The Recipe for Opposites Attracting

Talking to my wife today, she made the observation that my good friend and routine blog-replier Kirb and I appear to have little in common. “I love the guy, but how did you guys ever become friends?”

Thinking about it more, Kirb and I, to the best of my knowledge, have three things in common:
a.) We’re men,
b.) We both love baseball,
c.) We both grew up in Villa Park, IL.

At face value, one might think that having so little in common wouldn’t warrant a friendship. Thinking about it more, though, and I realized that coming from the same area as someone is no small relationship-building item; the last item might be worth ten times more than the others.

Whence we hail in large part dictates what sub-cultural practices in which we partake: education, traditions, common friends & family, years of shared experience. Without question, I have less objectively in common with many great friends from the 630, but by virtue of their native address I could pick up a conversation years after it was over without missing a beat.

If they were smart, they’d move to the greater Madison area, as this is a far more livable area than Chicago suburbia. I’m certainly excited to build a life here. But thinking about the quasi-silly little mini-traditions that all areas share, one can’t help but understand that they’ll inevitably bond otherwise different people together.

Amateur Ballplaying

A while back, Bill James created a defensive spectrum. It looks like this…

DH [ - - 1B - LF - RF - 3B - CF - 2B - SS - C - - ] P

“The basic premise being that positions at the right end of the spectrum are more difficult than the positions at the left end of the spectrum. Players can generally move from right to left along the specturm successfully during their careers.” (Historical Baseball Abstract, 1988)

I think in amateur fast-pitch softball, the defensive spectrum might look like this…

DH [ -- 1B – 2B – RF – C – 3B - CF - LF – SS -- ] P

In slow-pitch, it might look like this…

DH [ -- C - 1B – 2B - P - RF - RCF – 3B - LCF - LF – SS -- ]

I dunno, just a hunch.

Having played both fast- and slow-pitch softball, I’ve decided I’m a softball snob. Since we’re on spectra, I present to you the Lyons Baseball & Softball Spectrum:

[Limited 12” Slow-Pitch Softball – 16” softball (this is always slow-pitch) - Unlimited 12” Slow-Pitch Softball – 12” Fast-pitch softball – Baseball]

On the right, we have baseball. The game with which most amateur softball players are a fan, and the game after which softball is mirrored. To move left on the spectrum to fast-pitch softball, we shrink the field, increase the ball’s diameter, and remove leadoffs. Not a large adjustment. The adjustments grow larger, though, as we keep moving left.

Pitching still actually matters in unlimited slow-pitch, but only nominally. Now we’ve also eliminated stealing and bunting. Many unlimited leagues play with 10 fielders, a reflection of the knowledge that the game is offensively-tilted.

The left-most half of the spectrum involves barely any pitching skill at all. Run prevention is entirely on the defense, so that choochy 10th fielder is always there (hi). At least in 16”, the game doesn’t quickly become home run derby. (I don’t know of anyone who can crank a 16” softball, those things are like cantaloupes!).

But in limited 12” slow-pitch, when hitters have any skill at all, the game is effectively home run derby. Home runs are not only possible, but also common for a good lineup. The pitcher can’t stop it, the defense can’t (not with a fence anyway or without a ton of luck).

Variations on the left-hand of my spectrum are growing in popularity, while versions on the right side are slipping. The only reason I can see this might be happening is the failure of amateur players to invest their talents into actual pitching. My fast-pitch league has five teams; our slow-pitch counterparts are much larger. I suspect that slow-pitch players wouldn’t mind bunting and stealing, but that they just don’t know enough folks who can pitch.

Personally, I’m holding out. Keeping my standards high for strategy and style, I’m hoping to learn how to fast-pitch a 12” softball. Hopefully, I can be a part of the solution to a trivial, though nonetheless shameful – situation.

When We Make People

I was looking over these comments on when might be the best time to have kids.

It's obvious that this is one of those things that you can't paint over with a broad brush; there is no one way to go. Nonetheless, though, women's fertility peaks much earlier than we tend to start using it; that inclines me to think natural law might be guiding us to err on the early side. I'm personally inclined to think that being a 50-year old Grandpa might beat being a 80-year old Grandpa. And, first hand experience, the cost of having young children is vastly overrated.

But, I admit I'm biased (our first was born four weeks after my 23rd birthday), and more ignorant than not.

Not that I tend to want to wait for my peers before doing something cool myself, but the only - and I mean, only - downside to having kids early-20s is that parenting really creates a social divide between the fertile and waiting. Having kids creates a new consideration for literally everything you do. While childrens' presence is completely worthwhile and entirely refreshing, that consideration is really something that waiters cannot entirely grasp. That being said, I have a closeness with other parent friends now that I wouldn't otherwise have.

Three Thoughts

Some thoughts on everything:

*I'm a believer in chiropractic. Our colic-ridden son was taken to the friendly family chiropractor, and now he takes naps. When baby takes naps, wife is happy. When wife is happy, dad is ecstatic.

*I revisited some historical numbers for pitchers, and it's clear that it doesn't take nearly as much win share contribution - either in aggregate or in peak years - to be HOF eligible as a pitcher as it does as a hitter. Fielders hit several times per game and play everyday, pitchers don't.

I don't know what that means for Rivera and Hoffman in my HOF book. Are they among the greatest 80 pitchers of all time? That will pretty much determine my decision, which is only important in practice and not in application. The problem, though, is that there's way more to consider when evaluating pitchers; Bill James likens it to weighing 200 factors with each pitcher against those of others. (Park factors, saves v. win v. win pct, strikeout rate, defense behind them, run support, era, ERA, etc....).

*Apparently this blog is getting noticed! Yours truly has been invited for membership into a new online blog/thinktank/magazine of sorts to be launched later this summer. Called 'The Only Orthodoxy,' the site will be built around challenging our modern 'givens' to arrive at new, perhaps outside-the-box thoughts without fear of chastisement. The site is still under construction, but add this link to your bookmarks.

In Pursuit of the Abortion Debate's Middle Ground: Anyone Care to Join Me?

Whenever people with differing opinions debate their respective positions, finding common ground is integral. The abortion debate is no different. It’s entirely possible that progress on abortion dialogue might only occur with a similar pursuit towards what is held mutually, and not an emphasis on where the camps differ.

Perhaps the following statement could be a good starting point:

A society where abortion is rare but freely chosen is superior to one where abortion is prevalent but freely chosen.

That is, all else being equal, the act of an abortion isn’t a part of anyone’s vision for an ideal world.

My hope is that many in the pro-choice camp might be willing to admit this. Even if one disagrees with a certain humanity of the unborn, there still lies the potential for human life, which is not meaningless. Abortions are often chosen as a backup to botched family planning efforts; while we may disagree on the application, I think we can all admit that sexual responsibility is a fair price to pay to not potentially abort pregnancies. Beyond failed family planning, though, wouldn’t we all agree that rape and incest are never good? (Although using said admission to justify an abortion is an entirely different discussion.)

My fear, though, is that some in the pro-choice camp may be apprehensive about admitting this. From the extreme pro-choice philosophy, we are to be entirely neutral as to the act of an abortion. We’re to ignore that it can be gruesome and inhumane, and we’re also to disregard that it often hurts women (or stick our heads in the sand and believe that it doesn’t). I don’t know how large of a segment a fair moderate camp might be (I suspect it’s quite large), but I imagine that, by admitting my middle-of-the-road statement, these firm-yet-moderate pro-choicers may believe they risk a divide in their own camp with those who are of a more extreme pro-choice persuasion – that somehow they’re less pro-choice for admitting this.

I also hope that the pro-life camp will be willing to embrace this outside-the-box ethos. It only entails an admission that the end of abortion is a greater good than its banning. I fear that firm-yet-moderate pro-lifers may have a similar fright to their side’s extreme wing; that by being open to the possibility of abortion ending in a society where it remains legal somehow makes them less pro-life.

(As a pro-lifer, let me just say that that sort of thinking isn’t pro-life. It’s pro-abortion-law. The two can be similar, but being pro-abortion-law without being pro-life means that the work of building a culture of life equals and only equals a reversal of Roe v. Wade. How myopic.)

Prohibition didn’t work. The War on Drugs isn’t working. We’ll never be certain, but isn’t it at least possible that the same might apply to abortion? That the only way to effectively end it might be in a world wherein it is legal? The end in mind for the pro-life camp should be the end of abortion. Should not we prefer abortion’s rarity to its being banned?

I think that open-minded moderates from both blocs can forward an enhanced dialogue centered on this admission. Its application may include the following:
1.) A respect for families’ and women’s privacy surrounding their healthcare decisions. This includes, at least for the foreseeable future, the status quo as to abortion’s legalization.
2.) The price of said respect for healthcare privacy is sexual responsibility. I happen to think that’s more than fair.
3.) Sexual responsibility includes at best a society-wide preference for abstinence’s 0% failure rate, or at worst a firm resolve to maintain a healthy pregnancy should artificial contraception fail.
4.) A public proclamation that abortion, while legal, is not ideal. People who do not want to see abortion banned should not find the phrase, “Choose Life” at all weird or offensive. Those who do not want to see abortion occur at all should not find the phrase “Respect Privacy” the same.
5.) Dialogue of sex, abortion, family planning and the decisions inherent therein ought lose their current taboo status.

You can read more by checking out the website of Feminists for Life.

Both camps at present have a certain attachment to what the law says, and to seeing to it that their abortion ethos be legally codified. Pardon me while I suggest that it may be more important to maintain a certain legal status quo for those of the pro-choice camp, while not being inherently necessary to achieve the preferred end for the pro-life camp -- serious reduction/elimination of abortion.

The current abortion debate has no moderate voice; with extremists running the discussion, progress is impossible. Without change in the parameters of our dialogue, peace will never be found. Consider this blog as my suggested starting ground for these new parameters.

On the Overratedness of Specialty

I checked the career win share totals for each of the current MLB players I thought might be shoe-ins for the Hall of Fame. Two of the players, Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman, are modern day relief aces.

For hall of fame discussions, the magic number is 300; a player enters serious Cooperstown conversation with 300 career win shares. That is why these totals for career win shares of the two relief pitchers are eye-popping:
Rivera: 177
Hoffman: 155

Compared to the Hall of Fame Monitor for the same pitchers:
Rivera: 173
Hoffman: 132

(To be fair, Baseballreference.com’s Hall of Fame Monitor doesn’t measure Hall of Fame worthiness, but Hall of Fame likelihood. A HoF Monitor of 130 denotes a Cooperstown cinch. Win shares are a measure of a player’s impact to a winning effort; three win shares are the rough equivalent of one win that a player caused.)

What’s evident by the two sets of numbers is that there is a gap between the perceived impact of modern relief aces and the actual impact of modern relief aces. How could that be?

The gap between Rivera and Hoffman’s impact on winning baseball and their perceived impact on winning baseball stems, I think, from the heightened emphasis on specialization over generalization both in baseball and in life. As a culture, we revere the specialist in medicine, restaurants, law, vehicles, parenting, schools, music, financial advising, religion, etc. Adam Smith’s great capitalist vision, assembly lines of people-turned-zombies fixating on the most detailed, mundane task, and being evaluated on how many and not how well.

Clearly, at some point we have to decide that the task in which a specialist specializes is too precise for us to consider it Hall of Fame worthy. Terry Mulholland had a superb pickoff move. Fernando Vina excelled at getting hit by pitches. Mike Matheny was outstanding at blocking pitches in the dirt. All of those are true facts; I think we can all agree that they’re not sufficient for consideration to the Hall.

On the other hand, all Mark McGwire could do was take a walk and hit a home run. Quite frankly, he was pretty awful at everything else. There is no gap between his perceived value and win share contribution. (He might still not make the HOF, but that’s due to completely separate issues.)

So, we now have a spectrum of specialization. On one extreme is the home run, clearly beneficial to gaining wins; players who hit home runs and only hit home runs will be revered and ought to be. On the other extreme is the pickoff move/HBP-ability/blocking a pitch; players who excel here are valued, but by no means anything special historically.

The difference, of course, is that a home run has far more impact on the outcome of a game than a save, and light years more than a blocked pitch or great pickoff move.

Today’s relief ace is asked to enter a game in a save situation or sometimes in extra innings. This plan is almost always a waste of talent on behalf of a team’s best bullpen asset. Three reasons:

1.) Even an average pitcher can protect a 3-run lead 97% of the time.
2.) Imagine keeping your otherwise healthy slugger on the bench in a tied game in late innings, instead of pinch-hitting him; that's horrid strategy. Blowing a late lead in a tie game (when the modern relief ace is not used) while the relief ace is on the bench is just as ridiculous.
3.) Use of a relief ace in a save situation diminishes their ability to pitch effectively when truly needed.

Modern relief aces aren’t used in the manner most conducive to heightening their team’s odds of winning. Ergo, the modern relief ace’s contribution to winning is, in fact, minimal. Hence, lower win shares totals.

Protecting 3-run leads is certainly not un-important, but to use a relief ace for the task is like dropping an atomic bomb on a small rural village with the intent to conquer it: the job certainly got done, but you’d have to consider that effort both wasteful of energy and overkill.

It’s not Trevor Hoffman’s and Mariano Rivera’s fault that they played in an era that demanded their talents not be maximized. They’re both excellent pitchers who did well at the largely meaningless tasks they were assigned. I’m also quite confident that both could have done quite well at guiding their respective teams to greater win totals had they been put in tie games in or after the 8th inning. And, with those greater win totals, greater win shares for the relievers.

The fact is, though, that they weren’t. So how does that affect our hall of fame thinking? Do we remove our emphasis on a contribution to winning? This school of thought decides that we must emphasize their talent, the effect of which was largely stifled, and grant them a pass to Cooperstown based on:
1.) what more competent management would have done, and
2.) an assumption that their talent would have been equally effective in this more important role.

At times in history, we give players a similar benefit of the doubt for circumstances beyond their control. We regard Jackie Robinson as an elite all-time 2Bmen; it’s not his fault that Major League Baseball was segregated. We factor in wartime absence for Ted Williams; it’s not his fault Pearl Harbor happened. Etc., etc., etc.

So is this a case where we give Hoffman and Rivera a similar pass?

Now we have two questions:
1.) Where, on the spectrum of specialization’s impact, lies the save?
2.) Do we give the modern relief ace a pass for their lack of game-to-game impact by virtue of close-minded or ignorant managers?

To answer question one, I feel the save – as an accomplishment - leans more toward the great pickoff move than toward the home run side of the spectrum. I don’t know, but I’d guess that a single home run might be worth as many as four or five saves in terms of aiding a team to a win. The modern save is usually only one inning, pitching might only be 2/3rds of run prevention (fielding being the rest), and a pitcher can often give up as many as two runs and still be save-eligible.

To answer question two, first understand that the history of baseball is filled with largely close-minded managers. In that light, it’s clear that segregation and World War II are not on the same level of shafting a player as managerial ignorance. Paul Konerko lost two years of his career because the Reds couldn’t see he had greater upside than Sean Casey; sorry Paul, you’re not the first, you won’t be the last, that’s the breaks, and I’m not going to discount you two years of your career because Cincinnati had the worst GM on Earth.

In light of those two answers, I’m forced to accept win shares for what they are: a measure of contribution to a win and therefore the supreme measure of the impact a player had on the game. I also can’t grant a pass to the modern relief ace for their poor overall usage throughout the last two decades.

With that in mind, my apologies to Mariano and Trevor, but you won’t be getting my Hall of Fame vote.

I Blame the Puritans

Most touching is now banned at a public school in Virginia.

For whatever reason, there's an ethos in the thinking of affection that we either have to be hippies or Puritans: either locked away, denying our need and desire for affection, or rebelling against all things temperate. This is clearly erroneous thinking - temperance and love are both virtues for a reason.

As an aside, what the heck is going on with Fairfax County, Va? This is the same county whose powers that be almost shut down a soup kitchen?

Play Group at Planned Parenthood

I thought all field trips required parents' permission?

My hope is that my pro-planned parenthood friends can at least respect how I might want to be told my children's play group is paying a visit to the most evil organization I can think of...

Hillary leads Obama

New poll.

Besides tenure as 1st lady, exactly how is Hilary more qualified to be president than Obama? They're ideologically identical, except Barack has an apparent conscience and is clearly anti-war. I just don't get it.

Democracy and Gay Marriage Legalization: A Dichotomy

Massachusetts’s state legislature voted against a statewide referendum to resolve the gay marriage issue.

Let me just say this: I know little to nothing about Massachusetts’s law. If this blog suggests any legal expertise, let me apologize right here and now.

To start, though, there are two rules we all play by for living in a democracy:
a.) the possibility of policies being in place with which we personally disagree, and
b.) that we have to convince a ton of people of our points of view before we can affect change.

With judiciaries stacked with legislators, issue b is negated. I no longer have to convince my fellow citizen of what ought to be; I need only convince a majority of my state’s Supreme Court Justices. (If I happen to be guiding the ship as one of said Justices, issue a is also negated.)

The Supreme Court didn’t legislatively find for society a way to deem slavery unconstitutional. Their ratification process of Reconstruction Amendments weren’t ideal, but nonetheless it was left to constitutional processes to ratify the end of slavery. The same can be said for women’s suffrage; early 20th-century suffragists didn’t sue to force Justices to legislate on their behalf – they engaged society, and eventually society demanded women receive the right to vote.

I greatly suspect that had, for instance, the abortion issue been resolved democratically – one way or the other – it wouldn’t be nearly as huge an issue today. Why is that? Because our various representatives would have voted on our behalves, as opposed to a group of justices imposing their collective opinion. I firmly believe that a democratic process creates greater lasting power and a more heightened legal legitimacy.

As for me, I have seen/heard/read nothing to suggest the collective gay marriage legalization movement intends to heed the aforementioned two rules for living democratically. Reiterating my ignorance of Massachusetts’s law, my outsider’s perspective leads me to think that a referendum would at least permit democracy -- and the inevitable subsequent public dialogue – to dictate the whim of the people before the law is codified.

Words are powerful things. If I own a jeep, and want to be recognized as a convertible (for the public recognition of being a convertible-owner), I might just say that by virtue of my vehicle having an open top, it too should be labeled a convertible. Then you come along with your vehicle that has a closed sun roof, and demand the same thing. My neighbor might then show up with their beater Kia after having sawed the roof off and also demand convertible status.

What we’ve created is a anarchy of lexicon built on a public confusion behind the word, “convertible.” If, in fact, everything is a convertible, then being a convertible means nothing. This linguistic madness could have ended by either:
a.) clearly defining a convertible as a sedan or coupe with a removable roof, or
b.) clearly explaining the principle by which the Jeep might also be included.

Supposing that my perspective on gay marriage is wrong, and that it does warrant a redefinition, I have not read a principled reason to suggest that said redefinition should stop at b, or marrying only same-sex couples. If you have, please tell me, and I will immediately retract this paragraph. If I’m right though, and the pro-gay marriage community can’t decide where marriage as a definition ought to stop, this is an important point; if we can’t decide where marriage starts and stops, it is instantly meaningless.

I might be told that this isn’t so much an issue of gay marriage as much as an issue of civil rights. If, in fact, gay marriage were a civil rights issue, and only a civil rights issue, all legal protections (health care, estate, etc.) for partners’ rights would have been codified years ago under the aforementioned democratic pressure. (Borderline moot point in many states, as most already codify said protections). That has not happened nationwide. My thinking is that either:
a.) I’m wrong that the pressure would have led to codification, or more likely
b.) Lawmakers can’t separate gay marriage from partners’ rights, or
c.) The pro-gay marriage community seeks not marriage, but instead seeks to force public acceptance of alternative lifestyles.

In any event, Massachusetts won’t have a legit revisiting of this issue for a long while. Whatever your opinion on the issue happens to be, respect for the democratic process is integral.

The Garden Village

This doesn't exactly flow with the mission of my blog, but it's not everyday that the town in which yours truly grew up -- Villa Park, IL -- gets a front page billing on the Chicago Tribune's website.

Apparently, Villa Park's historically incompetent leadership decided to erect a monument honoring their veterans and families. What started out as a super idea, though, turned into a political stunt to appease local businesses. The issue at hand is the monument used, which you can see here. Clearly, it's 1 part veteran-honoring, 2 parts advertisement, with a little shoutout to the Village President who pulled the whole thing off.

Villa Park, I love you. If I ever accept an Academy Award you'll certainly receive my shout out. (630 - Hollah!). But this isn't even close to honoring your vets, it's actually beyond stupid. Get with it.

My All Star Ballot

Each year, I like to come up with my own best effort at each league's all-star roster. I put in place a few rules for myself:

*I limit the roster size to 25. That is normal to regular rosters, but generally all-star rosters are at 32.
*I require myself to have each team represented, per all-star rules.
*I do not take more than 11 starters, of which 5 can be starters.
*My bench will include one catcher and two outfielders. Of the remaining spots reserved for infielders, not more than one can be a 1Bmen.

With that in mind, here is my best effort at your 2007 MLB All Stars, as of today...

American League
C - V. Martinez
1B - K. Youkilis
2B - BJ Upton
3B - A. Rodriguez
SS - D. Jeter
OF - V. Guerrero
OF - G. Sizemore
OF - M. Ordonez

SP - Haren
- Shields
- Meche
- Lackey
- Sabathia

RP - Janssen
- Jenks
- A. Reyes
- Nathan
- Okajima
- Putz

Bench - Cuddyer, Teixeira, B. Roberts, Posada, Ichiro, O. Cabrera

Team Census - 3: TB, NYY; 2: Bos, Min, Cle, Sea, LAA; 1: Tor, CHW, KC, Det, Oak, Tex

National League
C - R. Martin
1B - P. Fielder
2B - C. Utley
3B - M. Cabrera
SS - J. Reyes
OF - J. Willingham
OF - E. Byrnes
OF - R. Church

SP - B. Penny
- J. Peavy
- I. Snell
- R. Oswalt
- R. Hill
RP - Isringhausen
- B. Fuentes
- F. Cordero
- T. Saito
- B. Lyon
- B. Wagner

Bench - A. Gonzalez, K. Johnson, B. Bonds, B. Molina, A. Rowand, B. Phillips

Team Census - 3: LAD; 2: SF, SD, Phi, NYM, Mil, Fla, Arz; 1: Was, StL, Pit, Hou, Col, Cin, ChC, Atl

No Confidence in Gonzales

You may have heard that the Senate attempted a vote of no confidence in the Attorney General. Two quick points:

1.) I wonder if Princess Nancy will attempt the same resolution for the House. House rules don't require super-majorities to close debates, hence the majority party basically calls the agenda shots.

2.) Did you catch Dubya's quote in that article? "[The Senate] can have their votes of no confidence, but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government." Now, to be fair, I'm sure the President meant to say "my cabinet," or "my administration" or something to that effect. But he said, "my government," as in, "my house" or "my car" or "my [something else that I own and no one else does so back off!]."

Very presidential.

Message & Delivery: Partners in Persuasion

If I had the time and money to collect anything, it would be throwback jerseys of baseball players who warrant shout-outs. Most of the time, it would serve as a conversation piece to witness to the historical underratedness of the jersey I’d be wearing.

“Wow, cool retro Royals jersey. Who’s that?” says the baseball fan noting my cool jersey wear.
“This is Dan Quisenberry. One of the greatest relievers of all time,” says me.
“I’ve never heard of him,” says the Quisenberry novice.
After which, I would preach the greatness of the Quiz, followed by his either being convinced or unconvinced.

Now, let’s say that instead of a relative historical no-name like Dan Quisenberry, I was wearing Ron Santo’s jersey. Santo is also historically underrated, but the average baseball fan not only has heard of Santo, but also has an opinion as to his performance’s place in history.

If I’m going to convince an unbeliever of an issue with which they already have formed an opinion, I can’t just spew the same old message. I have to present something different. I have to mention that:

a.) the Hall of Fame is behind schedule on inducting 3Bmen more than any other position,
b.) maybe four or five 3Bmen in history were considered greater than Santo at the point of his retirement, and
c.) even today, one can’t name eight or nine historical 3Bmen who were better.

The Santo-unbeliever has likely not heard the Santo case presented like that. They may still not be on the Santo-deserves-more-credit train, but they’re far more likely to join than thumping the same ol’ same ol’ (or, SOSO).

The same is true with sharing the Gospel with someone. Most culturally fluent Americans have heard some collection of the following gobble: Savior, Jesus, Bible, Mass, saved, etc. That’s all good stuff, don’t get me wrong, but it’s only going to have an effect on people who aren’t culturally fluent, or who are among cultures who aren’t familiar with Christianity. Everyone else has already formed an opinion.

We need a new delivery of the same message. That’s why I’m mega-pumped on the theology of the body. Imagine this conversation…

“So you’re a Catholic?” says the skeptic.
To which I reply, “Sure. Mass is kind of like sex with God.”

Most Catholics haven’t heard that message let alone pagans. It’s certainly not a slam-dunk path to conversion or persuasion or even further conversation. What it is, though, is an understanding that a message and the delivery of a message are equals; partners in the same task of educating the otherwise ignorant.

Today We'll Watch a Video

Watch the videos of Ron Paul from his website. Then tell me there's another more qualified Republican running in the primary.

Crunchy Commuter

Ivar Moi, for heroism at crunchy commuting, Lyons Den salutes you!

Opening Eyes to the HS Trend

In the first round of the MLB draft yesterday, 17 pitchers were selected. Ten of those seventeen were right-handed. Let’s take a look at the first eight…

Pick 8: Casey Weathers, RHP, Vanderbilt – Colorado: A reliever
Pick 9: Jarrod Parker, RHP, Norwell HS – Arizona
Pick 11: Phillippe Aumont, RHP, Ecole Du Versant HS (Quebec), -- Seattle
Pick 17: Blake Beaven, RHP, Irving HS – Texas
Pick 20: Chris Withrow, RHP, Midland Christian HS – LA Dodgers
Pick 22: Tim Alderson, RHP, Horizon HS – San Francisco
Pick 24: Michael Main, RHP, Deland HS – Texas
Pick 26: James Simmons, RHP, UC Riverside – Oakland

Seven of the first eight 1st round picks in this 2007 MLB draft that went to right-handed pitching either went to high schoolers or relievers. (And one was even French-Canadian).

I don’t know if any of those other guys are bad, or if James Simmons is any good. And of course, being a high school first round pick isn’t always bad. It’s just more often a complete waste. The gap is narrowing, but it is still a foolish practice to take a high school pitcher at all in the first round.

I guarantee you, each time a high schooler’s name was called out, Oakland GM Billy Beane’s heart pitter-pattered with glee. With the 26th pick, Oakland took the first collegiate right-handed starting pitcher in the entire draft. Pick freaking 26.

Big Brother is Picking His Battles

I don’t like being the one to defend the low rung of society, but a new proposal in Wisconsin that would have convicted sex offenders tracked via GPS for life really irks me.

This is the classic case of where democracy goes bad. You may have heard of the term ‘tyranny of the majority’; that is, two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The rules of the game give no protection to the minority sheep – the majority has ruled they will be eaten.

Fortunately, we live in a democratic republic. Democracy is not the law of the land, as (in theory) states have very prominent self-governing responsibilities, and the minorities are guaranteed various protections against the will of the masses.

To this matter at hand:

1.) The question should not be ‘ought we track sex offenders for life?’ The question ought to be ‘why is a threat to children on the streets at all?’ The answer, of course, is twofold:
a.) Our correctional institutions aren’t correctional; they’re merely glorified timeouts. If prisons served their needed purpose, we’d have no fear of the inmates they release.
b.) If our correctional institutions are uncorrectable, we know in our collective consciences that, while sex offenses are gruesome, a life sentence is not just.

2.) This is really Orwellian. That so many people are on board with it floors me.

3.) There’s no chance this is Constitutional.

4.) This creates a dangerous precedent for other, less violent crimes.

If you’re a Wisconsin resident, contact your state representatives with this regard. There’s a snowball’s chance in hell they’re not voting for the bill out of a fear of the screaming majority. Still, informing them of these concerns is really important.

Hot Dog!

Hopefully this will end an otherwise foolish debate.

What Would You Do for a Klondike Bar (or Alito & Roberts)?

Would you elect and re-elect George Bush?

In 2000 and 2004, many an anti-abortion socially liberal Catholic friend of mine voted for George Bush. Bush, while ideologically contrary to most Catholic teaching, was at least the most vocal anti-abortion candidate. In Catholic land, one’s views on abortion certainly take precedence over other issues, and therefore Bush was able to take a sizable portion of Catholically-inspired voting.

Since then, we’ve been given one of the worst presidencies of all time. I don’t know where on the list Dubya will fall, but an unjust war, complete fiscal irresponsibility, a larger more intrusive government, heightened political division, global unpopularity, and arguable breach of power add up to nothing at which history will look fondly.

That being said, it is dubious that Al Gore and/or John Kerry would have appointed John Roberts and Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. These two justices are, for all intents and purposes, why the socially liberal anti-abortion voter punted on all other issues and voted for anti-abortion Dubya.

Bearing in mind that Bush Jr. has 18 months left of a presidency more Americans are hoping ends sooner, and that he probably has less power now than at any point in his career, it’s worth asking the person who was conscientiously conflicted in 2000 & 2004 about the choice between a competent pro-choicer that didn’t receive your support, and the incompetent anti-abortion Bush: were John Roberts and Sam Alito worth it?

To be fair, we’ll never know. Ergo, this is not a question that warrants a passionate debate. Plus, we don’t know that he won’t make a 3rd nomination to the court before he’s done.

In addition, it’s really only a fair question for the voter who hated Bush, could barely stomach voting for him, and would have campaigned hard for Gore or Kerry in a heartbeat if only they showed a sliver of thinking abortion might not be ideal. I already know what the pro-abortion and pro-Bush camps feel.

But it is an important question. Without doubt, we’ll face a similar choice in elections of all levels over the coming years. While I hope we fail to have candidates quite as incompetent as Bush II, painting him as an extreme we seek to avoid may help us in making similar decisions in the future.

And, there are a number of ways to approach answering the question. One might even approximate the number of lives that could be saved via abortion’s banning. (5%?, 25%?, 50%?, 90%?)

There are two problems with that approach: it’s overly mathematical, and (more importantly) it assumes that the law paves a way to a culture of life. I tend to think culture must change before the law does, as the law needs to be in congruence with what culture believes to be a harmonious end in order to be respected.

(By the way, saying that is quasi-blasphemous to some members of the pro-life community. All I can say is that the end in mind is a culture of life, not a law of life.)

My own opinion is that on all other fronts besides judicial nominees, George Bush has retarded the advancement of a culture of life. If we believe that culture has to preface law, and I think I do, I’d therefore have to conclude that, while I have every confidence in Roberts and Alito, that they’re just not worth eight years of Bush.

But, I’m open to other thoughts, and I’m not particularly passionate about it either way. What do you think?

Buying Low, Selling High

Meet Dan Haren.

Dan Haren is tearing it up now. He is being paid $2.2 million this year.

Dan Haren was involved in a really lopsided trade before the 2005 season. Said trade sent him, a top prospect named Daric Barton, and a friend:

Kiko Calero. He is making $1.6 million this year.

They went to Oakland. They're paid a combined $3.8 million this year.

Meet Mark Mulder.

He has gotten progressively worse since coming from Oakland to St. Louis. He is making $6 million this year, or more than Calero and Haren combined.

That is how you play Moneyball. That is why Oakland will be a perennial winner, despite chronically low-to-average payroll.

It seems like when a team trades down a player -- that is, turns a small number of players into a larger number of players – and doesn’t do so due to financial constraints, the down-trader tends to do better long-term.

Hilarious

If you needed to know more about the Cubs perennial suckitude, peep this slideshow.

These photos are from ONE game. One.

Grown Up Banking

MSNBC has an op-ed on the use of overdraft fees, including pending legislation that would make a bank notify you if your account is low. The op-ed strongly favors said legislation.

I really dislike paying an NSF fees, and in my banking lifetime I’ve easily dropped $1000 on those suckers. Real waste, I’d love to have it back.

I’m biased, because I see my own bank’s income statement every month, but most of the outside world views those fees as a penalty for overdrawing your account. Fact is, the bank – without a loan application, credit check, or any due diligence on your repayment ability other than a really low deposit account – is giving you their money. It's a service, not a burden.

The article almost admits that this is only an issue in a debit-card centered deposit world. If we still wrote checks for everything, the customer eagerly pays for a fee for an NSF check. Somewhere between the end of checks and the beginning of debit cards, did we lose sight of the need for personal management? It sounds like consumption-happy Americans loathing the status quo choice between taking responsibility for their account maintenance, or paying a bank for acting like a transaction hound.

I really don’t care if the bill gets passed. I just wish we’d grow up.

O is for Obvious

Duh.