New Mexico Political Journal
mobile icon
New Mexico Political Journal

.

Show Subnavigation
  • Home
  • About NMPJ
    • About
    • Editor
  • Feedback
  • Advertise on NMPJ

FacebookTwitter

If you read New Mexico Political Journal from a Facebook link, and appreciate the coverage of events, please “like” NMPJ on Facebook.

Intelligent Political Discourse - for the Thoughtful New Mexican

Warning: If you don't have an IQ of at least 110 (on any of several Standardized Intelligence Tests) please DO NOT enter this website. Synaptic and neurotransmission damage may occur. NMPJ isn't responsible for anyone not adhering to this disclaimer.

All Posts

See archives

Search posts:

Browse posts by tags:
  • 2015 (0)

Trump Impeachment and Textualism.

01/25/2021

Textualism Again: The Democrats’ Impeachment Scheme Offers an Opportunity to See the Differences between Conservative Jurisprudence and that of the Leftists

The Democrats are now bent on “impeaching” former President Trump.

However, the Constitution is very, very explicit on this. It really isn’t subject to creative interpretation. But creative interpretation—trying to claim that the Constitution or some particular statutes say something they clearly do not is the specialty of the modern Democratic Party and the American Hard Left that it represents.

Here is what the Constitution, in Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 states:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…”

This is what authorizes the impeachment of a federal officer, which in turn authorizes that officer’s removal from office. It also, as can be seen above, authorizes the possible disqualification from future office. But the latter punishment depends on the wording of the articles of impeachment and the decision by Congress to include or not tack on this additional punishment.

For example, Congress has a sitting member right now whom it impeached and removed from a federal judgeship. His name is Alcee Hastings, a Democrat representing Florida’s 20th Congressional District.

Congress—for whatever reason—chose only to remove him from office, and did not choose to include in the impeachment proceedings the option they had of blocking him from future office.

However, there is no provision for Congress to leap over the impeachment and conviction process and simply bar someone from office. Additionally, without the former act (impeachment and removal) the latter sanction does not—and cannot—apply. You have to take the first step before you can decide to include the second step.

And if a president has not been constitutionally impeached and removed (which someone who is NOT president cannot possibly have happen to him) then the Senate is wholly without any constitutional power to disqualify this non-officeholder from future office.

Why is this a Case of Textualism? (Or possibly also “Original Understanding”?)

The Constitution says that impeachment is about “removal.” How is that term understood?

Merriam-Webster defines “removal” as follows:

  • the act of moving or taking something away from a place
  • the act of making something go away so that it no longer exists
  • the act of forcing someone to leave a job

Which one of these definitions fits former President Trump, who is now a private citizen?

  • How will the Senate move him or take him away from a place?
  • How will the Senate make him go away so that he no longer exists?
  • How will the Senate force him to leave a job?

The answers are, of course, that they cannot do any of those things. He’s already gone.

This is yet another opportunity to clearly see the difference in the way in which Republicans and Democrats view the Constitution—and the law for that matter.

Recent Republican appointees to the courts are said to be “textualists.”

(Democrat appointees on the other hand, such as Sonia Soto-Mayor, and the much-heralded Ruth Bader Ginsburg, believe that the text is simply “incidental” to the greater meaning they may want to impose over and above the text. In other words, whatever the law says is secondary to the meaning they want to give to the law—a “meaning” that allows them to accomplish whatever public policy goal they wish to achieve.)

Textualism, quite simply put, looks to the ordinary meaning of the language of the text in question, or the passage of phrases of the law which is being examined. It is not the same as “originalism,” there are subtle differences, but the two are likely to be considered cousins, likely even first cousins.

Originalism provides for an understanding of a statutory or Constitutional passage that gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. This necessarily means that that the text reflects the ordinary meaning of the words used to create the prose.

Roberts will not Preside

We now hear that Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over the upcoming sham “trial.” If this is true, it is correct and proper, for the event is not legitimate. It is best that someone well known to be merely a political hack, such as Senator Patrick Leahy, preside over such a Kangaroo-ish exercise.

If Roberts were to appear, a Senator should make a floor motion that the proceedings be dissolved as unconstitutional. Were such a thing to occur, Roberts would be on the spot.

If he is a textualist, or even an originalist, he would immediately grant the motion. If such a thing occurred and he refused the motion, then he would show himself to be on the same jurisprudential plane as RBG or SS-M.


Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


The Evolution of Twitter

01/16/2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

 

 

 


INAUGURATION: SHOULD TRUMP ATTEND?

01/15/2021
Guest Editorial, by Editor Emeritus, former State Senator Rod Adair
 
ANSWER: Yes. Of Course. Certainly. All officials should.
 
This is an easy one. The American Experiment is filled with ritual, a wide array of symbolic gestures and public ceremonies carried out by the entire American population. They are among the very few things that serve to unite the population, however divisive certain ongoing public policy debates may be.
 
These rituals include such mundane things as the Pledge of Allegiance (probably overdone, granted, but it's a shared ritual—a cultural and political touchstone) before every Kiwanis or Rotary Club meeting, or at schools and all kinds of community gatherings.
 
They also include the National Anthem (also probably overdone, but see above) before sporting events and scores of civic gatherings every day. *
Perhaps most important, certain political rites are also knitted into the social fabric—ceremonies that serve to cement respect for the arrangements of institutions and conventions that have been agreed upon by Founders and respected by generations that have followed.
 
All these rituals reinforce the timeless and unchanging commitment to the principles on which a government—and a society—is based. Questions of public policy can reach such divisive levels that these rituals may be the only public acts that can bring otherwise harshly opposed groups together.
As is the case with state funerals (the incredible ritual of the JFK funeral comes to mind), inaugurations, and even swearing-in ceremonies are important examples of American political rites of passage and recognition.
 
Just days ago, both Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence swore in new representatives and senators, many of whom have openly manifested the strongest opposition to the presiding officers. Photographs were taken, family members introduced, pleasantries were exchanged.
These ceremonies don't change any of the participants' views on public policy, but they do serve to remind both the participants and the public at large that there are certain aspects of our national polity—our shared corporate experience—that yet exist above and beyond specific disputes that are constantly occurring in a representative democracy.
 
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT and HERBERT HOOVER
 
Perhaps no two presidents hated each other more than FDR and Hoover. Their 1932 campaign was bitter, incendiary. FDR would never get over his hatred. He carried it to extremes, personally intervening to ensure that the monumental achievement of what is today known as "Hoover Dam" would be named "Boulder Dam."
 
He actually got that petty—and got the planned name nixed. So the dam was known as Boulder Dam for about a dozen years. (Only after FDR's death did Congress pass a resolution permanently changing the name to Hoover Dam.)
 
Yet, in the photo shown below, we see Hoover and FDR riding together to the Inauguration. They either did not speak, or said only a couple of words (accounts vary), but that is not the point. They did this for the sake of the American Experiment. So should Trump. So should everyone.
And there should be no "protests" at state capitols either. Yes. I know that 70 members of Congress, led by John Lewis and others, refused to attend the 2017 Inauguration.
 
But is the American goal really supposed to be that of emulating Democrat politicians? Furthering hatred? Copying them by saying ________ (fill in the blank) is not MY president! Are we going to have these "rituals" replace the timeless ones every four years now?
 
Yeah, the Democrats are hypocrites. Don't worry, I get that. They have all forgotten all of their statements made for the past four years. But again, do the Democrats really set the standard for behavior in a political setting? (To ask the question is to answer it.)
We have something above and greater than ourselves to strive for. And we should do that.
 
(And yes, I now the Adamses did what they did. But they were taciturn, stubborn New England Yankee Puritan stock, who pretty much didn't like anybody all that much. I love them both, but I don't believe they did the right thing.)

NOTE: This is one of the myriad reasons why Colin Kaepernick's actions (lauded by dumb, often Republican, virtue signalers) are so inappropriate.

Yes, of course he has "free speech." No one disputes that, but that is also not the question. If we are to have every public ritual in the American Experience invaded and co-opted for personal grievances (especially one so unimportant as a multimillionaire's playing time) then let's not have them at all. After all, no society, no government will ever achieve perfection. There will always be some grievance or fault that someone can point to and say "I'm sitting down." It makes no sense at all—provided one takes the time to reflect, rather than worry about virtue signaling.
 
All 330,000,000 Americans can point to something, some gripe, some airing of grievances, that reflects an identifiable imperfection in the country.
But public civic rituals are not the place for personal lobbying. (Of course, the dumbass virtue signallers will try to assert that Kaepernick "did it for social justice." But this is stupidly ignoring the fact that it never occurred to him to do that till he got benched.)

Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

 

IMPEACHMENT? A Few Thoughts...

01/14/2021
Guest Editorial, by Editor Emeritus, Former State Senator Rod Adair
 
Everyone knows I am emphatically not a Trumpista.* But—as should be the case with all Americans—we have to look at the question of impeachment in a very dispassionate manner. Impeachment is an extremely serious act.
 
Regardless of one’s political persuasion, it is palpably obvious that this procedure is being pursued for purely partisan purposes: to try to put both House and Senate Republicans in an extremely difficult position. That may bring a smile to the faces of many Democrats, but is that what this Constitutional provision is for?
 
As Professor Jonathan Turley has noted, there is no reasonable way to make Trump responsible for the acts of a very small, extremely stupid minority (far less than even a fraction of 1%) of the 100,000 people who attended a rally. If this were a serious proceeding, Congress would:
 
??hold hearings, to determine exactly what effect Trump’s words actually had
??take testimony from eyewitnesses, law enforcement, and perpetrators
??look carefully at existing statutes that address the very same charges that are being thrown around, such as “incitement”
??follow a thorough process, as has been followed more than 60 times in impeachment proceedings against federal officials
 
All of this is pure tribalist partisanship. And it is misdirected—there is no need to do this in order to deny Trump another run for the presidency. News Flash: Trump is a spent force. He will never get the Republican nomination again.
 
Additionally, the Senate cannot act on “removal.” Impeachment is for sitting officers only. You can't “remove” someone who isn't there. (Yes, I know Congress did it once before in a fit of pique. But its effect was invalid then and remains so.)
 
IMPLICATIONS for the FUTURE
 
It is indisputable that members of Congress have used vastly more “inciteful” rhetoric than Trump has ever done—and there have been numerous examples of such. This is without even considering the scores of incredibly wild exhortations to murder, assassination, arson, bombings, and other acts of violence offered by celebrities and politicians alike.
 
WHATABOUTISM?
 
One of the favorite techniques taught to Social Justice Warriors is to immediately dismiss the desire for fairness/comparable treatment for both the right and the left as “whataboutism.” They immediately parrot this charge. Ironically, I had a Trump-hating defense attorney whip out the term on me last week.
 
An attorney! Just thoughtlessly parroting away as if making a serious, original argument.
 
How very weird America has become. That even attorneys (very serious professionals) are moved to parrot rather than think.
 
NO. A desire for comparable treatment is NOT the made-up term “whataboutism.” It is something called the 14th Amendment: all Americans are supposed to enjoy “equal protection of the laws.”
 
If this defense attorney were to point out that a client is being prosecuted for something no other New Mexican has been prosecuted for (despite numerous instances of the very same act) would a court respond: “Oh, that's ‘whataboutism.’” One would hope not. We would hope that a serious discussion of “selective prosecution” would follow. Yet outside the courtroom (in today’s tribal environment) even otherwise serious people just parrot slogans rather than reflective thoughts.
 
PREDICTIONS? Hopes?
 
The House will impeach Trump. After all, it is made up of a majority of tribalists, not statesmen. But we can hope that someday a new Congress will use this precedent to impeach some of its own members for having used far more “inciteful” speech than Trump—rhetoric that resulted in and continuously justified the numerous riots, deaths, and destruction of property that took place in 2020.

* And that, furthermore, I very sadly (for 3 years) predicted his quite unnecessary demise IF he did not modulate his rhetoric so that the 4-5% muddled middle of the electorate would be able to concentrate on his accomplishments rather than his personality.


Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


Apple's Message to America

01/13/2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


WORLD LEADERS SUPPORT ROD ADAIR—There Should be No "Digital Oligarchy" Censoring People

01/12/2021
Just four days after our Guest Editorial by Editor Emeritus Rod Adair, a number of world leaders have come forth to denounce the "digital oligarchy" which is silencing voices with which they disagree while amplifying voices with whom they agree.
 
Parody
 
(AP) Despite criticism from Democrats and lock-step media types four days ago, former State Senator Rod Adair (R-Roswell) has today been joined by unlikely worldwide allies from both the Left and Center, in his years-old assessment of the dangers of having 3 or 4 individuals left in total control of public discourse and debate. Leaders from Germany, France, Australia, and Norway have sided with his analysis.
 
Adair, reached at his home in Roswell, was reserved, if not somewhat diffident, merely commenting:
 
"If you're someone who is pushing left-wing ideology, tactics, power, and control, and word comes back that you've lost Angela Merkel, well, you're just probably on the wrong track. If it takes an East German—for crying out loud—to tell you that you don't stand for freedom, or freedom of speech, well, wow, just wow. Maybe now some people will pay attention. But, all in all, I'm not that optimistic.”
When asked why he still seemed doubtful about the future of American political discourse, Adair responded:
 
“I would estimate that about 95% of Americans are now totally tribal. I can rarely have an intelligent conversation with anyone anymore. I get calls from highly educated—or at least highly credentialed—people, professionals, doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers, managers, supervisors, businessmen and businesswomen, and it takes no more than about 30 seconds for them to go tribal. Trying to reason, or talk sense with folks, well, it’s not a good look right now.”
Reuters, commenting on Merkel’s denouncing Facebook, Twitter, and social media, noted that:
 
“Germans are wary of infringements of free speech, partly thanks to memories of the Communists and of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, totalitarian regimes that ruled on German soil during the 20th century, both of which used violence and censorship to seize and hold power.”
 
Merkel got her start in East German politics before forging a highly successful career in the West.
 
Asked if he felt "vindicated," Adair replied:
 
"Nah, not really, a prophet is without honor in his own country. Someone said that once. I forget who.

Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


COMPARISON of the "OUTRAGE" at VIOLENCE DURING THE PAST YEAR

01/11/2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

 

 


SOCIAL MEDIA: THE COMMON CARRIER CONCEPT.

01/08/2021
Guest Editorial by Editor Emeritus, Former State Senator Rod Adair
 
I wonder if all the libertarians are still inclined to criticize me on this issue?
 
Five years ago, I asserted that social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and all others, should be classified as "common carriers," much like companies in the transportation business, or utilities and telecommunications companies.
 
In other words, those entities provide services to the general public, and cannot discriminate based on whims of the owners: If United Airlines says it has a scheduled flight from Albuquerque to Los Angeles at 10:05 AM, the owners can't stand at the gate and say, "Okay, you can board this flight because we like you, but this other person cannot—because we DON'T like him."
 
Similar regulations apply to companies that provide your basic needs: electricity, gas, telephone, cable TV, et cetera.
When I said this, I was attacked by "libertarians" for being a "big-government Republican."
 
They said that private companies need to remain, uh, private, unregulated, based solely on the free market. Uh-huh.
 
Well, what do you think now, b--ches? Social media has become gigantic and ubiquitous, almost viewed as a necessity, like your local utilities. So huge that they have an enormous impact on not only public discourse, but public opinion, and even the conduct of political campaigns, affecting even the outcome of elections.
 
And the companies controlling them decide who can and cannot communicate in the public arena. And so, how do you like them apples right about now?
 
You see, this is what separates orthodox conservative Republicans (like me) from those (on both the Left and certain elements of the right) who call us names. The difference: common-sense conservatism (orthodox conservative Republicanism) sees a role for regulation and for government, properly applied. We are not the enemy. We are the hope. At this precipitous and depressing moment in our history, we are the only hope.

Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


BIDEN IS 100% CORRECT: About BLM and Antifa

01/07/2021
President-Elect Biden says that BLM and Antifa would have been treated very differently from the Chowderhead rioters on Wednesday. He is correct.
 
As proven throughout 2020, the police would NOT have stopped the riot if it had been carried out by BLM or Antifa. They would have stood by and let the public buildings be vandalized.
 
How do we know this? We saw it all take place for seven months, from May to November all over the country.
 
China Joe got this one right.

Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


Use of the expression: “SUBVERTING DEMOCRACY.” Why it is Being Employed Incorrectly.

01/05/2021
Guest Editorial by Editor Emeritus, Former State Senator Rod Adair
 
Both of the “tribes” involved in the ongoing electoral “crisis” are discussing the issues with incorrect terminology or are setting forth just plain wrong-headed ideas. But perhaps the very worst is coming from the folks in the mainstream media who sound as if they are clones of each other.
 
Complaints that are being raised and the apparent planned objections for 6 January are NOT attempts to “subvert democracy.”
 
A rule of thumb: if someone is invoking a constitutional or statutory provision regarding a particular component of government, be it criminal law, civil law, or elections law—regardless of whether it is a bad idea to do so, or whether or not it is unlikely to succeed—it cannot possibly be something that is “subverting” democracy. On the contrary, they are using the structure and procedures derived from the democratic process.
 
When I was an elector in 2004 and Barbara Boxer, on January 6, 2005, decided to challenge the votes cast in Ohio, it never even occurred to me to think that she was “subverting democracy.” Had I thought that, well, that would have made me stupid—or at least dumber than I already was.No one in the Senate went along with her, but they could have. And had they done so it would not have “subverted” democracy.
 
Today, everyone in the mainstream media uses these expressions a dozen times an hour, 24 hours a day. They also raise fake issues of a “military coup” or “intervention.” (Trying to frighten the American people in such a ridiculous and insidious way is actually vastly closer to subversion than anything that is going on.)
 
With the mainstream media controlling at least 80% of what voters see, hear, and read, you cannot tell me this has not had a profound effect on an increasingly dumber electorate.

Email us (at editor@newmexicopoliticaljournal.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.


Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican


National Issues

National Issues

Democrats

2016 Presidential Campaign - Democrats

Republicans

2016 Presidential Campaign - Republicans

Jeb Bush gets religion.

"They said he got religion at the end, and I'm glad that he did."  — Tom T. Hall. The Year Clayton Delaney died.

Well, it's official.  Jeb Bush has changed quite of few of his positions on illegal immigration.  The single most significant is that he no longer endorses the "path to citizenship" for those who came here illegally. 

This is, after all, the key portion of any proposal aimed at "reforming" our existing illegal immigration situation.

No sensible citizen can see any point in trying to deport between 12 and 16 million people currently living in America illegally.  And no candidate for any office that we know of supports that.  What the average American wants is for the country to "get a handle on it."  They want it stopped, our borders secured and future illegal immigration prevented.  It is a national security issue.

The Path to Legal Status

The only way to accomplish the above goals, is to identify current illegal immigrants, get them accounted for, have them documented, and placed on a path to legal status.  Neither they nor their children or spouses should live in a state of fear or anxiety.

But a path to "citizenship" is not the right course.  It is not morally or legally correct.  A merciful and compassionate nation can provide the safeguards of legal status without sending the message to the rest of the world that all you have to do is cross our border and you will eventually get to become a citizen, thus circumventing the legal framework scores of millions of Americans have followed, honored and respected.

If someone who is granted legal status eventually wants to become a citizen, that person should have to return to his or her country of origin and wait in line like 20 million people around the world are doing at any given time.  Failing that, America will forever send the signal that anyone in the world can "jump the line," and that there is no reason at all to obey our immigration and naturalization laws.

We Like Jeb Bush

We are glad Jeb Bush has learned this lesson.  He is a fine speaker, and can eloquently explain his positions on complex issue.  If he were not named "Bush" he would be an actual top tier candidate—in all that that title would entail, including likelihood of acceptance and support of and from the American people in the primaries, and in any theoretical general election.  

We also recognize that he already is a de facto top-tier candidate because of his fame and his fundraising.

If he were to be the nominee of the Republican Party we would heartily support him and endorse him.  We hope, however, that he is not, as he does not give the center-right coalition the best chance of winning.

Media Watch

Media Watch

County Government News

County Government News

Cities, Towns and Villages

Cities, Towns and Villages

Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch

Movies, Television, Pop Culture

Movies, Television, Pop Culture

  • Movies, Television, Pop Culture
    Selma   ????? We have now seen the Oscar-nominated movie Selma.   Our earlier allusion to criticism that sounded as though it was in an Oliver Stone category for historical fabrication is some...

Sports

Sports

The Major League Baseball Playoffs are not realistic, and destroy the actual meaning of the sport. 

Major League Baseball is unique in this respect—its postseason is markedly different from the way the game is played normally.  No other major league sport suffers from this flaw.

Not that much is wrong with baseball. In some respects it's the most well thought-out sport there is.  The "perfect game" many aficionados say.

But the Major League Baseball postseason experience is unique in the world of professional sports, and not in a good way. 

In fact the playoffs are flawed in such a way as to detract from the sport itself and diminish the game and what it means to be the world champion of the sport. 

Among the Big Four team sports of North America: football, hockey, basketball and baseball—and all the 122 professional major league teams competing in the NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB respectively—it is in baseball alone that the postseason turns the sport itself on its head and makes it reflect something that it is not.  This article will explain why that happens and why it is wrong-headed.

 

Background on the The Frequency of Play

The 30 teams in both the National Hockey League and the National Basketball Association teams play a very similar schedule.  On average, each team has a day off between games, sometimes two days off.  Though there are back-to-back games, they are relatively infrequent.  NBA teams play between 14 and 22 back-to-back games a season, and for the NHL it usually ranges between 9 and 19. The NFL has a full week between games, the exception being the new Thursday games that each team plays once, leaving them only four days' rest once a year.

But baseball players play every single day.  Ten days straight, then a day off, then seven more games, then a day off, then ten more games.  Typically a baseball team plays 27 games every 30 days.  For the NHL and NBA it would be 14 per month, and for the NFL the number would be 4.

 

Getting to the Playoffs:  It's a grind

In all four sports, getting to the postseason requires a total team effort—in fact an all-out total organizational effort.  Teams must be deep, have bench strength and the capability of moving players in and out of the lineup, and on and off the roster, who can take the place of key players who go down for an injury, or who have to miss games for whatever reason.  While this is true of the other three major sports as well, it is most certainly even more of a concern for baseball teams because of the sheer volume of games in which a team must field a competitive lineup.

Each league's regular season* is a marathon, not a sprint.  NFL teams play for 17 weeks, 16 games.  The NHL has an 82-game season over six months, paralleled by an NBA season of 84 games over the same timeframe. Baseball is the biggest marathon of all—a true test of resilience and endurance—162 games usually starting around the beginning of April and finishing about the end of September.

NHL teams carry 23-man rosters, of which 20 can be active for any particular game.  The NBA is similar, with 15-man rosters of which 13 can be on the bench for a given game. In the NFL, the teams have 53 players on a roster, but only 46 can suit up on game day.  In Major League Baseball, teams have a 25-man active roster, and all 25 are at the park every day.

 

The Postseason Playoffs:  Sport by Sport

The National Football League:

Of the 32 teams, 12 qualify for the playoffs.  The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season.  Each team plays once a week, the exception being that the four top teams get the first week off.  For a typical qualifier to reach the Super Bowl, the team must play three consecutive weeks.  At that point both remaining teams have two weeks off before the Super Bowl.

In short, the playoffs, with a game each week, reflects the same means of advancement as is present in regular season grind.

The National Hockey League: 

16 of the 30 teams qualify for the postseason.  The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season: a game, a day off, a game, a day off, a game, a day off, and so on.  Just as in the regular season, there are occasionally two days off.  But the playoffs require the same stamina, the same approach as that required to make the playoffs.

 

The National Basketball Association

16 of the 30 teams qualify for the postseason.  The playoffs are conducted in the exact same manner as the regular season: a game, a day off, a game, a day off, a game, a day off, and so on.  Just as in the regular season, there are occasionally two days off.  But the playoffs require the same stamina, the same approach as that required to make the playoffs.

Major League Baseball

10 of the 30 teams qualify for the postseason.  (Although four of those teams qualify only for a one-game do-or-die play-in game.)

Here is where all similarity to baseball ends. 

Unlike the other three sports whose playoffs mirror the test of the regular season, and whose conditions are the same as the regular season, Major League Baseball playoffs in no way resemble the sport itself.  In hockey, basketball and football, the teams win playoff games and reach the pinacle of the sport in exactly the same way that they qualify to try to do so. 

Not so in baseball.  They are two entirely different concepts.  Teams make the playoffs only because they have depth, five-man pitching rotations and can play day-in and day-out at a high level.  But the baseball playoffs suddenly become a kind of "all-star" game within each team's roster.  MLB playoffs are conducted in a way that more closely follows the NBA and the NHL.  Teams have enormous numbers of days off. 

Here's the key point:  No Major League Baseball team could even qualify for the postseason if they played the same way during the regular season that they do in the playoffs.  None.

In the regular season Major League Baseball teams have to use a 5-man starting rotation, with pitchers pitching every 5th day.  There are not enough days off to have even a four-man rotation, let alone a team with three pitchers.  Even the best team in baseball using only a 4-man rotation, would wear them out, and most likely end up with a record of something like 66-96, or 70-92—and that would be if they were otherwise teh best team in the sport.

 

The 2014 Baseball Postseason is Typical

As examples, last year's World Series teams the Kansas City Royals played only 15 games in 30 days, and the San Francisco Giants played only 17 games in 30 days.  The 12 to 15 days off in the non-baseball fantasy world of the MLB postseason, means that teams can turn to three pitchers and give all of them plenty of rest.  But it isn't the way baseball really works.

At one point, the Royals had 5 consecutive days off, and the Giants had 4.  This never happens in the regular season.  Even the All-Star break is only three days.  Very rarely is there anything beyond a one-day break, and even that happens only a couple of times a month. 

What this means is that neither team used the team that got them to the playoffs.  (The NFL, NBA and NHL teams ALL used the very same teams that got them to the playoffs.) 

Baseball teams use a three-man pitching rotation in the playoffs.  Sometimes, they essentially opt for two pitchers only—conceding the likelihood that some of their games are going to be lost—when their third-, or rarely fourth-best pitcher has to face one of their opponents' two-man or three-man rotation members. 

Imagine an NFL team using only one running back and three wide receivers, instead of rotating through their roster in the course of a playoff game—or using only 4 defensive backs and 4 linebackers, instead of rotating 8 or 9 DBs and 6 or 7 linebackers?  In hockey, would a team use only two or three of their forward lines?  Would an NBA team use only the starting five?  They would never make the post season if they tried to present that product to their fans during the regular season.

Those are the equivalents of what Major League Baseball sets up every fall.  No other sport drags its playoffs out in such a way as to completely change the playing field—completely change the dynamics of its game.

Why Does Baseball Do This?

MLB does this because the TV networks want to drag out the games so that they can try to have one game each day  This requires an unnecessary staggering of games, and creates the phenomenon of 15 off-days in a month.

What about travel days?

What about them?  Baseball has travel days constantly.  A team may play in Chicago one day and in Miami the next, or in New York one day and Phoenix the very next day.  Travel days as a routine part of the game are again, a phenomenon of television, and stretching out the playoffs.

In years past, travel days were employed only when necessary. The famous "subway series" games were played on seven consecutive days.  Why?  Because there was no "travel day" required to go from Brooklyn to the Bronx.  Today, they would put in artificial travel days.

Even fairly long train trips didn't necessarily matter.  The 1948 World Series between the Cleveland Indians and the Boston Braves was played in six consecutive days, October 6 & 7 in Boston, October 8, 9 & 10 in Cleveland, and October 11 back in Boston.

This reflects actual baseball, the way the teams play day-in and day-out, and the kind of unique test that baseball presents to its athletes, its managers and management, and to its fans.

In the modern world of charter planes, teams fly from coast to coast to play games on consecutive days.  The artificial "travel day" should be eliminated so that teams can play in the playoffs in the same way that got them there in the first place.


*All these leagues also have pre-seasons and training camps, which add an additional 6-8 weeks to each player's year.


Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas. 

Religious Issues

Religious Issues

  • Religious Issues
    Coming Soon

Copyright New Mexico Political Journal 2015
EMAIL US WITH YOUR FEEDBACK, COMMENTS, QUESTIONS AND IDEAS

.

Loading...