Author: David S. Pham

A 30 year old, history teacher, husband, son, brother, heterosexual, liberal, Californian, Democrat, Vietnamese, American.

The Myth of Scioscia’s Style

Once in a while, somebody will comment to me or on that Mike Scioscia’s style of play (“small ball,” hit and run, speed, sacrificing, etc.) doesn’t suit the current Angels roster of power hitters, like Pujols, Hamilton, and Trumbo. That assessment would then usually be a platform for firing Scioscia because he doesn’t know what to do with a power hitting line-up. Here’s what I wrote a few days ago on my Facebook:

“I would argue that it’s not one style that wins, but the execution of the players that matters the most. In 2002, Troy Glaus, Garret Anderson, and Tim Salmon had slugging percentages of .453, .539, and .503, respectively. In 2013, only one player slugged over .500 (Trout!). Of the current regular starters, Trumbo was 2nd in slugging percentage at .453. So arguably, the 2002 team had more power than 2013. It’s not that Pujols, Hamilton, and to some extent Trumbo doesn’t “fit” Scioscia’s “style” of small ball. They’re just not hitting well in general. To make the point further, the 2002 team was superior because it got on-base more (.341 OBP) and scored more runs (851). By the way, those stats are almost identical to the 2013 Red Sox with .349 OBP and 853 runs, both league highs. The 2013 Angels had .329 OBP and scored only 733 runs. It’s hard to play small ball (steal and sacrifices) if batters aren’t getting on base.”

On top of that, Scioscia’s small ball in 2002 was lauded only because his players executed hitting very well. In other words, we overvalued his strategy. It wasn’t really Scioscia’s small ball strategy that helped with the Game 6 World Series comeback in 2002. It was the home run of Scott Spezio that got the team back into the game, the leadoff home run of Darin Erstad that got them closer, and the double of power hitter Troy Glaus to score the subsequent tying and go-ahead runs. All in all, it goes to the general sabermetric belief that managers don’t manage the game as much as they manage men.

‘Tis the Season of Giving

In this time of the year, many of us are compelled to donate to charity. Nobody wants to be a greedy Scrooge. While many Americans think it’s right to give to the needy, many think it’s wrong for the government to give to the needy. What’s the difference?

Bah Humbug! to giving

Bah Humbug! to giving

Antony Davies’ article, The Economics and Morality of Caring for the Poor, provides a compelling argument why charity works for individuals, but not for governments. Davies, an economics professor, provides a libertarian interpretation of Jesus’ teachings about feeding and caring for the poor:

When Jesus calls on the rich to feed the poor, it’s because both of them are hungry. Jesus’ “poor” are poor because they lack food. Jesus’ “rich” are poor because they lack love.


When we rely on the government to “feed” the poor, we dehumanize the poor by regarding them principally as needs to be met. …


When we rely on the government to “feed” the poor, we dehumanize the rich by regarding them principally as revenue sources.

Again, Davies’ argument is compelling. However, I would argue that while government can dehumanize, we should be questioning why this dehumanization exists. Dehumanization does not exist solely because of a system, like a government. Governments are products of human society. While Davies’ argument that government dehumanizes the impoverished may be valid, he appears to assume that government, in and of itself, is a dehumanizing system. I propose that it is not government that dehumanizes the impoverished. It is us–society–that dehumanizes.

Davies, like many political conservatives, speak of government as if it was an uncontrollable machine. Many of us understand this concern. The bureaucracy of government is overwhelmingly complex. We abhor the dehumanizing treatment of bureaucracies. The common complaints of the DMV and public education are simplified examples of complex government operations. Many of us Americans have lost a sense of efficacy in our self-government. That is, we believe these systems and institutions are out of humanly control. We believe the myth that it is not us that can dehumanize, but only systems, bureaucracies, and governments can.

This leads us to reflect about the role of government in our lives and this is the major ideological divide between today’s liberals and conservatives. According to Davies, government taxation is analogous to dehumanization (I’ve also heard the tactless analogy to slavery, as well). Thanks to the overemphasis on the tax revolts when we learn about the American Revolution, many Americans think we’re suppose to a low-tax haven (TEA Party, anybody?). The way I see it, the Revolution wasn’t just about taxes. It was about self-government and allowing American colonists to decide for themselves on the issues, such as taxation and trade regulation (a few of the Founding Fathers were illegal smugglers, like Samuel Adams. How about that for the “rule of law?”). Eventually, America’s Founding Fathers passed taxes like any other government, especially to pay off war debts to Europe (yes, even the Founding Fathers incurred government debt!). Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was scrapped by the Founding Fathers partly because it was extremely difficult for the federal government to levy taxes.

But this also leads us to ask if the Founding Fathers ever predicted that we would have welfare and wealth redistribution policies. It doesn’t matter what they specifically wanted in terms of future policy. Simply said, they allowed for us to decide for ourselves. That’s the point of self-government! A majority of Americans love Medicare and Social Security, the largest welfare and most expensive programs in our federal budget. To dissolve these programs would be political suicide for our elected leaders. Democracy has allowed for these policies. Most don’t consider Medicare and Social Security as dehumanizing. In fact, dissolving (and failing to save) these socialist programs would probably be more dehumanizing by ending health care and income support for millions of elderly, disabled, and impoverished Americans.

In the end, what would Davies and radical economic conservatives propose in place of Medicare and Social Security? Trillions in voluntary charitable donations to the poor, elderly, and disabled? What free-market system would find it worth while (profitable) to care for the poor, elderly, and disabled who have little stable income?

We Accept the Reality of the World with Which We are Presented


Christof, the creator of Truman’s artificial world

This was one of the lines in the film The Truman Show that I’ve always remembered. Christof spoke this line to explain why an ignorant Truman Burbank never questions his artificial reality (The Matrix had the same premise as well). It’s difficult for many of us to question our own realities. It’s especially difficult for Americans to think that we can live in a world with less guns.

It’s been engrained in our heads that guns are patriotic and owning a gun makes a person more American. We think it’s a vital part of the American culture. Granted, I really don’t blame Americans for thinking guns are part of the American culture. It’s one of the few items that the Constitution explicitly says we can have. Not even education, marriage, or privacy is explicitly written into the Constitution. But the Founding Fathers went out of there way to say something about bearing arms.

While I’ll save the majority of the historical and legal arguments against the expansion of gun rights in the U.S. for later, I think many of us Americans can’t contemplate a country with less guns. A society with less guns is a society that is less American, many of us think. We believe it’s a natural right because somebody told us so–somebody that lived over 200 years ago said it’s a natural right. And many of us don’t question that.

We’ve accepted the reality of the world with which we are presented…by a few lawyers that lived over 200 years ago. We’ve simply taken a law written by fallible humans and apotheosized it. We’ve taken the 2nd amendment and made it God’s infallible law because we think it’s a natural right. Do you know who said it was a natural right? Do you know what natural rights are?

I’m not simply being contrarian and say the Founding Fathers were completely wrong. They got many laws right, but that doesn’t make them perfect. They knew that. They knew they could be wrong eventually. Heck, they got the first constitution of the United States wrong. Remember the Articles of Confederation? It was so bad, they trashed it. They wrote a whole new constitution that included an amendment process. The Founding Fathers essentially said to future generations, “This is a good start. Make sure you make it better.” This is what the Founding Fathers meant by a forming a more perfect Union in the preamble of the Constitution.

Thanks to the amendment process, we’ve changed the Constitution to keep it up with the times. We amended the Constitution to end slavery, to expand citizenship to all races, and to enfranchise women. For much of our history, Americans accepted and wholly endorsed slavery, racial discrimination, and gender inequality. The Americans that lived during this time accepted the reality that was presented to them. Change and progress happened when people chose to question the reality and suggest that it’s possible to live a society where people of color and women could be socially and legally accepted.

I dare you to question your reality. Altering your reality can feel uncertain. It’s not easy. It takes courage and sacrifice. Will you choose to make progress in our society for a perfect Union or stick to the status quo? Can you accept a reality where owning guns isn’t a natural right, but an earned privileged?