George W. Bush is an idiot."
For the donkey, it might go "I am a Democrat and George W. Bush is an idiot."

(If you used "or" then you're just being silly.)

The conjunction does not merely put the two together; it suggests shame or glee. One little variation and the compound sentence takes on completely opposing tones.

Language is neat.

Rocky times

An important announcement:
No, it's not that new photos have been posted on useless photo site.

It's that for the second time in as many weekends I posted photos taken within the past few weeks (unlike the four-month delay I typically have between shooting and posting).

I'm not saying this is a harbinger of any impending catastrophic event, but if you do have a higher power in which you believe, you may wish to make sure you're on good terms. Just in case.

Please enjoy. For as long as we all can.