• 15Dec 09

  Weekly Update #234

  I tend not to discuss local news in this blog, mostly because 90% of my readers aren't from Chicago or the outlying suburbs, but there is something that has been dwelling on my mind:

  We Downers Grove residents tend to associate the fourth weekend in June with Heritage Fest. Launched in 1982 to celebrate the town's sesquicentennial, Heritage Fest is a three-day party held on the streets of downtown Downers. To some degree, it's a miniature version of the Taste of Chicago; there's carnival rides, live music, and all sorts of delicious yet nutritionally-challenged cuisine. It's a cherished community event and a profitable one to boot, so I was quite shocked to learn that the village had cancelled Heritage Fest for 2010.

  I first heard about the cancellation on Facebook about two weeks ago, thinking that this was some goofy rumor. Early last week, however the decision to skip Heritage Fest for a year --and maybe more-- became a reality. Apparently the village has a $4.5 million budget shortfall, and something had to give. (Yes, the population of DG is just under 49,000, but we're still considered a village for zoning purposes.) For a generation of Downers Grove residents who have expected Heritage Fest every June like a morning sunrise, it's as shocking as it is a sad indictator of the economy. As this article implies, the tourism that Hertiage Fest brought to Downers Grove and the sales tax revenue it generated will be deeply missed. The village council has left the door open to private sponsorship or even a fundraiser, though I'm doubtful that anyone will chip in the amount of money needed to keep the festival going.

  In the end, losing Heritage Fest may not necessarily be the end of the world. The success of our festival inspired other towns in the western Chicago suburbs to launch their own hometown fiestas, or if they already had one, to at least up the ante. I guess driving two towns over for elephant ears will make do for a year, though it won't feel the same. Plus, it's not like this was the only event that the village council chose to cancel; our annual ice sculpture contest was benched for 2010, and the National Cycling Championships will also have to find a new home next year. Nevertheless, it's a depressing sign of the times when nobody can afford to have fun. Then again, maybe God is punishing the village for booking Foghat for the 2007 fest.

  Next week: the year in music, 2009.

  • Posted Dec 15, 2009 6:35 am PT
  • Category: Opinion
  • 5 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 8Dec 09

  Weekly Update #233

  The cover of Time magazine shared my sentiments about President Obama's foriegn policy: it's his war now. After weeks of internal debate, our Commander in Chief ordered 30,000 troops to be deployed to Afghanistan by the end of the month. The surge has been approached with mild criticism from both parties, the primary complaint being the cost of sending so many arms overseas. Perhaps the most devisive aspect as Obama's announcement of the surge, a pragmatic and business-like speech held at West Point last Tuesday. The reviews ranged from "overlong" to "not embarassing," and indeed it was a blunt statement of facts, a far cry from the motivational and vaguely patriotic monologues that we're used to hearing from our 44th president. The respect for reality was apparent, though for many it was a bitter pill to swallow.

  Regardless, the war in Afghanistan has been a systematic botch job, but we can't quite pull out or sweep it under the rug until we regain the momentum that we had when the United States first invaded in 2001. President Obama inherited this war and whether we like it or not, he can do whatever he damn well pleases. If the Bush-Gates surge of 2007 could save face in Iraq, could the Obama-Gates surge of 2009 have a similar effect on Afghanistan? Better yet, can we get the job done in 19 months, or is there some element of flexibility? Is Al Qaida really down for the count, as some intelligence reports claim? Those are all excellent questions, but for now the country that will feel the impact most is Afghanistan, not the U.S. This is a crucial message to our enemies that we're not casting a blind eye on their antics, and to the Afghan government to shape up and learn how to defend themselves.

  Other notes:

  + Two weeks ago, some rich guy and his trophy wife crashed a state dinner. See? There is a way to explain that news story in one sentence.

  + Tiger Woods had a fender bender. See? I just did the same thing twice.

  + What a difference a month makes. After lamenting the state of my fantasy football team in WU #228, I'm now riding a five-game winning streak. As I write this, I'm in third place out of six, though I'm still next-to-last in total points. I guess my small-ball approach is working.

  + To anyone that might be in the Chicago area later this month, my Improv Level C class at Second City will be doing a half-hour show at the SC Mainstage, 1616 N. Wells on December 20th. We'll be performing from 12:30 to 1p; admission is two dollars. For those who can't make it, wish me luck!

  • Posted Dec 8, 2009 7:37 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 10 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 1Dec 09

  Weekly Update #232

  Nothing quite piques my curiousity during the baseball off-season like the announcement of the latest Hall of Fame ballot. The latest roster, released last week, is no less intriguing than any other year. Of the 26 names listed, 15 are on the ballot for the first time; all of these newcomers retired during or after the 2004 season, as you have to be out of the majors five full years to be eligible. Obviously, a lot of these fresh faces are filler and probably won't be considered for next year's vote. (I dare you to justify the Hall of Fame qualities of David Segui and Shane Reynolds.) From a talent standpoint, it's a more threadbare ballot than some of us are accustomed to. The rampant steroid usage of the late '90s and early '00s enabled aging stars to add about five years to their careers, resulting in a dearth of sure-fire inductees calling it quits midway through this decade, if not for several years to come. In the eyes of the most jaded and cynical baseball fans it may seem like a throughly unappetizing ballot, but there are three names that I wish would be put into serious consideration: longtime bridesmaids Bert Blyleven and Lee Smith and newcomer Barry Larkin.

  Let's start with the Flying Dutchman. Granted, his career win-loss record is 287-250, and usually 300 wins is guaranteed admission. People tend to forget that Bert spent three years on a Pittsburgh team that scored in bunches in the late innings of the game, resulting in a unwieldy number of no-decisions, including a staggering 20 in 1979. That .534 career winning percentage may not look impressive, but it's better than Hall of Famers like Eppa Rixey (266-251 lifetime), Teddy Lyons (260-230), and even Nolan Ryan (324-292). Of course, wins don't tell half the story; Blyleven is 5th on the all-time strikeout list and only eight men have more career shutouts. Plus, he might've had the sweetest curveball anybody's ever seen; I'm sure there's clips on YouTube or Metacafe that'll prove my point.

  No statistic has revolutionized the worth of a pitcher in the past half-century quite like the save, which makes the constant snubbing of Lee Smith a mystery of sorts. Smitty's 478 plugs were the standard until about three years ago, and the man who surpassed him (Trevor Hoffmann) looks like a borderline lock for the Hall. Bruce Sutter only had seven or eight dominant seasons out of the bullpen, yet he was inducted in 2006. Smith had arguably ten great years as a closer, finishing with 35 or more saves six times. Having a career 3.03 ERA doesn't hurt, either.

  As for Larkin, he's not a first-ball Hall of Famer though I'm sure the sportswriters will come around to this guy sooner than later. A 12-time All-Star and 7-time Silver Slugger, "Lark" might've been the quintessential National League shortshop of the 1990s. Nobody would mistake him for a power hitter, though he squeezed out doubles like nobody's business and his career .371 on-base percentage was nothing to scoff at. His one weakness was durability; in 19 seasons in the majors he played at least 120 games just 10 times. Nevertheless, he was a team leader who willed the Reds to two division titles and one championship in the early-to-mid '90s, and having to toil under an owner like Marge Schott has to be worth something.

  So what about everybody else? As a Royals fan, I grew up admiring Kevin Appier; he should be on Kansas City's wall of honor but his career stats won't bat any eyelashes in Cooperstown. My support for Mark McGwire has waned over the years, and his new gig as the Cardinals' hitting coach feels like a last-ditch attempt at public atonement. Andre Dawson's career on-base percentage is laughable, Alan Trammell was a sac-fly artist with an above-average glove, and Dale Murphy was little more than a power-hitting milquetoast. Freshman like Roberto Alomar, Edgar Martinez, and Fred McGriff will linger on the ballot for years, too divisive to get the necessary 75% to be inducted but too above-average to be ignored altogether. Maybe --and I mean maybe-- Don Mattingly will get the call from the Veterans Committee, but I'm totally impartial. If you're looking for marquee names, wait until 2011; after all, who's gonna get in the way of Jeff Bagwell?

  • Posted Dec 1, 2009 5:57 am PT
  • Category: Sports
  • 5 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »