Wednesday, May 15, 2013
BPro: Listen to What the Heyman Said
(www.baseballprospectus.com)
With the Yang-Mills existence problem seemingly solved…we now move on to the Heyman existence problem. Or something.
Read More...And sometimes there isn’t much you can do. I wrote what I did about Hawk Harrelson and The Will To Win because at some point, you have to come to the conclusion that someone isn’t worth talking to anymore. Hawk’s problem wasn’t that he was wrong, it was that he was stuck in a frame of mind that starts from conclusions and will, when it cares to, circle back around to ...
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >..this is pretty bad.
Hey Ralph, why don't you run for president again? What could possibly go wrong?
Dude must have fallen asleep every time Mel Allen called a "Ballantine Blast" or a "Getty Goner." Such a shame.
/Nostalgia sucks
Sterling and Waldman don't deserve any mercy.
but it really is an old saw
now
I am entertained merely by the idea of Nader as a Yankees fan.
If this is a real thing, I am finding that very entertaining as well.
They certainly did ads on old-time radio broadcasts, but it seems like there were fewer, and the announcers were better at weaving in and out of them smoothly: "Well it's a close game as we end the eighth inning, and when you want a good close American shave, you should reach for a Zipzap Razor, the only razor with 'zipzap,' the throw goes down to second and we're about ready to start the visitors' Ninth," etc.
Anyway, Bill Hicks was right.
Dude must have fallen asleep every time Mel Allen called a "Ballantine Blast" or a "Getty Goner." Such a shame.
Or a "White Owl Wallop".
Not to mention that if Nader had ever caught himself listening to something as trivial as a baseball game, he would have immediately sentenced himself to 30 days of riding shotgun in a Corvair.
FTFA:
For a so-called "classy" organization that, for example, did have enough integrity not to sell off stadium naming rights, this kind of advertising is just petty and low class. But, what can you expect from a team that blares the "P.C. Richard" appliance whistle at inescapable decibels over the Stadium P.A. after every strikeout by a visiting batter?
Related fun fact: It was never Ralph Nader's responsibility to ensure that a Democrat was elected in 2000 in the first place.
Related fun fact: It was never Ralph Nader's responsibility to ensure that a Democrat was elected in 2000 in the first place.
Related not so fun fact: If Ralph Nader had croaked in 1999, George W. Bush would be known as just another former Governor of Texas, and we never would have been blessed with Citizens United. I don't know whether Nader is a complete fool or an insufferable egomaniac, but in reality it doesn't really matter, since either way George W. Bush is his most lasting legacy.
Much more accurate.
Regarding Bush vs. Gore, and Nader: If the Florida Democratic party in 2000 had been more aggressive that day in getting out the vote among the black community -- a group the white, conservative party establishment generally kept at arm's length -- Gore wins Florida by several thousand votes (at least) and none of this would have happened.
I don't know whether Al Gore is a complete fool or an insufferable egomaniac, but in reality it doesn't really matter, since either way George W. Bush is his most lasting legacy.
Much more accurate.
Yeah, Gore ran a terrible campaign on many levels (keeping Clinton at arm's length; being a terrible public speaker), and the Dems could've gotten out the vote better in Florida and Ohio. Neither of those counterpoints negates the fact that Nader's colossal ego gave us George W. Bush.
This. End of story.
... and still won the popular vote.
Which along with $1.70 will get him a ride on a Nashville bus. Unfortunately moral victories don't count.
... and still won the popular vote.
Actually, nobody can "win" the popular vote in a presidential election, since getting more popular votes doesn't, in itself, mean anything (I'm looking at you, Mr. Tilden). The idea is to get more Electoral College votes, which Bush did.
I remember in early 2001 when a lefty acquaintance of mine fumed that Bush shouldn't be allowed to take office, since "most of the country voted against him". I pointed out "most of the country" voted against Gore, too. She glared at me for a moment then stalked off. Priceless.
we never would have been blessed with Citizens United.
Geez, I've seen those words so many times in the last week I should really start a drinking game. Per wiki:
Wait...doesn't union money usually go to Democrats? Yes, but all that evil dirty corporate money goes to Republicans, so it's not fair!
I believe the argument is that it's not fair because there's a lot more evil dirty corporate money than evil dirty union money. Not to mention evil dirty nazi billionaire money. Of course, the real argument shouldn't be about whether anything is fair, but about whether the first amendment protects the spending of money in the first place. Union leaders and corporate CEOs were already free to ring as many doorbells and write as many letters to the editor as they wanted to.
Geez, I've seen those words so many times in the last week I should really start a drinking game. Per wiki:
Wait...doesn't union money usually go to Democrats? Yes, but all that evil dirty corporate money goes to Republicans, so it's not fair!
So I guess your point is that Citizens United is "fair". Fine, but my only point was that it was the result of George W. Bush's replacement of O'Connor with Alito, and that Gore would've been far more likely to replace her with a justice who would've cast the key vote the other way.
I think the popular has a bearing on whether Gore ran a good campaign or not. There's a lot of second-guessing, of course, but the bottom line is that despite a third party candidate that siphoning off of his constituents, he still beat Bush in the popular vote by 550,000 votes. Those vote just happened not to be spread quite as they could have been. Sometimes, very rarely, it happens. Kind of like the 1960 World Series. No reason to blame a team that outscores its opponent 2 to 1, then it still takes two miracles in the ninth inning to insure defeat. Gore didn't run a perfect campaign--no one does, but he was clearly the preferable candidate--at least he would be if people meant anything in this country.
Well when you have over $100 million in fairly-earned revenue siphoned off the top each and every year you probably look to add new streams of revenue when you can. Nothing obnoxious or classless like selling the naming rights to your stadium or advertising comic books on the bases, but the tentacles of confiscatory Budshovism force the New York Yankees, America's most beloved and successful sports franchise, to find new streams of income wherever they reasonably can. As much as Bolshevik Bud and his cronies want the Yankees to serve as the sow with 30 teats, Young Masters Steinbrenner are actually trying to run a business.
Even the librul media couldn't bail him out after his claiming to have invented the internet, discovered Love Canal, and written "Love Story", but what do you expect from a guy who grew up in a fancy hotel and had to hire a woman to teach him how to be a man? Obviously he just wasn't the sort of regular guy who you'd want to have a beer with, which as we all know is one of the most important and oft-discussed character traits in political campaigns.
You apparently don't read nader.org. Nader's written extensively on Obama's tendency to not only dial back the civil rights violations of the Bush administration but to actually build upon them.
Even Darth Cheney never had the imagination to plan assassinations and having the justice department say that the "due process" was in the form of Dubya and Darth's "decision-making." Or reclassify civilians as terrorists if they happened to get killed in the drone attack on the target.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is quite serious, though who knows how practical its effects will ever be. It doesn't do away with the EC (which would take a Constitutional amendment, of course), but it tries to express the popular will better via the EC.
Even Darth Cheney never had the imagination to plan assassinations and having the justice department say that the "due process" was in the form of Dubya and Darth's "decision-making." Or reclassify civilians as terrorists if they happened to get killed in the drone attack on the target.
Talk about selective targeting, as if that's the only issue in the world. Just to take one other civil rights example, look at the efforts of the Obama Justice Department to block those GOP-controlled state efforts to limit voter registration, and imagine what a Republican Attorney General would be doing to aid those states instead. And when Nader starts complaining about Citizens United, I'd like to take about 3000 copies of that decision and feed them to Nader for dinner for about 8 years.
Does it never occur to anyone who supported a losing candidate that, gee, maybe the winner was a better candidate?
No. It's always either:
1) Voters are idiots.
2) The other guys cheated.
3) They outspent us, with dirty money, no less.
4) We couldn't get our "message" out.
5) Did we mention voters are idiots?
I actually don't like the idea of corporations/unions spending gazillions of dollars and potentially influencing elections...but I do like the First Amendment. It's the price we pay: people we don't like have freedom of speech, too.
Look, no one complains about the Yankees more than I do, but you can't blame them for knowing how to work the system. They're a famously successful franchise in America's biggest city with ancillaries (YES, marketing, etc.) that produce enough coin to buy the best players. That's the free market. That's life.
Well sure, but we're talking about Dubya Bush here. You know, they cowboy who can't ride a horse.
Does it never occur to anyone who supported a losing candidate that, gee, maybe the winner was a better candidate?
No question that Bush ran a better and more focused campaign than Gore did.
No. It's always either:
1) Voters are idiots.
2) The other guys cheated.
3) They outspent us, with dirty money, no less.
4) We couldn't get our "message" out.
5) Did we mention voters are idiots?
I actually don't like the idea of corporations/unions spending gazillions of dollars and potentially influencing elections...but I do like the First Amendment. It's the price we pay: people we don't like have freedom of speech, too.
All well taken points. I'm not in love with the idea of megabucks from any sources (including unions and Hollywood players) having disproportionate influence on fundraising, but I'd be a lot more sanguine about it if all contributions from any source over a minimal amount ($2000 to $5000) had to be fully disclosed in an easily searchable public place, with no dodging and ducking behind "non-profit" or "charitable" dummy fronts.
Personally I'd like to see four face-to-face 90 minute debates, with two of them having no moderator and NO STUDIO AUDIENCE to distract home viewers. I'd also like to see all broadcast networks and all cable news stations be required to provide at least 30 minutes a day of free advertising to each of the two major candidates between Labor Day and election eve. They can afford it, and they benefit tremendously from the laws that enable them to operate.
Combine that with full disclosure for large contributions, and much of the negative effects of Big Money would be modified. It wouldn't be a perfect setup, but it'd be better than what we have now.
Look, no one complains about the Yankees more than I do, but you can't blame them for knowing how to work the system. They're a famously successful franchise in America's biggest city with ancillaries (YES, marketing, etc.) that produce enough coin to buy the best players. That's the free market. That's life.
I don't blame the Republicans for knowing how to work the system. I blame Democrats and liberals for often losing focus on what's important and what's secondary, as was perfectly illustrated by that Nader vanity campaign.
A great idea, which the candidates/parties would never agree to.
I'd also like to see all broadcast networks and all cable news stations be required to provide at least 30 minutes a day of free advertising to each of the two major candidates between Labor Day and election eve. They can afford it, and they benefit tremendously from the laws that enable them to operate.
Except that it's not the job of broadcast networks and cable news stations to do this; their job is to attract eyeballs and make money. Ladling out free airtime does not help them achieve this goal. (And aren't the major candidates already being shoved down our throats 24/7 anyway?)
I don't blame the Republicans for knowing how to work the system. I blame Democrats and liberals for often losing focus on what's important and what's secondary, as was perfectly illustrated by that Nader vanity campaign.
Obama spent $513,557,218 last United States presidential election; he's likely to spend upwards of a billion dollars this time around. To which I say, hooray for him. But please don't pretend only one side is spending the Big Money and thus causing Bad Things to happen.
That being said, I'd still rather do it that way. As it stands, the limits on campaign contributions greatly empower the party system, because it's only through making 10,000 connections giving you $5,000 apiece (or more people giving even less money) that you can fund a campaign. That means relying on your party for networking, and it also means telemarketing on your own time. In fact, said telemarketing, and not just telemarketing but being really good at telemarketing, is a flat-out requirement for membership in a committee.
You allow, for instance, Paul Allen to fund his very own candidate but be forced to disclose this, that funding can be attacked in the election ad nauseum because it's out in the open. If a constituency is okay with someone being in the pocket of a wealthy benefactor - and I suspect people around here would be A-OK with a Microsofty doing this, for instance - then that candidate is no longer beholden to the party power structure and can vote with their conscience on every issue that doesn't directly influence their benefactor. That may sound corrupt but it's actually far *less* corrupt than the current system, which involves calculations like "okay, so I'm getting $50k from several parties to vote against this bill but $55k to vote for it."
I don't think that's what he was saying - the Nader campaign had nothing to do with money.
Too bad no one wants to buy tickets to watch 162 Yankee intra-squad games each year.
A great idea, which the candidates/parties would never agree to.
I said "personally I'd like to see...", not "I expect to see..."
I'd also like to see all broadcast networks and all cable news stations be required to provide at least 30 minutes a day of free advertising to each of the two major candidates between Labor Day and election eve. They can afford it, and they benefit tremendously from the laws that enable them to operate.
Except that it's not the job of broadcast networks and cable news stations to do this; their job is to attract eyeballs and make money. Ladling out free airtime does not help them achieve this goal.
What of it? There are times when there are more important goals than enriching the owners of cable companies.
(And aren't the major candidates already being shoved down our throats 24/7 anyway?)
It's actually more like negative ads are being shoved down our throats. Romney and Obama show up more in their opponents' ads than in their own.
I don't blame the Republicans for knowing how to work the system. I blame Democrats and liberals for often losing focus on what's important and what's secondary, as was perfectly illustrated by that Nader vanity campaign.
Obama spent $513,557,218 last United States presidential election; he's likely to spend upwards of a billion dollars this time around. To which I say, hooray for him. But please don't pretend only one side is spending the Big Money and thus causing Bad Things to happen.
I've never said that this was the case, and if you look at what I just wrote above (in #44), you'll see that I included unions and Hollywood players as being among the big spenders. My biggest complaint about Big Spending is when the Big Spenders hide under dummy "non-profit" rocks.
--------------------------------------------------------
The biggest issue with full disclosure - and I am by the in 100% agreement with you on the need for them - is that by setting up these "superPACs" and all that had to be done to skirt existing election laws, we've provided organizations with an easy means to launder money. At this point, you don't see, at least first-hand, that Massive Ad Campaign X is funded by the Koch Brothers. All you see is that it's paid for by Americans for a More American America.
Which is why you have to lift the lid on those phony front groups and disclose who's actually writing the checks. That's what I mean by "full" disclosure.
It requires some extra digging, which unfortunately our so-called liberal media isn't fond of doing and which besides will be attacked as muckraking by the right anyway so the "scandal" would only affect those who already disagreed with the ad campaign. Allowing unfettered, direct access to money by the campaigns only shifts the issues with the ads to issues with the donors.
I think here it's partly a matter of resources and partly what you say, but the Times has been able to uncover a few of them already, and it doesn't really matter what the opposition says.
That being said, I'd still rather do it that way. As it stands, the limits on campaign contributions greatly empower the party system, because it's only through making 10,000 connections giving you $5,000 apiece (or more people giving even less money) that you can fund a campaign. That means relying on your party for networking, and it also means telemarketing on your own time. In fact, said telemarketing, and not just telemarketing but being really good at telemarketing, is a flat-out requirement for membership in a committee.
You allow, for instance, Paul Allen to fund his very own candidate but be forced to disclose this, that funding can be attacked in the election ad nauseum because it's out in the open. If a constituency is okay with someone being in the pocket of a wealthy benefactor - and I suspect people around here would be A-OK with a Microsofty doing this, for instance - then that candidate is no longer beholden to the party power structure and can vote with their conscience on every issue that doesn't directly influence their benefactor. That may sound corrupt but it's actually far *less* corrupt than the current system, which involves calculations like "okay, so I'm getting $50k from several parties to vote against this bill but $55k to vote for it."
That's pretty much my take on the whole question of campaign financing. Much as I'd like to see Big Money taken out of the picture in an ideal world, since we know that it'll never happen the least we can do is to make sure that it's tagged onto a specific person's name and background, make those names public and widely known, and let people draw their own conclusions.
What of it? There are times when there are more important goals than enriching the owners of cable companies.
Not if you run (or own stock in) a cable company, there aren't.
Much as I'd like to see Big Money taken out of the picture in an ideal world, since we know that it'll never happen the least we can do is to make sure that it's tagged onto a specific person's name and background, make those names public and widely known, and let people draw their own conclusions.
I'm of two minds about this. Generally, I think full disclosure is the way to go...but don't people have a certain right to privacy concerning their money? I mean, would you want everyone knowing how you spend your paycheck? What if people came to your house and caused a fuss because you supported the "wrong" candidate?
Massive Ad Campaign X is funded by the Koch Brothers. All you see is that it's paid for by Americans for a More American America. It requires some extra digging, which unfortunately our so-called liberal media isn't fond of doing
Considering the media has caused the public to equate "Koch brothers" with "evil incarnate", I'd say they're doing an effective job on this score. (George Soros? Never heard of him.)
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.