Well, the NH primary was discouraging. Clinton won and Guiliani wasn't buried by Ron Paul so the dread Clinton-Guiliani race is still a possibility.
If that occurs we need an independent ticket and I have a better idea than Mike Bloomberg.
The 2008 Dream Team
President - Colin Powell, VP - Bill Bradley
They announce the following choices for their cabinet.
Secretary of Defense - John McCain
Secretary of State - Al Gore
Secretary of Treasury - Mike Bloomfield
Attorney General - John Edwards
Head of Homeland Security - Mitt Romney
Head of EPA - Ralph Nadar
Showing posts with label Beatles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beatles. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Dr. Robert
So what are we to make of the Mitchell Report on steroids and performance enhancement drugs(PED)?.
Not much I think.
The report affirms what we all believed which is that the use of PED was widespread and that baseball managers, general managers, owners, trainers, players, agents, players union and the commissioner's office were all aware of this fact and did nothing.
Why was nothing done? I'm not sure. Who was being hurt by the use of PED? Not the owners, general managers, managers or the players who were using PED. I think the only potential agents for fixing the problem were the commissioners office and the player's union. The primary victims were the clean players who were at a competitive disadvantage to the users.
The reasons for using PED were and are compelling. Take the example of a marginal catcher. If you play at AAA level you would make less than $100,000. The minimum salary for the major leagues is about $400,000. If a marginal catcher can sustain a career as a backup catcher the salary would grow to $400,000 - $700,000 a year. If a marginal catcher could land a starter's job even for a year or two the salary would probably exceed $1,000,000.
The difference is ability of a AAA-catcher and a backup catcher (e.g. OPS .630) and a marginal starting catcher (e.g. OPS .700) is indeed thin. But the difference is salary is enormous.
The same salary disparity combined with ability similarity exists for marginal relief pitchers.
So it was not too surprising to see that many of the players named in the Mitchell Report were marginal players. They had a lot to gain and little to lose by taking PED. And since there is no testing for HGH, I would suspect that there are many players in these categories still using HGH.
What should we think about the players named in the report?
Not much I think.
Mitchell had very few sources. There was a concentration of players named that were associated with the Mets trainer and Yankees conditioning coach. I suspect that other teams had as many players involved as the Mets and Yankees. My guess is that many of the players named were users but the evidence in the report was not corroborated by second sources. As my son pointed out, a newspaper, even the NY News or Post would not have printed these names based on only one source.
The one issue that remains open is how should serious baseball analysts evaluate the records of players in this era in general, and how should we evaluate the records or known PED users such as Bonds and McGwire? Note I leave Clemens off the list of "known users" for now.
That's a difficult question that I leave for another time.
Not much I think.
The report affirms what we all believed which is that the use of PED was widespread and that baseball managers, general managers, owners, trainers, players, agents, players union and the commissioner's office were all aware of this fact and did nothing.
Why was nothing done? I'm not sure. Who was being hurt by the use of PED? Not the owners, general managers, managers or the players who were using PED. I think the only potential agents for fixing the problem were the commissioners office and the player's union. The primary victims were the clean players who were at a competitive disadvantage to the users.
The reasons for using PED were and are compelling. Take the example of a marginal catcher. If you play at AAA level you would make less than $100,000. The minimum salary for the major leagues is about $400,000. If a marginal catcher can sustain a career as a backup catcher the salary would grow to $400,000 - $700,000 a year. If a marginal catcher could land a starter's job even for a year or two the salary would probably exceed $1,000,000.
The difference is ability of a AAA-catcher and a backup catcher (e.g. OPS .630) and a marginal starting catcher (e.g. OPS .700) is indeed thin. But the difference is salary is enormous.
The same salary disparity combined with ability similarity exists for marginal relief pitchers.
So it was not too surprising to see that many of the players named in the Mitchell Report were marginal players. They had a lot to gain and little to lose by taking PED. And since there is no testing for HGH, I would suspect that there are many players in these categories still using HGH.
What should we think about the players named in the report?
Not much I think.
Mitchell had very few sources. There was a concentration of players named that were associated with the Mets trainer and Yankees conditioning coach. I suspect that other teams had as many players involved as the Mets and Yankees. My guess is that many of the players named were users but the evidence in the report was not corroborated by second sources. As my son pointed out, a newspaper, even the NY News or Post would not have printed these names based on only one source.
The one issue that remains open is how should serious baseball analysts evaluate the records of players in this era in general, and how should we evaluate the records or known PED users such as Bonds and McGwire? Note I leave Clemens off the list of "known users" for now.
That's a difficult question that I leave for another time.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Here Comes The Sun
It seems that the dialog about global warming and climate change is very different than it was a year ago.
No longer is there a serious disagreement or debate on (1) the earth is getting progressively warmer, (2) there is a statistical correlation between green house gasses and the earth's temperature, (3) there is a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and green house gasses, (4) therefore the earth's rising temperature is caused by the action of humans over the last 50 years, and (5) the trend will continue unbated at least in the short term, probably for 5-10 years.
Now the conversation is about medium term adaptations and longer term solutions.
It seems to me that some of the news (again medium to long term) is positive. Alternative energy solutions abound and as the direct cost of oil increases and the indirect costs of burning oil and coal become more objectionable then these other alternative sources will become economically viable. For example, I would not be surprised to see solar panels as a routine addition to residential housing or average car efficiency exceeding 50 mpg.
Someone once posited that in time George Harrison would be remembered as one of the major figures in bringing eastern religion and philosophy to the attention of the West and ,oh, by the way, he was also a musician.
Perhaps Al Gore will be chiefly remembered as one of the main figures who changed perceptions about climate change and ,oh, by the way, he was once close to being the president of the US.
No longer is there a serious disagreement or debate on (1) the earth is getting progressively warmer, (2) there is a statistical correlation between green house gasses and the earth's temperature, (3) there is a causal relationship between burning fossil fuels and green house gasses, (4) therefore the earth's rising temperature is caused by the action of humans over the last 50 years, and (5) the trend will continue unbated at least in the short term, probably for 5-10 years.
Now the conversation is about medium term adaptations and longer term solutions.
It seems to me that some of the news (again medium to long term) is positive. Alternative energy solutions abound and as the direct cost of oil increases and the indirect costs of burning oil and coal become more objectionable then these other alternative sources will become economically viable. For example, I would not be surprised to see solar panels as a routine addition to residential housing or average car efficiency exceeding 50 mpg.
Someone once posited that in time George Harrison would be remembered as one of the major figures in bringing eastern religion and philosophy to the attention of the West and ,oh, by the way, he was also a musician.
Perhaps Al Gore will be chiefly remembered as one of the main figures who changed perceptions about climate change and ,oh, by the way, he was once close to being the president of the US.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Nowhere Man
I inadvertently blocked all comments. You would think that someone who has worked with computers for 30 years would be able to figure this out. Thanks Tom for the heads-up.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Across the Universe
We have seen this movie three times so far. This film is getting some mixed reviews and I can understand that. I think you will find that it is either the best movie of all time or maybe just in the top 10.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Don't Let Me Down: Presidents and Character
This started with a dialog on where I stand on issues and how my views compare to the current presidential candidates. My answers to the questions on issues suggested that I was a Populist-Liberal and that none of the candidates agreed with me on the majority of the issues presented.
I made a comment that issues were not the only factor in deciding who to support and maybe less important then management and leadership skills, experience and character. And that raised the issue of character.
Is it important? And, can we make judgements about the character of the candidates?
I think the answer is sometimes and I'd like to look at some examples.
On the positive side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to favorably judge the character of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I think we knew enough about them when they ran for President. Both men served with integrity and honesty.
On the other side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to suspect the characters of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In 1968 we knew Nixon was mean-spirited, quick to anger, ruthless and overly ambitious. In 1992 we had strong evidence that Clinton was personally dishonest in his relationships. Basically both men were liars.
Interesting parallel - Nixon and Clinton. There may be a book here. In contrast to the men of high character mentioned above they were re-elected! But in their second term Nixon's ruthlessness and ambition led to his forced resignation and Clinton became only the second president in our history that was impeached by Congress. Now, I know that Clinton supporters think that his lying under oath to a grand jury was not impeachable in accordance with the constitution. That may be so. But it was a disgrace related to his basic character faults. So both Presidencies were spoiled by their respective character faults.
Infamous quotes:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton.
"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
Nicknames:
Tricky Dick
Slick Willie
Last Nixon-Clinton parallel. Despite the second term failures both men have followers to this day who think that on balance they were good presidents! The idea that anyone could consider Nixon a good President baffles me. For Clinton we need more evidence. For example, how much focus of terrorism was lost due to the impeachment.
So for me, character matters. Agreed sometimes it is hard to judge but when you have evidence it should be a factor.
I made a comment that issues were not the only factor in deciding who to support and maybe less important then management and leadership skills, experience and character. And that raised the issue of character.
Is it important? And, can we make judgements about the character of the candidates?
I think the answer is sometimes and I'd like to look at some examples.
On the positive side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to favorably judge the character of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. I think we knew enough about them when they ran for President. Both men served with integrity and honesty.
On the other side I think it was reasonable based on the evidence to suspect the characters of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. In 1968 we knew Nixon was mean-spirited, quick to anger, ruthless and overly ambitious. In 1992 we had strong evidence that Clinton was personally dishonest in his relationships. Basically both men were liars.
Interesting parallel - Nixon and Clinton. There may be a book here. In contrast to the men of high character mentioned above they were re-elected! But in their second term Nixon's ruthlessness and ambition led to his forced resignation and Clinton became only the second president in our history that was impeached by Congress. Now, I know that Clinton supporters think that his lying under oath to a grand jury was not impeachable in accordance with the constitution. That may be so. But it was a disgrace related to his basic character faults. So both Presidencies were spoiled by their respective character faults.
Infamous quotes:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton.
"I am not a crook." - Richard Nixon
Nicknames:
Tricky Dick
Slick Willie
Last Nixon-Clinton parallel. Despite the second term failures both men have followers to this day who think that on balance they were good presidents! The idea that anyone could consider Nixon a good President baffles me. For Clinton we need more evidence. For example, how much focus of terrorism was lost due to the impeachment.
So for me, character matters. Agreed sometimes it is hard to judge but when you have evidence it should be a factor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
