My own birth certificate from OH in 1971 has a bunch of detail (parents, hospital, etc.); my daughter's birth certificate, issued this year, has almost no info on it.

I got a "certification" a few years ago from NYC when I applied for my passport, it has far less info on it than the "photostat" of my original handwritten birth certificate prepared at the hospital- aside from that photostat I have no idea if the original "long form" certificate still exists

#380,

Good boy, Fido. That's the kind of response I was expecting.

To bring this back for a moment to Mauer/Teixeira, check their RBI percentages.

To save anyone who doesn't want to click through, Teixeira has driven in 86 of the 362 runners on base for him, or 15.47% (83rd in the majors).

Mauer has driven in 74 of 228 runners, 22.37% and leading the majors.

3-5 with a HR last night, average up to .380. But the Twins lost so it doesn't count.

But if only one of your parents is a citizen, then the rules require that the citizen-parent have resided in the U.S. for a certain amount of time. In 1961, the rule was that your citizen-parent had to have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years after his/her 14th birthday.

Not that this is relevant to anyone but me, but this rule totally ballsed up my US citizenship application. My mother (US citizen) moved to the UK just before her 19th birthday to study, gave birth to me there, and has retained her citizenship since. Even adding on a couple of holiday trips back to New York, she can't find 5 years before her 19th birthday, although I suspect it would be easy to fabricate were we that dishonest and foolhardy.

The real kicker? My younger brother is a dual-citizen, since we moved back to the States for almost 3 years after I was born but before he was, so my mother racked up another 3 years after her 14th birthday as a resident, getting over the 5-year cutoff. So although I lived and was educated in the US for 3 years, and he's just been there for a few holidays, he has US citizenship (dual with UK) and I don't.

I'm sure that's fair somehow, but it &*%$*s me off just a bit.

To save anyone who doesn't want to click through, Teixeira has driven in 86 of the 362 runners on base for him, or 15.47% (83rd in the majors).

Mauer has driven in 74 of 228 runners, 22.37% and leading the majors.

Very nice.

To bring this back for a moment to Mauer/Teixeira, check their RBI percentages.

And to keep it there, let me remind everyone that I've posted a "birthers" thread in the forums here, for those who want to continue that discussion.

Were the original discussion dead, I'd be fine with letting the thread go wherever. But apparently it's not.

Of course on this site whenever one advocates any type of a compromise position, it often gets quickly transformed into something you never said in the first place, but that's part of the territory.

Of course, neither of those proposals represents a compromise position. Creating a separate award is adopting the "sportswriter position" (that best and most valuable are different). Renaming the award is adopting the "stathead position" (that what should be honored is best year, rather than good year by a player who had good teammates).

In short, what you're really saying is just "I don't care who wins, so nobody else should either, so I want people to stop talking about it, so I'll invent a faux 'compromise' to shut people up."

As far as adding a separate award, does anybody care about the Hank Aaron award going to the best hitter? Or the Sporting News player of the year? I don't.

I can say, as someone who has historicly, had some pretty outlandish MVP ballots I do no reasonable criteria for Teixeria to be voted at this time as the American League MVP. I have been known to place a higher emphisis on playoff probability added, which debit's candidates like Mauer but doesn't eliminate them. There are a handful of better candidates, in no particular order: Mauer, Cabrera, Youkilus, Bartlet, and Jeter. Perhaps more, I stopped looking at players cases once I got to five. There are some reasonable criteria for voting Teixeria ahead of any of these candidates. There is no reasonable criteria for voting for Teixeria ahead of all of these candidates.

A vote for Teixeria is a vote for not understanding how wins and losses occur in a baseball game AND amazingly enough not understanding the importance of those wins and loses. That or story over substance... or whim. Pick your posion.

Of course, neither of those proposals represents a compromise position. Creating a separate award is adopting the "sportswriter position" (that best and most valuable are different).

But it would ensure that the best player did get at least one major award. That's not a compromise?

Renaming the award is adopting the "stathead position" (that what should be honored is best year, rather than good year by a player who had good teammates).

It's true that this is more of a concession than a compromise, but at least the new name for the award would put its meaning right there in the title, as opposed to in the "rules" that seem to be disregarded by some writers on a fairly regular basis.

But since you're the resident genius here, you suggest a compromise.

-------------------------

As far as adding a separate award, does anybody care about the Hank Aaron award going to the best hitter? Or the Sporting News player of the year? I don't.

True enough, but that's because the BBWAA awards gather the most publicity. And if the BBWAA adopted either of my proposals, the publicity would follow.

And BTW just for the record, back when The Sporting News was not only a real paper, but was considered "The Bible of Baseball," their "Player of the Year" and "Rookie of the Year" awards were given plenty of ink, and in fact their awards were often far more in accord with what most of us here might like to see. They were less interested in honoring the best player on the best team, and more interested in honoring the best player. And since they only made one selection, in a year when no position player really stood out they often chose a standout starting pitcher, such as Robin Roberts in 1952, a year when the BBWAA made the rather laughable choice of Hank Sauer as the NL's MVP. And the year before that, they chose Minnie Minoso as the AL's ROY over the BBWAA's choice of Gil McDougald.

does anybody care about the Hank Aaron award going to the best hitter?

Didn't someone like Aramis Ramirez win the Aaron award last year? It has to make at least a little bit of sense before I'll care about it.

There are a handful of better candidates, in no particular order: Mauer, Cabrera, Youkilus, Bartlet, and Jeter. Perhaps more, I stopped looking at players cases once I got to five.

I don't really see how you could vote for Teixeira over Longoria without putting a major emphasis on actually making the playoffs, rather than just staying in the running for most of the season. The difference between a good defensive third baseman and a good defensive first baseman has to be worth more than the 8 or so runs difference between Teixeira and Longoria offensively.

But it would ensure that the best player did get at least one major award. That's not a compromise?

Not really, no. The best player gets plenty of awards. For historical and institutional reasons, there's no reason why any award other than the MVP will ever be a "major award." (*) Indeed, we already have a Hank Aaron award; nobody cares.


(*) I mean, for regular players. We have the Cy and RoY awards, too, but those are for special subsets.

But since you're the resident genius here, you suggest a compromise.

Why? Antonin Scalia asks this rhetorical question, when asked about a 'moderate' interpretation of the constitution: "What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" It's more High Broderism on your part: compromise solely for the sake of saying that one has compromised. There's no value to a 'compromise' between a stupid position and a reasonable one.

I don't really see how you could vote for Teixeira over Longoria without putting a major emphasis on actually making the playoffs, rather than just staying in the running for most of the season.

I think a reasonable case can be made that making the playoffs is that important. I'm not saying I agree with it or don't. But even if you put a hefty weight too that, Teixeria STILL isn't the MVP.

The biggest problem with Teixeria for MVP is 1) Derek Jeter 2) Bartlet/Youklis/Longoria if the RedSox or Rays make the playoffs or 3) Migguel Cabrera. There is no reasonable criteria where one of those players isn't a better candidate than Teixeria.

Andy's act in this thread has been to pretend to "help" by brokering a compromise that nobody wants, while claiming to be above it all.

Arguing positions he doesn't hold when he sees no reasonable support for those positions. Repeatedly posting to try to get a rise out of people. Desperately trying (and succeeding) to hijack the thread. Is that not the very definition of a troll?

It's not clear to me that he's interested in a productive discussion here.

But since you're the resident genius here, you suggest a compromise.

Why? Antonin Scalia asks this rhetorical question, when asked about a 'moderate' interpretation of the constitution: "What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" It's more High Broderism on your part: compromise solely for the sake of saying that one has compromised. There's no value to a 'compromise' between a stupid position and a reasonable one.

Fine, but be sure to renew your ulcer medication just in case some stupid writers offend your sense of reason.

Andy's act in this thread has been to pretend to "help" by brokering a compromise that nobody wants, while claiming to be above it all.

Arguing positions he doesn't hold when he sees no reasonable support for those positions. Repeatedly posting to try to get a rise out of people. Desperately trying (and succeeding) to hijack the thread. Is that not the very definition of a troll?

It's not clear to me that he's interested in a productive discussion here.

As opposed to pouncing on 103 identical pinata posts like a fucking dog jumps at a bone, all to make the identical point about how stupid the MSM are. Yes, that's a great definition of a "productive discussion," if your model is talk radio.

\"#######\" isn't nannied?

well, it isn't for Andy.

I've said it before: The nanny only springs into action when your heart isn't pure.

I could have sworn that a person born to a U.S. citizen was a U.S. citizen (or at least, had the right to choose to be a U.S. citizen, maybe?)

As it happens my father was involved in the various legal challenges asserting this.

In brief, born in Canada to an American father. Years later he contended he was an American. In his case a complicating factor was service in the Canadian military plus his failure to register for the US draft.

He eventually lost.

#######

Fountainhead

IT'S NOT WORKING

Fountainhead

IT'S NOT WORKING

Jesse Helms.

EDIT: You're ####### right it isn't.

3-5 with a HR last night, average up to .380. But the Twins lost so it doesn't count.

I know it probably won't happen, but man, would I love to see him make a serious run at .400 just to make Yankee fanboy heads explode even more.

3-5 with a HR last night, average up to .380. But the Twins lost so it doesn't count.

They could have lost without him.

I ask you just what kind of an MVP is that.

As opposed to pouncing on 103 identical pinata posts like a ####### dog jumps at a bone, all to make the identical point about how stupid the MSM are. Yes, that's a great definition of a "productive discussion," if your model is talk radio.

If you don't like it, you know where you can go.

(Anywhere but here, that is. What did you think I meant?)

I mean, which is stupider: reading an idiotic column and discussing how idiotic it is? Or jumping into a thread of people discussing how idiotic it is and then whining that people are discussing how idiotic it is?

I know it probably won't happen, but man, would I love to see him make a serious run at .400 just to make Yankee fanboy heads explode even more.

Remember what Silva said earlier. He has to hit .400 and the Twins have to make the playoffs for him to consider Mauer. The first .400 season since Hitler's salad days won't cut it alone.

I mean, which is stupider: reading an idiotic column and discussing how idiotic it is? Or jumping into a thread of people discussing how idiotic it is and then whining that people are discussing how idiotic it is?

I'd say it's about six of one and half a dozen of the other. I mean which is dumber, the dog who howls at the moon or the dog who howls at the first dog?

But out of curiosity, how many consecutive pinata posts are you and Ray going to bite on before your bosses call you into work? At least I work for myself and have nobody to answer to but a tolerant wife, but I'd sure like to see some of those timesheets of yours.

Remember what Silva said earlier. He has to hit .400 and the Twins have to make the playoffs for him to consider Mauer.

Yes. At that point, Silva would be willing to "consider" that Mauer was more valuable than the Newly Sainted Teixeira.

Hey if you genuses want to choose the real MVP you could always ride in a vote for Keefe.

I just don't see the need to complicate things. In my opinion, it's real simple. No player would add more value to your team if you added them today than Mauer. Thus, he's the most valuable. He possesses the most value.

Why overcomplicate?