Barry Bonds and Mark Mcwire belong in HOF

I love baseball. It's the most perfect, beautiful, and poetic game ever, of all time. Ever

I grew to adulthood through the steroid era. Of course we didn't call it that. That's the name it's come to have. Steroids were, until 2006, within the rules of the game. We saw salaries skyrocket beyond what they were in the 1970s. Of course these guys juiced. Wouldn't you to stay in the big leagues where a back up second baseman makes $4,000,000 plus?

That does not mean I am excusing it. Clearly it's outside the spirit of fair competition for an athlete to make their body do what it would otherwise not do. So why to these 2 guys belong (along with anyone else who's accumulated statistics comparable to Cooperstown immortals? Precisely because there were no rules, and usage was commonplace according to most players of the era. If everyone did them, then they put up these numbers, and broke these records against juiced competitors.

Barry Bonds hit 762 home runs over his career, and 73 in a season. He did it when many supplements now banned were legal, and commonplace. Certainly he hit a generous portion of those home runs off of pitchers on the juice. If the steroids make the hitter better, don't they make the pitcher better too? Isn't the affect of steroids on the record book then a wash? Mark McGwire broke the record most said would never be broken - Maris' 61 HR in a season. And he did it against pitchers on the juice. Roger Clemens won 350 games. We already know he did all this against players using performance enhancing substances. Rafael Palmeiro hit over 500 HR.

Why are we disallowed the admittance of our eras' greatest players enshrinement into Cooperstown? Sure - Bonds was, and probably is still, what is commonly called "a dickhead." McGwire admitted using steroids all of his career, after years of denial, and avoiding the questions. So. Canseco used steroids. He didn't hit 500 HR. It's still a magical number.

The beauty of baseball is the permanence of numbers because while eras come and go the game does not change in any great form. 90 feet home to 1st. 60 ft 6 in pitchers rubber to home plate. Parks are symmetrical, or asymmetrical - just as they were in the 20s, 30s, and 50s. Ruth dominated his competition. So did Aaron, and Musial, and Cobb, and Williams. The numbers only go so far. Jim Rice dominated his era, and yet did not achieve the 500 HR milestone. He is in Cooperstown - deservedly so.

Every era has it's giants on the diamond. We have ours, and we deserve to see them in Cooperstown. They dominated all the other juice-heads.

Saved by Springsteen.....

Read this last night, and again this morning.

Don't know where you are regarding Bruce. Many are all over the place. Love - hate - everything between. I liked this list too. Lucky Town is probably the most overlooked Springsteen piece. I think Downbound Train is overlooked as well. I think that Badlands is a glaring omission, as is Promised Land,and Brilliant Disguise. Aside from that it's a good list.

There's something about the personal power lyrics in the songs that got me, and continue to get me. The simple dignity of personal redemption, and the power of faith in yourself, and others around you resonates as well.

Going through a divorce is about the suckiest thing one can do. I know it's my suckiest experience. Having said that I still consider myself a pretty lucky person. No tragic deaths, nor perilously ill children have afflicted me. I probably listened to Badlands, Promised Land, Brilliant Disguise, and Girls In Their Summer Clothes about 400 times (iTunes counts these things - who knew at the time?) while the crisis was all over me. I also listened to True Devotion by the BoDeans too as many times, and a few other songs. The power of redemption is the hope we all need. Don't know where people are in their lives sometimes. We keep that to ourselves - sometimes to a fault - save for the most intimate of relationships.

I don't know what it is about faith and hope that keep us going. In a religious sense so many of us don't express it. Church does not inspire it as often as we need it to. Sometimes I think instead of tired old hymns we should sing Badlands.

"I believe in the love that you gave me.
I believe in the faith that can save me.
I believe in the hope, and I pray that someday it may raise me above these Badlands"

It even reads like a hymn.

Anyway - just been thinking about this. If you know, or sense someone in pain - be there for them. That's why we're here.

WTF?!!??!?!

Don't know where you are on the subject of the expiring Bush Tax cuts of 2001. And why, if it was such a great idea didn't they make them permanent? And why didn't they cut spending at the same time? Anyway - assumptions are: If you're below the $250,000 threshold - "Great."; If you're above that threshold - "Wait a minute!" Things like this quickly turn into a clash of philosophy/ideology, so I hope to avoid that, but don't expect to.

The problem is unless Congress cuts the programs we've - as a population - supported like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, National Defense by a lot - a LOT 33%, taxes have to go up. Democrats won't cut these things. Republicans won't either.

So what is "rich?" Some say if you're in the top 2% of incomes (over $250,000/yr), then you are rich. There's been a lot of buzz over a post (since taken down) of just such a household, and its complaint. http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/todd-henderson-we-are-the-super-rich.html The fact of the matter is most of us are doing OK - but not great - on much less than $250,000. Really dude - boo f***ing hoo.

I find it hard to feel bad for someone who is about to be taxed at 39% as opposed to 31% on income over this threshold. This is what we get for 2 Bush terms. The party of small government was not such. 2 wars (necessity is another subject) that were off budget - payed for with "supplemental spending" - unfunded expansion of Medicare Part D. GOP just piled on the debt - and NOW they're worried about it. Not so worried they'll cut spending, or allow taxes (taxes they passed as temporary when they had majorities) to rise.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-responds-to-someone-who-might-be-professor-todd-henderson.html

I don't know the solution. I am certain that a return to the policies that put us in this mess is not the correct one.

Primary night

Not a partisan post here. Most of my friends know where I stand, but I am genuinely concerned about the path of the GOP.

Then again it's their own fault. For a long time the party of small government has done little to fulfill that platform. Cutting taxes, which we all like, but not cutting spending. GOP faithful will blame Dems any way that they can, but the party that had held the White House for 20 of the past 30 years, the House from 1994 - 2006, and the Senate from 98-00, and 02-06 can only blame themselves for the fragmentation it's now going through visa-vis groups like the Tea Party, the Evangelical Fundamentalist Christians.

I don't want to debate the details here, but it seems that the Party of Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt can't be simultaneously shrinking all functions of government, and expanding it's reach into social issues. For all the talk about individual freedoms they sure do take the side of big corporation when it comes to issues of worker rights.

I hope they figure it out. I'm sure Dems don't have all the answers either, but from my eyes they're a little more consistent.

Sometimes a gripe is perfectly necessary....

Dating sucks. I mean - it's a good thing and all, but at this point in my life - with the available time there is, it's a damn shame to waste any free time with someone with which there is no attraction, or connection. It is what it is though, and today it's a big pain in the ass.

A Letter -- and a Challenge -- to an Anonymous Wall Street Whiner

I posted a link to this a few days ago, and RJs response is 100% in line with mine. While a few of my conservative friends shared the opinion that Wall St. is valuable to the economy, none of them were sympathetic to the tenor of the original e-mail. Moving money is important, but for the better part of the past decade money was moved by and large amongst the banks, brokers, and hedge funds in indicated by the growing share of profits as a %age of GDP. For all the money moved, there was not a proportionate growth in manufacturing, or service sectors. It tended to stay in the finacial sector.

Fact of the matter is skill sets matter, and while the economy is financially more generoous to the brokers, and bankers, the original e-mailer would not be able to "take away" any job from the "average joes."

The expectation of priviledge he expresses is what is sickening. The idea that he works, while the rest of us whine about tenure (not easy for a teacher to get), overtime (average hrs worked last I checked was around 33) is not widespreasd, union protection (please - union membership like it or not, is smaller and smaller every year), summers off (many teachers I know work during the summer in summer school, coaching, 2nd jobs), shows how clueless the original e-mailer is.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Names again?

Mark - good name. Marcuses are usually pretty cool. If they end it with the "k" - kinda jaggish. Jason most of the time turns out to be a knob,and if they spell it "Jayson" - total ass. Tiffany - total skank, and if she wraps it up with an "i" at the end - stripper. Maynard - dork. Audreys are cool most of the time. Bill - cool. William - asshole. Petes are cool too. Peter? Dunno - something about having a penis euphamism as a name - just like Dick. Let's see, Patty - lesbian. Patti - cool. Patti is the only girl name ending with "i" that is not skanky/stripperish. Good to know. Apollo? Total jackass. Tim - cool. Timmys are usually wusses. Timothys are pretentious, and annoying. Sam - girls and boys go by Sam. Sams of either gender are pretty cool. Samanthas are bitches. Samuels are total dorks. Pauls are almost always cool, as are Paulas. Paulines are usually stuck up. Paulinas are usually kinda bookish, but in a cute way.

Unified GOP To Block Senate From Debating Wall Street Reform

So - "inaction is not an option..." On the other hand we will not debate the bill, offer amendments, etcetera - which is what legislators are supposed to do - yknow thier job.



Sound like they want to keep negoatiating - which is "legi-speak" for doing nothing.



Sorry Sen. McConnell - not buying it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

More names

There are more names, and none of you are clamoring for more.....
Bonnies are cool, especially if their nicknames are Bon-Bon, or something similar. Kims are cool too, but the full name rule applies here. Kimberlys are stuck up - Kims are cool. Saras are usually pretty cool. Tammys are whiny and annoying - if it's Tami - she's probably pretty skanky. Lindas ane Lauras are usually pretentious. Lauras are smart, and can pull it off.

Bambi - come on, this is obvious. Stripper. Morgan are usually dingy, but hot most of the time. Kathy with a K is a cool name, but Cathys with a C are nerds. The only exceptions are if they finish with the "i." In this case they are dingbats. Michelles are always cool, and easy to hang with, and usually like to have beers. Patricias are like female Richards. If it's Patty - they're probably cool. If it's Trish, they might be crazy, so be careful. If they go by Pat, they are probably lesbians, and can kick your ass.

Carlys are cool, and almost always really fun and quick with jokes. Carlys are very funny. As I said before - Anns are cool. Annies are either stuck up, or nerds. Even if they are not hot, they're stuck up. Charles is tricky too. Chucks are usually pretty cools. Chuckies are crazy. Charlies are kinda dorks. If they insist on Charles - they are probably dickheads. Jeffs are usually pretty cool, but in a nerdy way. Geoffs are pinheads - come on spell it right. Jeffery/Geoffrey - always overly effeminate, and most likely gay.

What's in a name????

What's in a name? Well, Lisas are cool. Tinas are always skanks. Candi is a stripper name, but Cyndi is not. Dans are pretty cool. Steves are cool, but Stephens are self absorbed, and too macho. Teds are almost always nerds. Bretts are know-it-alls. Lisas are cool. Jens are cool, unless they want to be called Jenni...fer - then they're stuck up. Jenny is OK - if you're 12!

Amys - they're the best. They like beer and football. Laugh at dirty jokes, and are never uptight. Anyone who goes only by the full version of their name is stuck up. Elizabeth - stuck up. Beth and Betsy - very cool. They like beer too, but are soccer fans. Betsys do like baseball though.

Katrina - stuck up, but usually hot. Katy, and Trina - cool. Kerry - cool. Carri - stripper. Anns and Sues are cool. Annabelles are nerds. Susan is the only exception to the full version name rule. Susans are just as cool as Sues. More on this bit as it develops. And people - don't blame the messenger. I don't make the rules.......

Jesses are cool. Jessicas? Do I need to keep explaining? Les - cool. Lester - pervert. Rich is a tough one. If they laugh when you call them Dick - they are cool. If they say "It's Rich," they're a dick. Al is cool if it's Allen. If it's Alvin - nerd either way. George - have you seen Looney Tunes? The dumb guy names everything George. I know it's from Mice and Men. Again - just the messenger.

Greenspan Says His 'Friends' Got The Financial Crisis Right - And Trades Barbs With Michael Burry (VIDEO)

If there's anything to take away from Dr. Burry's story it's this: He read the prospectuses. He said that is why he went the way he did, and foresaw the subprime meltdown because he thought that the underlying mortgages that the derivatives were based on were bad on paper. If Dr. Greenspan wants to tell us that very few people could see this coming, and only a fortunate few did - that's kind of disengenuous. It looks like the people who foresaw the meltdown read the fine print. That does not sound like being "fortunate."



Whether it's the individuals fault for taking a mortagage they could not afford when the rates adjusted, or whether investors should be reading prospectuses before they're investing clients money into these derivative products, the one thing that cannot be legislated is human behavior. We're all free to make stupid decisions.



We're left with what we can do legislatively. Require greater capital reserves so that when investments go bad, the bank can take the loss? Require commercial banks (those backed by FDIC and with access to Federal Reserve Funds) to abstain from proprietary trading?



Don't know, but doing nothing is not an option.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Irony of the week

Very conservative Tea Partiers harboring extreme distrust in the government have heeded the "advice" of conservative congresspersons, and media persons and are not returning census forms. This of course will undercount districts where there are higher densities of these people. Potentially leading to a loss in representation to those states.

If they think the government does not listen to them now, how much "better" will it listen if their districts are reapportioned, and merged with another? It's almost a self-fulfilling prophesy. The government does not listen - they lose a congressional seat, and their voice is merged with the district next to them. Less representation - fewer like minded votes.

We can argue about the rightful role of government. One thing that is certain is that Congress is given the duty in the Constitution to conduct a census. If you're not counted because you "protest" governments role by not participating in a role that is in arguably a government responsibility, then what can you really hope to gain?

Google Gets in Bed with Verizon

What is most important is net neutrality in all of this I think. Fact of the matter is that much of the infrastructure for telecom is heavily subsidized, and those networks are a public trust (much like broadcasting rights) As such the big telecoms really need to commit to net neutrality. For all the bluster they make about "their pipes" (jargon - not stupidity) being their pipes - as they have been subsidized they're just as much our pipes.



Additionally, comparing broadband access here, and in Europe where population densities are higher is apples to oranges, and the FCC plan is correct in that greater investment in infrastructure construction into lower population densities will be needed as it is just not profitable enough. The gov't investment is needed to support it's growth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why are we angrier about health care than the financial meltdown?

I am baffled as to why we are angrier about health care reform (regardless of which side you are on) than we are about the financial meltdown on 2008.

Basically the worst financial meltdown has brought us the worst economy since the 1930s. The causes of it are known, but the degree to which the misconduct has been investigated, and specific legal cases are not part of the news. I would think it would be were it happening. For that reason I'm inclined to think it's not happening.

Bankers are still leveraged, and the toxic assets that were the rot in the system (so we were told) are still in the system. Some reports tell us that there are more foreclosures coming, and more defaults are expected.

Well, hopefully this is the beginning. I doubt it, but I hope so. We need more Dylan Ratigans in the media.

I posted this MSNBC video of Mr. Ratigan's show - which I could not find on msnbc.com, but have here from Huffington Post.