THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I feel that I’ve grown dumber having watched those two people talk for two minutes.

I think Meghan McCain is hot. There, I said it.

O’Reilly will give credit to Obama/Democrats and say some surprising things against republicans from time to time.  Maybe just for show, but he does do it.  I get the feeling he really believes what he says more than Beck or Limbaugh.

Beck is ridiculous with his crying and amped-up hyperbole all the time. Forget political persuasion, he is just a nauseating person to watch regardless.

Trump is just a media whore who is also politically irrelevant.  I couldn’t care less what he thinks.

I wonder if we are going to have a similar blog the next time Keith Olbermann says something stupid, hateful or untrue?  Doubt it.

"I wonder if we are going to have a similar blog the next time Keith Olbermann says something stupid, hateful or untrue?  Doubt it.”

Honestly, I have no allegiance to any of these talking heads.  I am sure that I have plenty of subconscious bias and I tend to read and watch the liberal media outlets (so that I get inundated with lots of vitriol against the right wing).  But otherwise, if a left wing guy is a lying, cheating bastard, then I’ll be happy to call him out. 

Charlie Rangel is a good example of one of those…

>> I wonder if we are going to have a similar blog the next time Keith Olbermann says something stupid, hateful or untrue?  Doubt it.

Nope, this site comes at you from the far left no matter what they tell you.  Sample size is getting larger and larger by the month.
vr, Xei

"Nope, this site comes at you from the far left no matter what they tell you.  Sample size is getting larger and larger by the month.
vr, Xei”

You know, that really pissed me off.  Probably the most I’ve ever been pissed off on this blog.  You are accusing us of being dishonest.  You effing better have some evidence to back that up, buddy.  We’ve been lots of things on this site, but dishonest?  You’ve got some nerve. You’ll never, ever, get a more honest blog than this one…

This is our blog and we get to post from whatever side of the political or ideological spectrum we want.  Where did we ever say that we were fair and balanced or that were were not biased? In case you didn’t read my last post, I just said that I am biased.  So I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.  And if you are implying that you don’t like the blog because of the non-sports or left-leaning posts, you are free to buzz off…

I am very moderate myself and hate seeing one side singled out when the other side is doing the same/worse, and maybe I shouldn’t have said anything to begin with.  However, I would never accuse them of hiding their liberal viewpoints.  They are very open and honest about it- which is fine since it is their site.

"the other side is doing the same/worse...”

I am biased as I said. Please educate me as to which democrat or leftist prominent commentators or politicians are as bad or worse in terms of being deceitful and in cases like Beck and Bachmann, are total nut jobs (IMO of course)?

I suppose that my idea of a total nut job (someone who believes that the Earth is 5,000 years old, thinks global warming is a scam, thinks evolution is just a “theory,” etc.) is not necessarily shared by all of our readers…

The Trump thing isn’t political at all.  The man pockets millions in fees from projects where his only involvement is allowing the developers to use his name to leave the false impression that it was his project, the same as projects on which he had both financial involvement and participation as an actual developer.  He not only admits this, but claims that fine print in lengthy legal documents--NOT in the marketing materials--entirely exonerates him from culpability when people put their money down specifically because the project bore his name.

Put aside the legalities and focus solely on the ethics.  What kind of person does something like this?  It’s one thing to give a celebrity endorsement--I don’t care what baseball training video Fred McGriff endorses, or what candidate Barbra Streisand endorses.  This is not an endorsement.  This is not branding.  This is allowing people to put down money based on a false impression that Trump had given these projects any more consideration than the price the developers were willing to pay to use his name any way they chose.  And then, when the thing collapsed, to keep his fees and thumb his nose at these people.  To come back and tell them it was all the fault of the economy is to compound the lie.  They chose a Trump branded project specifically because they thought projects he was involved with would be the survivors in bad times.  Yeah, you and I may think “Trump=bullshit”, but he can’t be the one to say that.  He didn’t take their money because his brand was useless.

Breadbaker, I fully agree.  I don’t care about his politics.  I think he is a lying, deceitful, con-artist sack of sh**.  Not to mention the fact that he is as immature as a grown man can be.  Have you ever seen the crap he writes and says when someone criticizes him?  He is everything I hate about capitalism and humanity (or lack thereof).  If he ever were to become President, I would book a one-way flight to some other country.  Of course, there is a 1% chance he will run and a 0% chance he could win…

I don’t like Trump personally either, and agree that he is too immature to be a good president. However, I have no reason to assume, based on the linked interview, that Trump is lying, or even that his position is wrong…

I agree that Xei’s comments, and Matt’s presumption are ridiculous.

From the world’s perspective, my views are hardly “far left”.  They are probably centrist.

In any case, they are not so biased as to cause me to have an unfair judgement.  Beck and Hannity and Rush are about the worst that TV has to offer.  Olbermann is a loud-mouth as well, over the top.  Are we trying to argue about which ones are worse?  Beck is insane.  Hannity is disgusting.  Rush is a showman who can’t possibly believe what he says.  Olbermann is arrogant enough to believe everything he says, which might make him worse of all.

I like Bill O’Reilly because he definitely is a showman.

In any case, Olbermann would be considered centrist to center-right in Canada, and right wing in Europe.

Not really sure what I said that was “ridiculous.” Like you, I bashed Trump and Beck and gave O’Reilly his “due.” I agreed that MGL and you were not liars as Xie alluded to and had the right to talk about whatever you wanted to on your site.

I only claimed that it would be nice to see Olbermann called out too occasionally - something you just did by saying he might be “worse of all.”

I never claimed that any of the individuals you mentioned in particular were better or worse than any others.

He has been called out occasionally.  Here’s one that I found with a minute of googling:

http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/bill_oreilly_math/#2

Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Olbermann, and the other gasbags are embarrassing.

O’Reilly at least seems like the crazy uncle you can laugh with.

See, the problem with your opinion is that it seems to have been evidence-based, when really it was offered as a summary opinion without evidence.  So, rather than presuming that Olbermann would not be called out, why not ASK if I (or MGL) would call him out?

This is what I don’t get about these opinions that involve me.  I am right here. I answer every single question posed to me.  So, if you have some level of uncertainty regarding your opinion that directly involves me, then why not do everyone a favor and ask first.  Informed opinions are valuable.  Evidence-free opinions are worthless.

Fair enough- and I stand corrected. 

Still confused at why you said that you “agree with Xie’s statements” when not only did he infer that you were a “far-leftist”, but also inferred you were lying about it.

"From the world’s perspective, my views are hardly “far left”.  They are probably centrist.
************

The key phrase is ‘from the world’s perspective’, in which case you are probably correct. But who who said that this has to be a ‘relative’ determination? If the ‘world’ has become/is becoming much closer to the far left philosophy than the far right, you could be a strong leftist in the absolute and still be a centrist in the relative.

#12/jake the snake, you’re completely right. Trump clearly isn’t lying. People may well have assumed that Trump was developing the project himself because his name is on it but, frankly, that’s their own fault, particularly in the legal sense. Trump is also right that these are just people looking to sue the deep pocket that still is around after yet another of many, many thousands of real estate developments went belly up.

If the name is important to you as a buyer, do your due diligence. It was a not yet built real estate project. I realize people were caught up in the real estate bubble but let’s not lionize a lack of common sense, either. One of the best ways to lose your money is, and always has been, investing - and that’s certainly what most of these people were doing, not buying their new primary residence - in a nascent real estate project. They were putting up six figures or more. Read the documents.

And, Trump, just put it in a disclaimer in the marketing materials. It will save everyone from a bunch of lawsuit nonsense.

trump is an insignificant political force, a businessman of dubious acumen, but an unparalleled entertainer. it’s amazing to me that’s he pulled off making himself a character that can play a world-wide heel. i won’t contend that he’s not a complete jagov and i wouldn’t trust him to build me a house made out of legos, but his value as a showman and entertainer is undeniable. did anyone see the espn 30 for 30 on the USFL? sure, he destroyed most of the league’s value with his rampant ego and basically was a huge piece of crap, but how entertaining was the whole story, and how crucial was his role as the antagonist to it?

so not trying to defend trump, he’s basically all the bad things people have been saying about him, but that hardly bothers me anymore than a cartoon villain would or the Iron Sheik from the old WWF (ok, that guy bothered me at the time, but i was 7).

i listened to that trump interview and found it pretty hilarious. the only time i thought trump was telling an out right lie was when he called the investors sophisticated. anyone who thinks a real estate project is safe because it has trump’s name on it is the opposite of sophisticated and should read this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124261067783429043.html

it is probably one of my favorite things ever. reading how insane it is that someone thinks being called a multi-millionaire instead of a billionaire is grounds for libel and defamation, and then actually going to court and making up so much crap in front of a judge on record. it’s all just theatre to trump does it just to protect his cartoon image. the suit was thrown out by a judge and trump was viciously reprobated but it still fascinates me.

it is a little scary that there will always be *some* people to take a lunatic like that seriously and that gets scarier when he talks about politics, but its all for show. just like when stern said he was running for mayor of nyc. except of course stern>>>>>>trump.

Matt16: I didn’t say I agree WITH.  I said I agreed THAT his statements were ridiculous.

I see that now.

"Trump clearly isn’t lying. People may well have assumed that Trump was developing the project himself because his name is on it but, frankly, that’s their own fault...”

Well, either the NYT article is mistaken or you are wrong.  From the article:

Mr. Trump described in marketing materials as “my latest development”…

The words, “my latest development” are pretty unambiguous.  That means, unequivocably, that you are at least one of the developers, and that is a lie.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit have a valid claim.  You cannot state one thing in your marketing material and another in your contract, and be free from having to answer to a lawsuit.

Someone above actually said that Trump does not lie.  That is ridiculous.  I googled dozens of articles, blogs, and videos, and found dozens of outright lies as well as blatant misrepresentations and exaggerations (an exaggeration is just a friendly lie) by Trump. 

Here is one of many videos/articles/websites/blogs that articulate his lies, this one is about Obama and his birth:

http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/donald-trump-birther-lies-destroyed-by-lawrence-odonnell/

And I am including “making up crap” in his body of lies…

Trump: just annoying.

Beck: ridiculous. Incredibly dull the few times I tried to watch him on TV.  Dull, and ridiculously mega-conspiracy minded at the same time.  Usually the crackpots are interesting; he manages to sound crazy and to be mind-numbingly boring at the same time.  But a totally different persona on the radio.  I occasionally flip over to his radio show of particularly slow commutes, and he’s good at it.  Kind of like the early 1990s Limbaugh, who was actually funny.  You don’t get to be this popular as a radio talker unless you’re good at at, whether you’re Limbaugh or Stern, and regardless of what most people think of you.  Not much content worth listening to, but a pretty good topical comedian when playing off his radio sidekick. The Megan McCain comment doesn’t bother me at all.  She is a young woman of little or no accomplishment continuously thrusting her cleavage in her would-be audience’s face.

Megan McCain:  Kind of hot to a middle-aged guy like me (and should be to Beck, too), but I would’ve considered her just a fat chick when I was younger.

Megan McCain thing:

It was a PSA for skin cancer.  His thing was in bad taste.  The thing is, he is not a comedian; he is a political commentator - at least he thinks he is. 

If he does infantile humor like that, how can he expect anyone to take him seriously?

MGL, I see your point. I knew nothing about Beck until he became (briefly) a media phenomenon.  I watched his TV show.  It was awful and he appeared to be a nut.  I then caught a few of his radio shows and he sounded more like a cross between Stern and Limbaugh, riffing with his sidekick for 20 minutes at a time on some minor news event (something like the McCain PSA).  I guess I’d say he’s like an Imus on the radio, but more entertaining (I always thought Imus was the exception to my “if he’s got a huge audience he’s good at it” rule.) I don’t understand—much less agree with—the vase majority of Beck’s fringey/paranoid politics.  But listen to him on the radio some time just to hear the nature of his show.  It’s really like a different guy than the crying weirdo on TV.  Poor taste?  Yes.  But McCain has it coming after writing that book for nonreaders she’s been pushing for the last year.

If I can, I’ll listen to his radio show. I doubt I will be able to stomach it for more than a few minutes, but I like to keep myself informed about as much as I can, even if it is the ramblings of a nut job…

Not saying I like the guy, but he partially (very partially) redeemed himself in my mind when (right after Obama released his birth cert) I caught Beck’s 20-minute riff on stupidity of the birthers and what phony issues they were likely to raise now.  All of which came true just a few hours later…

28:  I was under the impression that Beck supported the notion that Obama faked his birth certificate or some equally farcical notion, but I could very well be wrong.  Did Beck never hold this viewpoint?

MGL,

“my latest development” is ambiguous. for example, it could mean “my latest licensed development”, which is what it was in reality.

i wouldn’t go so far as to call it a valid claim. it’s certainly colorable, based on the phrase being ambiguous. obviously it will just settle at some point.

Neither one of us knows enough about the details of the case to know how much merit there is in the suit. The realtors or other agents might have made misleading or even fraudulent misrepresentations. Who knows?

In any case I think the words, “my latest development” is about as misleading and ambiguous as u can get short of being an outright lie.

ha, I never called or implied someone was a liar.  I responded to Matthew.  And it is MY opinion that this blog is lefty on its non-sports posts.  That is not calling someone dishonest or a liar.  It is disagreeing and calling em as I see em.  Calm down.

From #24

“Megan McCain:  Kind of hot to a middle-aged guy like me (and should be to Beck, too), but I would’ve considered her just a fat chick when I was younger. “

Can we switch topics and run with this comment?  Maybe a poll?

MGL,

I’m glad you’ve come around on it being ambiguous. I think it can certainly be categorized as misleading. But then marketing materials are full of half-truths, puffery, etc. I’m sure Trump also described it as the classiest, most sophisticated development in Mexico. Again, I have no clue why someone would invest six figures into this without doing some appropriate due diligence. If this were a stock purchase, where someone invested $100K and didn’t bother to read the 10K that mentioned that the company’s primary product was contingent on a license of intellectual property that may terminate, and such a termination did occur and they lost it all, that investor would be called an idiot. Here, where an investor isn’t as “protected” by securities laws and regulations, one should be even more skeptical and more exacting with their research. Lesson learned by these people, and hopefully others will learn from their mistake.

Xei: you ignored your most inflammatory part of your opinion:

“no matter what they tell you”

You take away that part, and your opinion is your opinion (still bullsh!t).  But, you add in that part, and your opinion calls into question our character.

As for “calm down”: you are not the editor here, so don’t tell me what to do.

A- it’s their blog.  they can write whatever they want.
B- who cares?  99% of the stuff is sports-related anyway.
C- does anybody else wonder whether Glenn Beck’s hair is real?  Is his hair totally distracting or is it just me?

Roger,

Agreed on Beck’s radio show.  I remember hearing it a few times around 03/04 and not being able to stand it for more than a few minutes.  I was shocked at his subsequent rise to prominence.  Recently I stumbled across it, though, and he was reading a critical article about himself on the air and riffing off of it.  It was surprisingly decent, and I chuckled out loud more than once.

Tango, MGL, keep the political posts coming. I like them.

I’ve never listened to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Beck or Bachmann, because I live in Colombia, but I see Bill Maher’s show in HBO and it’s very instructive.

Unfortunately, here in Colombia the right wing makes the Tea Party look like amateurs.

Maybe 90% sports. I’ve never counted. I suppose that Tango and I are to the far left although I think Tango would disagree, about himself at least.

I’ve never really understood the point of attaching a label to someones political and social perspective. Each issue and commentary shoul be evaluated and addressed on it’s own merit.

Each issue and commentary shoul be evaluated and addressed on it’s own merit.

And therein is why this blog is different than most conversations taking place in our culture nowadays (online or off). Folks seem more interested in classifying every idea as part of something bigger or in binary “right” or “wrong” terms. This seems to stem from there being less interest by people in exchanging ideas to enable understanding and/or learning. The related, add-on issue, and the one that happens to grate on me the most, is that it no longer seems acceptable to simply disagree with divergent views.

The avoidance of those tactics and prevention of such commentary is the idea which brings me to this blog. Seeing that as the foundation of what goes on here, I view everything discussed as an opportunity for me to learn about a subject, whether or not I end up reaching similar conclusions.

My thanks, then, to all who make this a repository of ideas being exchanged.

I’m as far left as it relates to the American readers of this blog as Willie Bloomquist is replacement level as it relates to players in MLB.

Insofar as the world is concerned, I figure I’m pretty much a centrist, and the American readers of this blog are far right.

So, yeah, I have no idea the point of the labelling, as MGL is stating. 

If the point is to say that I am “far left” in that I will not listen to a “far right” argument, that’s bullsh!t.  If the point is to say that I am “far left” to paint me as 2-D, that’s bullsh!t too.  If the point is to say that I am “far left” for the sake of saying it, that’s irrelevant.

Guys like Beck and Rush and Hannity are “far right” in that they won’t listen to any cogent argument.  Their arguments are predicated on hate and fear.  Logic and reason is not part of their vocabulary.

There may be other readers here who are also “far right”, but they got their on their own, and they could move away from it if presented with logic.  I see no reason to label those readers “far right”.

***

So, yeah, quit with the labels, because they don’t help.  And definitely quit labelling OTHERS.

"But who who said that this has to be a ‘relative’ determination? If the ‘world’ has become/is becoming much closer to the far left philosophy than the far right, you could be a strong leftist in the absolute and still be a centrist in the relative.”

Isn’t everything about the political scale relative?  How does one define an absolute political scale?  Stalin might be closer to a centrist on an absolute scale.

"Guys like Beck and Rush and Hannity are “far right” in that they won’t listen to any cogent argument.”

Unfortunately (because I agree with many of their basic political and social philosophies) guys from the far left, like Maddow, O’donnell, Hartman, Schultz, Olbermann, et al., are just as closed minded and unreasonable.  It is no coincidence that these are radio and TV personalities and not, for the most part, print media guys.

Right, to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that the lunatic are at one side.  It seems that sometimes, the “far” label is meant to be equivalent to “unreasonably entrenched”.

The labels are unhelpful in that regard.  All I want to know is: how reasonable a discussion can he have?  Jon Stewart v Bill O’Reilly was a good way to have that discussion last night.