THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Tuesday, February 07, 2012

The will of the people?

As many of you know, the Unconstitutionality of Prop 8 (banning gay marriage) in California was upheld today by a 3-person panel of the 9th Circuit.

A leading proponent of Prop 8 said this:

“We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage – tried in San Francisco – turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court,” he said.

California voters passed Proposition 8 with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage by striking down a pair of laws that had limited marriage to a man and a woman.

Putting aside the (important) issue of a majority being able to dictate the rights or lack thereof of a minority, it really rankles me when any group uses the “will or mandate of the people” argument when 50-something percent vote for against something or someone. I mean, isn’t 52/48 essentially a split? That is almost as far from “a mandate” or “will of the people” as you can get!

And the person quoted above says, “the American people.” Of course this was a California vote, not a national one. However, let’s talk about “Americans” since this guy did in fact say, “the will of the American people.”

According to this Gallup poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

53% versus 45% of Americans favors gay marriage!  So this guy, in addition to incorrectly (and irrelevantly, since Prop 8 is a state issue) talking about the “will of the American people,” is full of crap as far as his facts are concerned, at least according to the poll I referenced.

Monday, January 30, 2012

If outsourcing is bad then so are industrial robots and the like.

Non-sports post.

Almost everyone thinks that outsourcing of jobs to other countries where the labor (and sometimes materials) is cheaper is a bad thing. I listen to left-winger Thom Hartman all the time on the radio. He is a really smart and knowledgable guy and he constantly rails against outsourcing as do most commentators and political activists from the right and the left (and middle).

However, is this one of these things that everyone just assumes is bad because the pundits and talking heads say so and it sounds logical - after all, it puts hundreds of thousands people out of work and just allows large, money-grabbing corporations to make more money?

I don’t know the answer, but it seems to me to require a lot of complex thought and analysis and I lean toward thinking that outsourcing is a good thing for a country. Then again, I am far from fluent in economics and the like. Many of you are way smarter than I am in that field.

The basic wealth and prosperity of a nation is based on two things: One, natural resources that other countries need (as well as your own). If your country sits on a pile of oil, no one had to work. You simply sell that oil to other countries to buy whatever you want. I am looking at this on a simplistic level of course. Obviously some totalitarian governments can (and do) keep most of the profit for themselves, live like Kings and give out just enough to survive to the rest of the people.  But you know what I mean.

Two, developing technology and gaining knowledge that enables your country to produce things really cheaply and run things efficiently as well as sell that technology and knowledge to other countries to get things that you want (like the natural resources). If your country can somehow produce food, medicine, cars, etc., at very little cost, then everyone can live a great life and no one has to work real hard.

Anyway, one way to produce things more cheaply is to pay people that don’t live in your country $1 an hour to help you make something rather than $10 an hour you would pay people in your own country. Now, the disadvantage to that is that those people who are out of a job have to find something else to do to be productive.  However, one of the benefits, besides being able to produce things more cheaply, is that some of those people who are out of a job can get educated and do something more productive than answering a phone or operating a sewing machine. The more people you have in a society who do non-menial things, the more prosperous your society. In fact, ideally, a society would be most prosperous if no one in that society did any menial jobs - if all of them were outsourced to people in other countries or you developed technologies that replaced all menial labor. Of course outsourcing everything would be exploitative. But that is another issue.

So it seems to me that outsourcing always outweighs the temporary job loss of the people who are being replaced. In fact, even if some percentage of those people remain completely unemployed forever (and the rest of the country supports them), there is still a net gain.  After all, if one million people lose their $10 an hour jobs and are replaced by one million people in other countries making $1 an hour, a country saves 9 million dollars an hour right off the bat. With that savings, you can actually pay 90% of the people who lost their jobs $10 an hour to do nothing, and you break even!

Anyway, the piece de resistance counter-argument to the notion that outsourcing is bad is this: If outsourcing is bad, then any technology that replaces workers, which is pretty much ANY technology, like computers, industrial robots, machines, etc., have to be bad also!  Sure, that kind of technology creates some more jobs and also increases the overall level of technology in the society, but they are essentially the same thing. Whether I use robots and machines to manufacture my widgets or outsource my workers, it amounts to the same thing.

Finally, the argument that, “Well, the corporations will keep all the profits from outsourcing anyway,” is not an argument, although you hear it all the time. That is nonsense. Yes, the companies will make more money. But the consumers will also be able to buy things for a lot less money. Why can we buy computers, DVD players, watches, phones, TV’s, clothing, etc.  so cheaply?  Only because they are made in China and Taiwan (and Haiti, Mexico, etc.). If it were true that companies reap all or most of the profits from outsourcing and that the consumer (i.e., the whole society) does not benefit much, then it would also have to be true that any technological advance that enables a company to produce things more cheaply and efficiently also is not good because only the company will benefit. Of course, when a company benefits, so do their investors, their employees and everyone else from whom the owners of the company buy things from.

What say you guys?

Monday, January 09, 2012

Tyler Clementi’s mother versus “Amelia”

Non-sports post.

Read More

Friday, December 23, 2011

“We can’t even pass a tax cut?”

I love that line from Newt.  Also from Obama:

Has this place become so dysfunctional that even when people agree to things, we can’t do it?

Romney’s response keeps showing why people can’t stand him.

Anyway, have at it if you like.  While I would prefer to see the comments be objective (fair to both sides, as a neutral observer), I know that’s a tall order.  Let’s see how far you guys can take it.

Louis C.K.

Spirit of generosity:

Though the comedian Louis C. K. may not seem like the kind of guy who derives much joy from the holiday season – let alone anything else – Santa Claus has brought him an early Christmas gift. In an interview on Wednesday’s broadcast of “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” Louis C. K. said he had grossed more than $1 million from his online comedy special, “Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater,” after 10 days on sale, and would be donating part of that money to charity.

Having told Mr. Fallon that he’d never had $1 million all at once in his life, and then dismissing his electronically earned largess as “a $5 impulse that 220,000 people had,” Louis C. K. explained that he would use $250,000 to pay for the special (as he has said previously), spend another $250,000 in bonuses to people who work for him and give $280,000 to five charity organizations

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Bill Conlin

A family tragedy, based on these vivid and numerous accounts.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Paterno: what he said he knew, and when he said he knew it

His own testimony:

Joe Paterno’s minutes-long January testimony before a grand jury investigation Jerry Sandusky was read into the record in absence of his in-person testimony at a hearing for two Penn State officials.

Read aloud by a representative for the Attorney General’s office, his testimony lasted 6 minutes in court Friday.

Here is what he said: McQueary called him on a Saturday morning, he couldn’t remember what year.

McQueary told him he’d seen Sandusky who was “fondling a young boy” in the showers of the Lasch Building.

“It was of sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was. I didn’t push Mike ... because he was obviously very upset,” according to his testimony.

“I was in a little bit of a dilemma ... because Sandusky didn’t work for me anymore,” it continues.

Paterno testified that he told McQueary he would contact the appropriate people at Penn State.

“I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Mr. Curley, I thought he would handle it appropriately,” according to testimony. “...I did tell Mike, you did what was right, you told me.”

He continued to explain that he couldn’t be precise about when he called athletic director Tim Curley because it was a Saturday, and he probably didn’t want to disrupt his weekend.

When asked about other reports of similar activity, Paterno said he had no recollection of any such rumors being discussed in his presence.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Fantastically quick change in view of DADT

Non-sports post.

Last year:

The chief of the US Marine Corps said Tuesday that ending a ban on openly gay troops in the military could jeopardize the lives of Marines in combat by undermining closely knit units.

General James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps and an opponent of lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prohibition, cited a Pentagon study saying Marines fighting in Afghanistan were worried that permitting gays to serve openly could disrupt “unit cohesion.”

“When your life hangs on a line, on the intuitive behavior of the young man… who sits to your right and your left, you don’t want anything distracting you,” Amos told reporters at the Pentagon.

“I don’t want to lose any Marines to distraction. I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda (hospital) with no legs,” he said.

He added that “mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines’ lives. That’s the currency of this fight.”

His comments were the toughest yet on the issue, after he testified at a congressional hearing that he opposed lifting the ban at a time of war.

Amos said Marines fighting in Afghanistan sent a “very strong message” in the Pentagon’s recent study, expressing opposition to the repealing the ban in an survey.

“I have to listen to that,” he said.

Today:

Since the lifting two months ago of a longstanding U.S. ban on gays serving openly in the military, U.S. Marines across the globe have adapted smoothly and embraced the change, says their top officer, Gen. James F. Amos, who previously had argued against repealing the ban during wartime.

“I’m very pleased with how it has gone,” Amos said in an Associated Press interview during a week-long trip that included four days in Afghanistan, where he held more than a dozen town hall-style meetings with Marines of virtually every rank. He was asked about a wide range of issues, from his view of the Marine Corps’ future to more mundane matters such as why he recently decided to stop allowing Marines to wear their uniform with the sleeves rolled up.

Not once was he asked in Afghanistan about the repeal of the gay ban.

One more phony outrage story put to bed. 

Saturday, December 10, 2011

“We’re not racist! We just like saying derogatory terms against black people for fun!”

This still happens in schools?

Sunday, December 04, 2011

Arbitraging pennies for its base copper value

Love it:

Clients use Youngs because he separates copper pennies from the chump change—the newer pennies that are only worth $0.01.

But in the weird world of penny hoarding, getting to the copper is a very big problem. It’s illegal to melt pennies an there is an obscure federal law that makes it illegal to transport more than $5 in pennies out of the country.

Penny hoarders know this of course, but they also know something else. In what could be the biggest legislation to hit the U.S. Mint in 50 years, officials are now looking at the composition of pennies and nickels and considering an overhaul. If the laws change and the mint decides to abolish the penny, people would be free to melt them down for the copper.

A penny saved, many times over, could be a whole lot earned.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Is Pepper Spray a Vegetable?

I am a libertarian and a pacifist, but I also believe that we are a country of laws.  Now, let’s forget about whether it is our duty to protest or defy unjust laws for a second.

I am going to play devil’s advocate in the initial post.

It is settled law that the government (and government affiliated institutions, of course, like public or semi-public universities and colleges) has a right to impose time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions on the first Amendment free speech and assembly rights.  This is common sense anyway.  I don’t think too many people would want, say, loud protests 24-7 on any public property.

So let’s say that you have a peaceful protest or occupation on public property but that eventually it is deemed to be inappropriate in terms of T.P or M, such that the protest is now illegal.  And let’s say that the authorities have even given the protesters some slack by not evicting them right away.  I am not referring to any real-life protest or occupation. I am speaking hypothetically although this might be similar to current events.

Anyway, the authorities have decided that it is time to enforce the law.  They tell the protesters that their occupation is illegal and they must leave. The protesters ignore the directive.  The authorities can forcefully remove them I guess.  This might not be so practical for several reasons.  They don’t want anyone to get hurt.  They don’t want to incite the protesters.  They don’t have the manpower to do that, etc.

So they tell the protesters, “Listen, you really need to disperse.  You are illegally occupying this space.  Please leave or we are going to pepper spray you in order to force you to leave.  Remember, I just told you that you can leave peacefully and we won’t even arrest you, even though you are illegally trespassing.  I am also telling you that I am going to pepper spray you if you don’t leave. I don’t want to do that, which is why I am warning you.  If you don’t leave and I pepper spray you, it is your own doing.”

No one leaves and they get pepper sprayed.

Is there anything wrong with this scenario?  Did the authorities do anything wrong, assuming that their job is to enforce the law?

Friday, October 14, 2011

Levi Raines, Jr

Story:

One of the survivors in the first of two shootings in Sanford is the nephew of a former Major League Baseball All-Star. Levi Raines Jr. was one of four people shot late Wednesday night along Cypress Avenue. Levin Raines’ condition was not immediately confirmed, but officials said two of the three surviving victims in Wednesday night’s shooting remain in critical condition.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

“American-born student denied N.J. tuition grant due to mom’s immigration status”

Oh, I can’t stand this bullsh!t.

So, now you have to be a “pure laine”?  Maybe something good could come of this, this absurdity of slippery slope.  What’s next, that the grandparents were illegals, even if the parents are US Citizens?

DREAM Act please.... the world is fine, until the adults take charge with their hate.

Monday, June 06, 2011

Five Stages of Weiner

Non-sports post.

While we wish everyone would deal with grief as quickly as Homer Simpson did (video), Weiner took less than a week for his:
1. denial and isolation (he’s laughing it off)
2. anger (he starts to accuse someone of hacking)
3. bargaining (talks with media, though not completely honest)
4. depression (presumably he did not have a fun weekend)
5. acceptance (tells us what we were able to piece together anyway)

We need more Homer Simpsons in politics.  Can’t a politician simply do stages 1 through 4 in private, and then publicly do stage 5?  For all his faults, the Governator’s story lasted one day, because he did just that.  Palin’s lack of historical facts, etc.  Just admit you were being a foolish human being and the story dies.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Just in case you needed another reason to think that Trump and Beck were buffoons…

Read More

Sunday, May 01, 2011

Where were you?

I fell asleep early, and my wife woke me up, with some news that there was going to be major news.  (She also just happened to have turned on the TV just minutes before.) Reading between the lines as I watched the networks, it was clear it was Osama.  And just minutes later, it was announced.  (About 20 minutes ago, I lost the visual TV feed from Cablevision, and will follow via livestream online. Update: just got the TV feed back exactly as Obama says Welcome.)

Where were you?

Friday, April 29, 2011

The most bizarre news conference you will ever see!

I’m pretty sure most of you have heard about the “Roger McDowell incident” at ATT&T/Pac Bell Stadium or whatever the heck it is called these days.

You may not have seen the bizarre dog and pony show by Gloria Allred and her client however.

http://www.tmz.com/videos?autoplay=true&mediaKey=c768a07d-3b51-4591-963e-3966a27b39b9

As if the news conference itself is not outrageous enough, check this out:

Allred explains how McDowell used homophobic slurs and simulated gay sex with a baseball bat.  She actually demonstrates the bat thing and reads from a paper what McDowell said, using words like “effing” and a “crude word for the rear end” (getting effed up the a**).  The point was that her client was sitting in the stands with his two 9 year-old daughters.  Clearly he had a right to be offended.  Now, here is the absolutely bizarre (unbelievably crazy) part, if you have not seen the video yet:

She reads from a piece of paper what McDowell said (his cusses and homophobic slurs, etc.) and twice in front of flashing cameras demonstrates McDowell’s simulated sex act with a baseball bat - but here is the kicker.  She does all that while flanked by her clients’ 9 year-old daughters!  At several points when she says “effing” and “crude word for a rear end” you can see the daughters stifling a smirk.  Now, I am no prude by any means, but is there not irony in this situation?  I’m truly flabbergasted by this news conference.  And what kind of a moronic parent lets his kids participate in this...I don’t even know what to call it…

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

An auction or a lottery?

Have you seen the commercials for http://www.quibids.com where they tell you that you can purchase retail items in an auction format for pennies on the dollar?  Yeah, right!

Who is selling these items? Is it peer to peer like ebay?  Nope.  The site themselves is an online retailer, like amazon.com.  So they lose money by selling items for pennies on the dollar?  Yea, right!

They simply have a lottery disguised as an auction for each item with lots of vigorish for the house.  How much I don’t know.  Heck, even if it is small they still make lots of money by selling millions of items at retail prices.

How does it work?  Simple. You buy bidding dollars.  If you win the item, you get it for pennies on the dollar and you go bragging to your friends how great the site is. If you don’t win the item, you lose your bidding points that you paid for!  Only a few bucks, better luck next time.  And the site generously offers to let you spend your bidding points on purchasing the item at their retail price plus shipping and handling. If you choose that option you don’t lose anything on the auction.

These things burn me up, as you know.  My blood boils just thinking about it…

Monday, March 14, 2011

Nuclear Power 101

Non-sports post.

Good stuff.

Sunday, March 06, 2011

OK, someone had to bring up Wisconsin

I’ve been thinking about this for a while.  Being a staunch liberal (but not liking labels or being pigeon-holed and always trying to understand opposing views rather than summarily dismissing or attacking them, as most politicians and poly commentators do), my first instinct was to back the protesters in Wisconsin and demonize the Republicans.

But then I thought, “The government are the employers of these people and they have a right to set whatever constraints on their employees as they like, and if the employees don’t like it, they can go work somewhere else.” That is the way free markets work.

However, after much more reflection, I realize that that position is wrong.  First of all, changing the rules of the game in mid-stream is patently unfair (and would typically not be allowed if it conflicted with an employee/employer agreement).  But that is a minor point.

The MAJOR point is that what the Republican government is trying to do is to make a LAW that prevents their current and future employees from doing something that obviously benefits their position - namely bargaining for their wages/rights in certain circumstances.  That is dirty pool!  No other employer, other than the government, can do that.  They can’t make laws!  They can’t say, “It is now illegal for you to bargain with me!” Only a law-making body can do that.  And in a democracy it is patently ridiculous to allow the government as an employer to make laws which prevent their employees from bargaining!  Could you imagine your employer, whoever they are, telling you, “I’m sorry, but you can’t bargain with us anymore about your wages or working conditions. It is now against the law to do that!” That is one reason why we have anti-trust laws.

If that is allowable, how about a LAW that says that all government workers have to work for minimum wage, or they have to wash the cars of all the state senators or congressmen once a week?

It is one thing for an employer to set a condition of employment.  If the workers don’t like it, they can try and bargain it away.  No employer can force an employee not to bargain.  That can’t be done, with one exception and one exception only.  And that is when the employer makes laws (not rules of employment - that is perfectly acceptable) which can make it illegal for an employee to bargain (again, in this case, certain, and not all, things).

I now realize why there are so many protesters and why they are so vehement about their position…