Book review - "1920 - The Year of the Six Presidents"

I just finished reading another book (six so far this year!). It was "1920 - The Year of the Six Presidents" by David Pietrusza. This book tells the story of the 1920 presidential election and the six former or future presidents who played roles in this election. The presidents are:

1. Theodore Roosevelt, who previously served as president from 1901-1909. After a failed third party run in 1912, he was considered the front-runner for the 1920 Republican nomination. However, he died in 1919, throwing the process into turmoil (TR's death means that technically, the book is misnamed. But I guess six is more dramatic than five.)
2. Woodrow Wilson, the current president, who was considering a run for an unprecedented third term. However, poor health (which was mostly hidden from the public) prevented this.
3. Warren Harding (SPOILER ALERT), who won the 1920 election.
4. Calvin Coolidge, Harding's running mate (ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT) who became president upon Harding's death in 1923.
5. Herbert Hoover, who did great work as part of the Wilson administration; administering aid to war-torn Europe.
6. Franklin Roosevelt, who ran for Vice President as James Cox's running mate for the Democratic party.

The first several chapters focus on short biographies of each of the above men. Then we move to the primaries and the campaign. I was amazed at how much politics have changed in the past 90 years. These were the days of the "smoke-filled rooms", where deals were cut to determine who the candidates would be. The candidates did very little campaigning; Harding spent most of the time at home in Ohio, giving speeches from his front porch to those who came to see him. The major issues of the day included Prohibition, voting rights for women, and whether the US should join the League of Nations (Wilson's forerunner of the United Nations).

The book was well-written. Even though the results are already known, there was an air of suspense to the narrative. I also found some interesting insight to the lives of these men who each played major roles in the shaping of America in the first half on the 20th century. Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone who has an interest in American politics and elections or this period of history.

Book review - "The Yankee Years"

I just finished reading "The Yankee Years" by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci. It is the story of Torre's 12 seasons as the Yankees' manager. The 475-page book could be summed up as follows: "Jeter good. A-Rod bad."

Actually, it's not quite that simple. The bigger story is: "Players who were on the championship teams of 1996-2000 good. Players who joined the Yankees in 2001 and later bad."

I have no doubt that Torre was treated poorly by George Steinbrenner and the rest of the Yankees front office during the last couple of years of his tenure. However, the book seemed to be just a long string of complaints about how things weren't as good as they had been during the dynasty. I think we all have a tendency to long for the "good old days", not realizing that those days weren't always so good.

The book ends when Torre's contract isn't renewed after the 2007 season. Since then, he has gone on to manage the Dodgers, while the Yankees won the 2009 World Series. It was a shame how things ended, but I guess that all good things eventually come to an end.

Final thought on the book: an interesting read, but I'm glad I got it from the library rather than paying for it. Overall, it was worth reading for Yankees fans.

efficient vs exciting

Like many people, I watched the Super Bowl this past week. I was happy that the Saints won for a couple of reasons. One, when I first started following football, the Saints were usually among the worst teams in the league. So I always kind of rooted for them as my second favorite team, behind the Steelers.

The other reason I was happy about the results of this Super Bowl is that I didn't want the Colts to win. I don't feel any animosity towards the team, and Peyton Manning seems to be a good guy. However, the Colts play a style of football that I find uninteresting. Their offense is designed to pick up 10 yard gains seemingly at will. There seems to be a never-ending string of short slant passes. While it's admirable that the team has developed such a cold efficiency, it is dreadful to watch.

I think that a parallel can be drawn to baseball. In recent years, many teams have developed a "take and rake" offensive philosophy. That is, they are willing to take a lot of pitches while waiting for a pitch they can hit for a home run. This style results in a lot of walks and strike outs; which are the least interesting aspects of baseball.

In both sports, the "best" offense is the least entertaining. As a fan, I want to see stolen bases and extra-base hits in baseball; and long passes in football. Quite frankly, this has turned me off somewhat from both sports. I'm much less inclined to watch entire games. I doubt that I'm alone in this. But since these styles have been determined to be more effective, we're probably not going back. I just find this a little sad.