2016 MLB: AL Central Rules

-->

If they pitch, the division will be holding on to the Tigers' tail.

Sorry East Coast baseball fans, but this is MLB’s strongest division. The Royals are the defending World Series champions and they’ll have trouble winning their division, let alone repeat as champs. On the flip side, most analysts (not me) predict the Twins to finish last in the division, but they’re good enough to win the AL East or West.

I’m going out on a limb and picking the Tigers to win the Central, but they could finish last—that’s how good this division is. My dark horse is Cleveland.

Predicted order of finish: Tigers, Royals, Indians, Twins, White Sox.

Welcome to the age of J. D. Martinez, MLB’s next superstar. He joins a Victor Martinez, Ian Kinsler, newly acquired Justin Upton, and Miggy Cabrera in a lineup that can bash with anyone, including Toronto. And I don’t give a damn how many Mike Trout man-love charts you show me, Miggy is the best hitter in baseball—period. If the Detroit Tigers get decent pitching, they will hard to beat. Therein lies the Tigers’ tale. Will Justin Verlander regain his mojo, or is he done? Can Jordan Zimmerman pitch in the AL? What gives with the hot/cold Anibal Sanchez? Did the Yankees fleece the cats on Shane Green and Justin Wilson? Francisco Rodriquez is a heart attack closer. The Tigers will either roar or turn into domestic tabbies.

The Kansas City Royals look weaker on paper, though losing Cueto was no big deal; he didn’t help much anyhow. Zobrist strikes me as the bigger loss. Their lineup doesn’t dazzle; it simply bleeds you like a thousand paper cuts. The only potential weak link 1 through 9 is untested right-fielder Paul Orlando; by now everyone knows what Cain, Hosmer, Gordon, Morales, Perez, Moustakas, et. al. can do. (Although things could go wrong if the Moustakas of 2014 shows up instead of the stud from 2015.) Starting pitching could be the Achilles’ heel if either Volquez or Ventura slip, as the remainder—Ian Kennedy, Chris Young, and Kris Medlen—are reclamation projects. They only need to take a lead into the sixth and KC’s magnificent bullpen, anchored by Wade Davis, will deliver the W, but getting there may be a challenge.

Think the Boston Red Sox would have been so bad the past few years if Terry Francona was still there instead of at the helm of the Cleveland Indians? My instincts say the Tribe is still a few years from planting a pennant atop the teepee and financial woes could lead to a fire sale, but this is no longer a team to be taken lightly. They have some topnotch hitters—Jason Kipnis, Michael Brantley, Carlos Santana, Mike Napoli, Francisco Lindor—and a few others (Chisenhall, Gomes, Davis)  who ought to be better than their slash lines. A lot of teams would take a 1-3 staff of Corey Kluber, Carlos Carrasco, and Danny Salazar. If they get decent performances from Josh Timlin and Cody Anderson, the Tribe is going to ambush a lot of teams picked to finish above them.

The Minnesota Twins aren’t patsies anymore either! They still have Joe Mauer, a great pure hitter, and they’ve been adding youth—Byron Buxton, Jose Berrios, Trevor Plouffe, Brian Dozier—who thus far have been relegated to on-the-job-training. When (not if) they figure it out, the Twins will be dangerous. No one knows what Korean import Byung Ho Park will bring to his namesake, but if he’s 70% of what’s advertised, it’s a good signing. Pitching is the problem, once one gets past Phil Hughes, who found his stride in the Twin Cities. I think we can safely call Ervin Santana a tantalizing fraud by now, and then it’s a matter of how fast Kyle Gibson develops and whether Tommy Milone and Ricky Nolasco can contribute. The Twins could also use a closer upgrade over Glen Perkins. The Twins mantra: Not enough to win, but good enough to compete. {Note: Since I wrote this Buxton went on the DL & the Twins have had the worst start in MLB, but I still think they will be better.}

A few folks see the Chicago White Sox as playoff bound. Not me. The ChiSox have the wonderful Jose Abreu, who might win the home run crown, and Chris Sale, always a Cy Young threat. There are too many question marks after them. Todd Frazier was a good pickup, but he won’t hit 35 homers against AL pitching and especially not in his new home stadium. The rest is guys who are in decline (Melky Cabrera, Jimmy Rollins, Alix Avila) or simply never were all that good (Brett Lawrie, Austin Jackson, Adam Eaton). After Sale, it’s Quintana, Latos, and Danks, which rhymes with tanks, and it’s goodbye on the South Side unless all four pitch like Cy.  

Why You Should Root for Trump: NY Primary Day Special

Before you trash Trump, check out Ted Cruz! 

A lot of liberals are feeling smug that the Donald Trump Express seems to be experiencing mechanical difficulties. I'm tempted to join the cheerful chorus, but these are not normal times. Not when Trump's misfortunes raise the specter of Ted Cruz. Make no mistake—Donald Trump is a crude, arrogant boor and there are invertebrates more qualified to be president than he. Still, he's just an embarrassment; Ted Cruz is actively dangerous.

Historians such as myself often consider analogies most people don't and the current GOP race reminds me the election of 1800. Huh? Let's take a look. That now-archaic institution called the Electoral College settled all early elections. Because voting was restricted to propertied white males, almost nobody voted—just 66,000 back in 1800—and that was the point. The Founders distrusted the masses and the Electoral College existed to make sure that men of "substance and bearing" (their term) could undo a "mistake" by the voters. The real action took place in small caucuses of Federalist leaders who were also electors. This select group debated who the president should be and the second-most popular candidate was VP. They never envisioned an election in which a rival political party would contest power and win, but that's exactly what happened in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans (today's Democrats) defeated incumbent President John Adams.

The Federalists feared Jefferson, whose radical agrarianism and take on the French Revolution was the opposite of theirs, and they weren't even sure a transfer of power could take place without a violent upheaval. More vexing still was the fact that there was nothing in the Constitution about political parties or allowing a presidential candidate to designate a VP. (That doesn't happen until the 12^th Amendment was ratified in 1804.) All knew that Jefferson was the presidential candidate and that his running mate, Aaron Burr, was meant to be Vice President, but each received the same number of Electoral College votes. If you wonder why Burr didn't just step aside, you know nothing about the ambitious and amoral Aaron Burr! It took 36 Electoral College votes to determine that Jefferson would be the third president, and it hinged on a single changed vote: that of Alexander Hamilton.

Was it because Hamilton put duty above personal views? Not quite. He disliked Jefferson, but deemed him "by far not so dangerous a man" as Burr. He went on to opine that Jefferson was merely a "foolish, abstract terrorist," but that Burr was the real deal. As you probably know, in 1804 Burr killed Hamilton in an illegal duel, thereby robbing the country of perhaps its greatest mind of the day, and proving Hamilton's view that Burr was indeed a "dangerous man."

How does this apply today when voters can decide? Donald Trump is a freak show, but he's by far the lesser of two evils compared to Ted Cruz. He craves attention and says outrageous things, but he's probably not serious about half of them. Ted Cruz is. He's pro-gun and anti-everything else liberals hold sacred. He's not just anti-choice, he's part of the insert IUD cameras into the uteruses of abortion-seekers crowd.  He wants to dismantle Obamacare, Affirmative Action, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all laws forbidding discrimination against gays and lesbians. He wants the Keystone pipeline, perpetual war against foreign enemies, harsher drug laws, and a reworking of the legal code that would be an Old Testament version of Sharia law. He believes in Creationism, insists climate change isn't happening, that immigrants should be banned, that the US military should be unleashed around the globe, and that women should remain helpmeets to men. Consider: in a Senate full of nasty sons-of-bitches, even they hate his guts. If this man becomes POTUS, Margaret Atwood's The Handmaiden's Tale will seem like current events.

Here's where it gets scarier—it could happen. The Democrats are hurtling toward disaster (What? Again?) with Hillary Clinton destined to be its standard bearer. It doesn't matter whether you think her opponents are sexist or misguided; there are tens of millions of voters who despise her and think anyone else is preferable. This includes millions of Sanders' supporters—especially young ones–who will stay at home on Election Day if Hillary gets the nomination. Save your admonishments because it's going to happen.

If Trump doesn't get the nomination, he is likely to bolt the GOP and run as an independent. If that happens, I don't see any candidate getting the magical 270 electorals needed to win. If you think the Election of 2000 was bad, in 2016 it's entirely possible the candidate with the third most votes will be POTUS. Call it a reverse 1800 scenario. In a three-way race, Clinton will win the popular vote but if she is short of 270 in the Electoral College, by what magical thinking does the GOP-controlled House of Representatives give her the presidency? Or second-place finisher Donald Trump? Hello President Cruz (or a dark horse designate for whom no one voted—Paul Ryan? Jeb Bush? Mitch McConnell?)

Hillary Clinton is a terrible campaigner and, yes, I'm among the millions who neither like nor trust her, but if she's your candidate you better root like hell for The Donald to wrap up the GOP nomination. In a two-way race Clinton has a small chance of beating Trump, but in the next-to-worst-case scenario we'd end up with a foolish abstract terrorist instead of a real one.

2016 MLB: AL West a Two-Texas Race

 

Fans of that big NFL joke called “parity” ought to love the American League this year. There is no clear cut front runner in any division. Because I must pick someone, I’ll go with the Houston Astros to win the West, but I do with little conviction.

Predicted Order: Astros, Rangers, Angels, Mariners, A’s

If the Rangers aren't Healthy,the 'Stros to Slide In

Health is the number one reason I favor the Houston Astros. If Doug Fister returns to form, the Astros’ staff of Cy Young winner Dallas Keuchel, Collin McHugh, and Fister is a formidable 1-3, and McCullers and Feldman aren’t bad as 4-5. The lineup is a bit suspect, especially when not playing in their home bandbox, but Jose Altuve has emerged as the AL’s best second baseman and Gattis, Rasmus, and Valbuena have their moments.

If Yu Darvish really is healthy—and it’s questionable—then my pick shifts to the Texas Rangers who follow with Cole Hamels, Colby Lewis, Derek Holland, and Martin Perez to make up an even stronger rotation. Many think Perez is about to bust loose, so I’d not be shocked to see the Rangers repeat. They certainly have a far stronger lineup: Fielder, Beltre, Moreland, and Choo. Ian Desmond is a nice pickup, but Elvis Andrus needs to find himself. Watch out for second sacker Roughned Odor. I’m not wild about Tolleson as a closer and I’m puzzled why Josh Hamilton is still allowed on the field, but I’m sure he’ll implode.

The Los Angeles Angels have bad pitching and it got worse with the injury to Jered Weaver. Garrett Richards is good, but he’s no ace and C. J. Wilson can’t find his groove. The best hope lies in Andrew Heaney, who looks like he’s ready to impress. Daniel Nava starts in left and that’s not a good thing. Nice pick up at short with Andrelton Simmons, but I’m less sold on Yunel Escobar at third. Albert Pujols needs to rebound, or things will go south fast for the Angels. Of course, the thing we know for certain is that this team could go 1-161 and SABR pinheads would insist that Mike Trout should be MVP. He might be the best everyday player in baseball, but he doesn't make a flawed team better.

Many prognosticators pick the Seattle Mariners to leapfrog the Angels and it’s not out of the question. That still doesn’t make the Mariners a good team, though. Sure Felix Hernandez is a BMW, but he’s the pitching analog to Trout; the M’s win their division only if they figure out how King Felix can pitch every day. I like Iwakuma as a number 2, but then who? Wade Miley? Ugh! Taijuan Walker has to live up to his hype for Seattle to do much. They will, however, hit—Nelson Cruz, Adam Lind, and Kyle Seager will see to that and they’ve added speed in Aoki and Leonys Martin—if they can get on base. I don’t care what he says publicly, Robbie Cano is lost in Seattle and I think his glory years are behind him.  

I’ll just say it: Billy Beane is not a genius, Oakland is a garbage heap of a city, the ballpark is the worst in baseball, and virtually everything about the Oakland A’s not named Sonny Gray, Stephen Vogt, or Josh Reddick will stink. (Okay, maybe Khris Davis gets better.) You don’t build a pitching staff with Red Sox retreads and the A’s have two: Felix Doubront and Rich Hill. Sean Doolittle should take up veterinary science, not try to save games. In a division with less flawed front runners the A’s would lose 100 games, but you can pencil them in for 90.  {Note: Doubront went on the DL after I wrote this, so things are even worse.}

2016 MLB: NL East--The Mets Do it Again

-->

The Mets surprised a lot of people last year, me included. Can they sustain it and make a dent in the Big Apple’s fixation on the Yankees? I think so, but they are another team on whom I’d not bet the farm. I pick them to win the NL East, but mainly because the division is weak.

Predicted order of finish: Mets, Nationals, Marlins, Braves, Phillies

The Lineup is so-so but the Pitching is Amazin'

It starts and ends with pitching and 1-5, the New York Mets stand above the pack—Harvey, deGrom, Syndergaard, Matz, and the ageless Colon. A lot depends on whether the Mets can score runs. A healthy David Wright would help, Neil Walker was a good pick up, and Luca Duda drives the ball well. They will need help from chronic underachievers Granderson, D’Arnaud, and Cespedes, the latter of whom is a quieter version of Yasiel Puig in his ability to be brilliant or a complete ass. Granderson simply never was as good as the Stat Heads claimed he was. On paper, though, the Mets should repeat.

Most MLB analysts are picking the Washington Nationals. I get it; they do have (depending on who’s talking) either the best or second-best player in baseball, Bryce Harper, and a guy capable of giving Clayton Kershaw a run as best pitcher: Max Scherzer. I’m not a Nats fan, though, because the supporting cast isn’t consistently strong. Ryan Zimmerman, if healthy, can contribute but it’s been a few years since he was. Then it’s last year’s postseason wonder Daniel Murphy (who the Mets wisely let walk) and enigmas and low OBP guys such as Ramos, Espinosa, and Rendon. And I’ll say it—Ben Revere is terrible and Jayson Werth only a paper cut above. I like Gio Gonzalez as a pitcher; I don’t like Stasburg who has enormous talent but is as fragile as crystal in a hammer factory. Then who? Papelbon as closer? Sure—if this were ’06 instead of ’16. The Nats strike me as a club that’s a few injuries or a clubhouse dust-up closer to third than first.

The Miami Marlins are easy to hate but too talented to ignore. If they’re not already, these will soon be household names: Marcell Ozuna, Christian Yelich, Justin Bour. Add them to a lineup with Giancarlo Stanton, Martin Prado, and Dee Gordon and the Fish can match any lineup in the NL. Pitching? Is there any team that wouldn’t make room for Jose Fernandez? Wei-Yin Chen should do better in the NL. Others need to improve—Koehler, Cosart—for the Marlins to contend, but if the Marlins surprise people in 2016, I won’t be among the startled.

There’s not much immediate hope for either the rebuilding Atlanta Braves or the can’t-wait-to-dismantle Philadelphia Phillies. The Braves still have a gem in Freddie Freeman but, for the most part the team that will wear Braves uniforms in 2018 are in the minor leagues right now. You can build a staff around Julio Teheran, which they are trying to do.

Teheran is way better than anybody the Phillies will stick on the mound, though Aaron Nola is an arm to watch. Jeremy Hellickson as the ace presumptive? That’s the definition of “dire.” As for the hitters one can only ask, “What?” I like the upside of shortstop Freddy Galvis, but the Phils are going nowhere until they shed Ryan Howard’s albatross contract. At least the Phillies wised up to the idea that Domonic Brown really is the bum I’ve claimed for the past five years and cut him loose. Call it addition by subtraction. The Phils will feature a lot of unproven kids this year, which means they’ll be more fun to watch, but don’t expect a lot of W’s for a few years.    

Let Mother Nature Do Her Job: Rattlesnake Island a Bad Idea

-->

Why do wildlife officials think rattlers are needed?

I admit that the idea of stocking an island in the middle of Western Massachusetts' Quabbin Reservoir with endangered rattlesnakes gives me the willies. I hate snakes of all sorts. We occasionally get a grass snake in our basement and we don't reach for rubber gloves and a bucket—it's baseball bat, dustpan, and newspaper. I've joked about buying a mongoose to patrol the yard, but I'm only half kidding.

As any hiker knows, there's little as disconcerting as coming upon a rattler on the trail. I know the island where wildlife officials want to release dozens of adult timber rattlers. I've often stood on the New Salem side of the reservoir and admired its majesty on a clear autumn day with the fall colors reflecting off the water. Rattlers can swim, so if the island is stocked, I may indeed buy that mongoose and take it with me on future hikes at the Quabbin.

But even if I weren't squeamish about snakes, the idea of populating an island with them is simply a bad idea. Call it where micro managing, bad science, and starry-eyed ecological blindness meet. The two stated reasons for the program are that timber rattlers are an endangered species, and that they would consume rodents. The second is patently silly. In my time at the Quabbin I've yet to see field mice spiriting away small children into the woods, nor has my car ever been attacked by mohawked, leather-clad, chain-wielding chipmunk gangs. There are already plenty of critters feasting on rodents, including myriad hawks and owls, and resurgent bald eagle populations.

Back on their own

The presence of eagles is the best case not to allow zealous wildlife officials to tamper with the Quabbin's ecosystem. Eagles have come back to Western Massachusetts and here's the role state game officials played in their recovery: none. The raptors aren't the only species for which this is the case. In the early 1970s there were allegedly fewer than 100 black bears in the entire Commonwealth; now you can see them munching birdseed just about everywhere. Wildlife officials estimate there are 4,000 bears in Massachusetts now, a figure those who spend a lot of time in the woods find a risible understatement How about moose? Two decades ago a purported moose spotting was on par with seeing a unicorn–and invited about as much derision. Now our highways are dotted with moose crossing warnings and there may be as many as 1,000 of those tank-sized ungulates snorting around—roughly one for every ten square miles of the Commonwealth. For the record, there are already several small rattlesnake colonies in the Bay State, including one in the Blue Hills near Boston and another on Mount Tom near Holyoke.  

Eagles, bears, moose, and even rattlers have thrived or survived with no assistance from the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. That's because it's not about stocking—it's about habitat .Put another way, wilderness is not supposed to be an open-air zoo; its wild animals thrive when there is an ecosystem that sustains them and Mother Nature knows when that is.

There are a handful of restocking success stories in North America, most notably grey wolves in Yellowstone and the rebuilding of bison herds. These give hope, but they aren't real tests. Yellowstone is, in fact, a big zoo–and a heavily patrolled one at that. Any fool with miles of barbed wire can raise buffalo, which are just shaggy, weak-eyed cows on steroids. There are tens of thousands of empty grasslands acres out West where the buffalo can roam. Their recovery was simple: we just stopped shooting the poor dim beasts.

Atlantic salmon: multi-decade. multi-million dollar flop

But let's look at a spectacular failure in Massachusetts: the effort to reestablish Atlantic salmon in the Connecticut River. It was a noble idea, but after tens of millions of dollars and 45 years of trying, the effort was abandoned in 2010. Salmon might return to the river someday, but the ecosystem has to be friendly first. That effort will involve more than just improving water quality—a badly needed task to be sure; it would also entail demolishing  dams. That effort will pit consumer needs and business interests against those of a small number of sports enthusiasts and some literal small fry. Would you bet the farm on the latter? Connecticut River salmon are simply not sustainable as long as there are 54 dams in place.

Good intentions and good ideas are not always the same thing. Ecosystems are more complex than simplistic release and repopulate schemes. Let those timber rattlers continue to slither in a Rhode Island zoo. If the Quabbin ecosystem needs them, Mother Nature will provide on her own and in her own time.

2016 MLB : NL Central--Cubs Poised to Pounce but not to the World Series

-->

The division maybe, but the World Series, nope!

The Chicago Cubs are both the sentimental and the odds-on favorite to win the World Series this year, but they get no such love from me. The Cubs will struggle to win the NL Central and I don’t  see them getting to the October Classic. I will pick them to win the Central, but you can flip-flop any of my top three.

Predicted order of finish: Cubs, Pirates, Cardinals, Brewers, Reds.

The Chicago Cubs have outstanding young players, the key word being “young.” Anthony Rizzo has established himself, but many  others—Fowler, Bryant, Russell, Schwarber need either to sustain or live up to their promise. Getting Ben Zobrist was a smart move, but Jason Heyward is a ne’er do well tease whom they vastly overpaid. If the Cubs prevail in the Central, pitching will prevent the Cubs from exorcising the Billy Goat curse. Jake Arrieta is the reigning Cy Young, but is he due for a Corey Kluber-like letdown? Then it’s Jon Lester—the ten-million dollar arm with a ten-cent brain—a declining John Lackey, and two serviceable but underwhelming arms (Hammel, Hendricks). This doesn’t spell championship to me.

The Pittsburgh Pirates, a so-called “small market” team (with a filthy rich owner) has let some talent walk, but I actually think the everyday lineup—Polanco, McCutchen, Marte, Kang, Cervelli—will keep pace with the Cubs, and don’t be surprised if Gerrit Cole takes away Arrieta’s Cy Young crown. If—and this is admittedly a big qualification—Liriano still has gas in the tank and guys like Locke, Niese, and Vogelsong return to normal form, the Pirates could out-pitch the Cubbies. And I’ll take the Bucs’ Melanchon over the Cubs’ Rondon as a closer.

The St. Louis Cardinals always seem to be in the chase even when you look at their lineup and wonder how. This time, though, injuries to Peralta and Molina, plus free agency loses leaves the Cards looking pretty thin once one gets past Matt Carpenter. Holliday needs to earn his contract and they will need career years from folks like Matt Adams, Kolten Wong, and Steve Piscotty, or this team’s offense will look like San Diego’s. There’s hope in the pitching staff if Adam Wainwright is sound, as Wacha, Leake, Garcia, and Carlos Martinez are very good. Watch Martinez; I think he’s poised for a breakout. The Cards are always well-managed, but they are among the year’s biggest question marks. First? Fourth? Either could happen.

Fourth is unlikely for the Cardinals simply because both the Milwaukee Brewers and the Cincinnati Reds will be terrible—as in the potential to lose 100 games. I give the Brew Crew a slight bump in the standings simply because I think their best hitters---Lucroy, Braun, Hill—are more consistent than Reds’ streaky bashers Phillips, Votto, and Phillips. Which team finishes above the other could boil down to which 2015 disappointment improves: the Brewers’ Chris Carter or the Red’s Billy Hamilton. (Hey, Billy—you can’t steal bases if you can’t get on base.) Neither team has much pitching, though many see Milwaukee’s Wily Peralta as on-the-cusp of something special, and I don’t think Matt Garza will be as awful in 2016 as he was last year.

Should You Quit Your Job? The Next Phase.

Heraclitus

 I've joked that life goes like this: In your twenties you worry about whether you'll ever have a career; in your thirties you worry about keeping it; in your forties you wonder if you've made anything of it; in your fifties you begin to muse upon things that have nothing to do with your career; and then you hit sixty and you decide that those other things are really what's important and you stop giving a damn about your career. It turns out my comedy routine is pretty much on the money! 

Does the name Barbara Bradley Hagerty ring any bells? You might recognize her as a former stalwart of National Public Radio. After 30 years in journalism and more than 20 with NPR she suffered from what is often tritely labeled "burnout," literally lost her voice, and resigned. She has a new book titled Life Reimagined: The Science, Art, and Opportunity of Midlife in which she discusses some of the details, but the essence is this: Ms. Hagerty reached a point where she couldn't keep calm and carry on; she needed a change. As she reports in an Atlantic article, she is among the great majority of workers who stopped finding meaning and joy in her work. According to her research, just 1/3 of Baby Boomer or Gen Xers experience those things in their jobs. But here's the cool part–you can quit and move on. Her research shows that making a change is good for your health, your sanity, and all the things that really matter (friendships, family, physical robustness, happiness, warding off Alzheimer's…).

Hagerty doesn't suggest a dreamy Flower Child do-your-own-thing solution, nor does she advocate jumping into the dark regardless of money. What finds, though, is that there is tremendous benefit in recognizing when you've reached your growth potential in your current post. At such a point, a change is needed, and it doesn't have to be a radical one. In fact, most people end up making lateral moves, not dramatic ones–it's the change of scenery that reactivates creativity and satisfaction quotients, not the task itself. Hagerty shifted into writing, hardly a radical departure from radio journalism. As she notes, radical reinventions are very rare and there's not much evidence they induce any more happiness than small shifts. Two things stand out: you have to disengage your auto pilot and your next job needs to be challenging in ways the one you want to chuck isn't.

In my view, there are factors Hagerty hasn't considered or soft sells. She doesn't look at the structure of power and work. There's nothing new in her findings–alienation studies were a staple of 1960s/70s sociology. Moreover, American society needs to hold accountable the ruinous economics polices of free marketers, bean counters, and ideologues that have created toxic workplaces. Burnout is pretty easy to explain when you consider that many jobs now done by one person used to be done by three. And we simply need to stop worshiping amoral CEOs and investors who use workers as play toys, whipping posts, and lackeys. (A resurgence in unionism would be a useful first step, as would a workers' bill of rights, tighter business regulations, oversight of investment practices, and the construction of significant obstacles on movable capital.)

So maybe Hagerty isn't the keenest sociologist out there–but she's still right: there comes a time in which the healthiest thing you can do is change. It's a palpable moment–the realization that you've reached the end of what you can do where you are. Too many of us hang on thinking that either the job or we will change. The first is seldom true. It's a basic axiom of sociology: people change faster than institutions. Is your job too small for your soul? Move on.

One of Hagerty's sunniest findings is her finding that as we get near 60, happiness tends to increase. Got that? We get happier when we stop caring about work! I've been lucky–I adored my life as a high school teacher in my 20s and 30s, a researcher in my 30s, and as an academic in my 40s into my 60s. I even dare to imagine that I've been pretty good at these things. But here's the deal: my hearing is failing in ways that make the classroom harder. Can I continue, or is it time to leave? I don't care! I no longer think that Western civilization needs my research or, more accurately, I realize I've made a few contributions of which I'm pleased to have made, but Western civ never did need these to survive. Moreover, the academy has changed in many ways I find distasteful. I still love my students, but they too can carry on without me and I won't miss grading their papers. I'm starting to feel like this whole work thing just isn't needed for the next phase of my life. Retirement? I don't know what that means other than it's a change from what I have been doing. I don't fear or dread it; career simply doesn't matter as much as it used to. I'd like to think I've become wise, but self-importance is among the things I've jettisoned. So let me quote someone who truly was wise, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus: " There is nothing permanent except change."