Jacko's Jeremiad

September 27, 2008 - Big Jay McNeely

2011-08-01T00:57:00.000-04:00

Now this is a fun one. I live off of a busy street in San Diego and twice a year there is a street fair outside of my apartment. This show was one of those times. Usually I like to walk around and there are many musicians playing to watch.

Well, I was innocently strolling by this one stage and a booming saxophone and voice were coming out and I had to stop to look. I asked one person who it was and the guy looked incredulously at me, and with shock said, "It's Big Jay McNeely! He's a legend!"

Apparently this would be my education into Big Jay McNeely. The man was 81 years old at the time, and he had an incredible amount of energy for anyone at any age. Only he could get away with addressing the crowd as "children". When he wanted to get the crowd's attention, which wasn't hard to do, he'd shout out, "Now, children!" And everyone would shout back at him.

That would be fine and entertaining, but the man also happened to be a fantastic saxophonist. At some points, he'd even lay down on the stage and play!

Reading about him later, that is how he became well known - for acts on stage like that. Going out in the crowd with his saxophone, or crawling on the stage playing, things like that. So, the man knows how to entertain, and I didn't want to leave until I knew it was certain that he'd left the stage; I liked watching him that much.

Not only that, but the band was great too. I am attaching two movies that I took of Big Jay and his band that night. The first is a quick introduction to Big Jay.

The second video is one where Big Jay addresses the crowd, "Now, children!" and gives a speech and then goes into a rip roaring song. Really great stuff.

August 22, 2008 - Black Francis

2011-07-29T17:32:00.000-04:00

My picture taking skills still had much to be desired as did the frequency of shows I'd been going to at this point. However, when I got word that Black Francis was going to be in Del Mar, CA, about 15 miles up the road from where I live in San Diego, I obviously had to go.

The interesting thing with Black Francis is, even though the guy spends at the very least 200 days on the road per year playing live, and over 10 times seeing him live either solo or with the Pixies, never once have I been disappointed...except for this show.

Sloppy might be one word to describe this show. And describing him in a fairly drunken stupor might be another way too.

Of course, he did play quite a few songs from his most recent album, at the time, called "Bluefinger". This album probably is his weakest of his entire solo career which spans almost 20 albums now. I felt that way at the time, and still do three years later looking back. He played no Pixies songs either which was surprising because he has always played Pixies songs in his solo shows. It certainly put another damper on the show as well.

It is interesting how clearly I remember this show. I think a lot of it has to do with being so disappointed with how he played. After all, the Pixies are my second favorite band of all-time behind The Beatles, so naturally, I built up this show with high expectations.

I suppose I can't be too disappointed though. Since this show, I have seen him four times. Once by himself, two times with the Pixies and one other time with the band, Grand Duchy, which is a band he and his wife put together.

I will hopefully document all three of these shows as I progress in this blog. All four of those shows were fantastic though which makes me even more puzzled about this show in particular. Not only that, the show that I saw with just him was one of the top five live performances I have ever seen. I'd love to talk about that show more, but I want to be faithful to the order that I've started with. And I don't want to talk about that show at the expense of this one!

That said, it is safe to say that this show was an anomaly. For one, it was a free show in that I paid no money to see him on this day. I don't know how much he got to play, but it may not have been much. Not only that, but he may have been required to play it from a record company or something. Point is, you never know the circumstances leading up to a show and if he really didn't want to play it or was in a bad mood.

I will say though that I met people later that were at the same show, and they said that he was drinking a lot backstage before the show. I know that means little, but I still wonder if it played a part in his sloppy performance and lack of passion through it. Of course, playing the same songs over and over with a lot of feeling every time has got to be difficult to do.

I think the album that he played most of at this show was also an anomaly. Like I said before, it is my least favorite album of his. In fairness to him, this was around the time where there were rumors that the Pixies might start recording their first album in 15 years.

The songs on this album really sound like he was trying to write songs for a Pixies album which never happened. That can be explained many ways in that maybe he was out of his comfort zone, or this was a contrived album as opposed to happening organically, the way he normally makes an album. Maybe he felt pressured to try to convince his bandmates in the Pixies to record songs. Who knows. I do know though that this was a forgettable performance from an otherwise trailblazing and important musician who almost always plays spirited live shows.

Bob Mould - March 24, 2008

2011-07-19T14:52:00.003-04:00

It took me a while to go to my second live show from my first one. Over four months in fact. Still, I'd liked Bob Mould a lot from his band Husker Du and some of his solo stuff too. He is kind of like a precursor to the Pixies. So, when I saw he was appearing, I wanted to go.

At this time, I was still trying to figure out how to take pictures with my point and shoot camera. Not only that, I was still figuring out venues in San Diego that had live music. So, because of this, two things happened that weren't great at this show for me. One...my pictures came out awful. Two...I arrived late to the show where Bob Mould was appearing, so I was sandwiched in with about 500 other people, very far from the stage. Personally, when I go to a show, I like to arrive early in hopes of getting a prime spot. That didn't happen here.

I promise, as this blog goes on, and comes to the current time, my pictures will get (marginally) better and I'll get closer shots. Maybe not great shots, but closer.

Ok, enough of my continuing introduction with this revamped blog. In any case, about the show. I liked that he brought a full backing band with him. However, the problem is, I don't know a ton of Bob Mould's music...I just know I like him. So, I didn't know very many of the songs...or really any actually. I really like to know a bunch of songs of the person/band I'm going to see, so that tempered the enjoyment somewhat. But, it was still fun, and good to see him. He had a lot of energy and sang with a lot of force. He sounded good and his band did as well. But I'd definitely like to see him again, now that I know my camera a bit better and would plan better this time around.

Black Francis - October 23, 2007

2011-07-19T02:25:00.001-04:00

Black Francis - October 23, 2007
This show was my first show after moving back to San Diego, and it was a great one. First of all, Black Francis is one of my favorite musicians ever, after playing with the Pixies and having a long solo career as well. Secondly, this was at a fantastic venue called the Belly Up Tavern.

The show was fashioned as a VH1 Storytellers-type thing where he would play a song or two and then be asked a few questions, and then play another song or two. There were no guarantees what the questions were going to be about going in, or what he planned on playing.

One issue about this show was that it was difficult to get into a flow for the audience and, I think, for the performer. It was hard to shift from interview mode and then seeing a performer play music. I can only imagine that it must have been difficult for Black Francis to do this. The questions, I recall, were not very good as they weren't very interesting or about his career much. The generic "how do you write a song" question and the "what does this song remind you of"...a song was played over the speakers, and it wasn't even one of his - it was a Beatles song. It just struck me as odd and it wasn't very engaging.

Another issue is, well, and it is hard to put this lightly...Black Francis is a strange man. He is kind of ill at ease when interviewed, and because of that, there were a lot of stilted and incomplete answers. I think he tried to be witty, and it sometimes worked, but it sometimes was quite awkward. The other downside of all of this is that he didn't get an opportunity to play a whole lot of songs. I don't recall the entire set list, but I do remember that he played the Pixies' "Wave of Mutilation".

Ultimately, while it is always wonderful to see Black Francis...or Frank Black...or whatever name he is
going by, it is much, much better to simply let him plug in his guitar and play. Count that as a bit of foreshadowing to a show where I saw him do just that for an hour and a half straight. Still, this show was wonderful and it is always a treat to see him live.

Live Shows in San Diego

2011-07-18T14:22:00.000-04:00

Going to live shows in San Diego has become a big hobby of mine, as thankfully, there are many great bands who come to this great city. Not only that, many great bands come for little money at clubs that are easy to get up front and close with a fantastic view. Through this accessibility, I've grown tired of massive, crowded, overpriced arena shows and would only go to those if one of my all-time favorite bands were performing.

I'm not sure what has motivated me to try this. I guess it is sort of like movies to me. Many people have blogs about movies that they've seen, and their reactions about them. I'd like to make one about the bands I've seen and my reactions after I've seen them. Hopefully that makes a bit of sense.

This picture is from the very first show that I saw in San Diego, in 2007. The Pixies lead singer, Black Francis...or Frank Black...came to San Diego for an intimate show. The Pixies are one of my favorite band, if not my most favorite, so maybe this played a hand in my loving live music.

So, what my point is here is that because this blog is so vastly underused, I might try to start using it as a vehicle to post about the live shows that I go see. Granted, I don't see a ton of bands, but it might be enough to make this blog worthwhile for the first time. To who? Well...don't make me answer that. More than likely, to no one. However, I'll take a stab at it and see what happens. What is the worst that could happen?

Is Edgar Martinez a Baseball Hall of Famer?

2011-04-04T15:46:00.002-04:00

Martinez is the center of an eternal baseball debate: should a player who was principally a designated hitter be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame?

Edgar Martinez became eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2010. He received 36.2% of the vote, which, to me, is pretty much a sham. There are several arguments for Martinez' candidacy, and objectively, not a ton of arguments against it. While Martinez is largely the first truly legitimate player with Hall of Fame credentials to mostly play DH in his career, one could point to Paul Molitor, a Hall of Famer, who played more games at designated hitter than at any other position. Still, Martinez is the first player to be considered worthy of the Hall of Fame who largely played DH for the majority of his career.

Let's tackle this thorny designated hitter issue right up front. I see the lack of playing time in the field argument, it makes sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't hold that much weight. If Martinez had played in the 1960's (or basically anytime before 1973 when the designated hitter rule was installed in the American League, or anytime in the National League), he would have played the field because he had to, and a team would never have been able to keep his bat out of the lineup. There are surely a lot of poor fielders in the Hall of Fame. Being a good fielder has never been a requirement to induction. Not only that, but let us remember: the designated hitter position is a legitimate rule. You may agree or disagree with it (I disagree vehemently), but the fact remains, there is a DH spot in every American League manager's lineup card. So, let's establish an uneasy truce and deal with it. I've learned to, and you must as well.

And by the way, Martinez did field. He came up as a third baseman and played 564 games there in his career. In his first three full major league seasons, he played about 99% of his games at third base. He showed an increase of power through these three years while hitting above .300 in each season. However, after his third season, in 1992, when he won the AL batting title with a .343 average, he battled injuries. He played in only 131 games in 1993 and 1994.

All of a sudden, in the 1995 season, he was 32 years old and coming off two injury filled seasons. So, the Mariners made him a full time DH. And what do you know? He hit .356/.479/.628 with 52 doubles, 29 homers, 121 runs scored, 111 RBIs. That .479 on-base percentage is the second-best in the American League in the last 40 years (behind only Frank Thomas’ 1994 season). Over the next five years, Martinez never hit worse than .322, never had a lower on-base percentage than .423, never slugged lower than .554.

So, let's go back to Martinez not playing the field after his third full major league season. Yes, in the 1960's, for example, he would have had to play the field since there was no DH and his team would want his bat in the lineup at all times. But at the same time, if he played the field extensively, there is a chance that he would have continued to get injured like he did in 1993 and 1994 and never would have put up so many fantastic seasons which then led to this piece.

Thought provoking, yes. But it is also futile too. Because, much like the debate that the DH shouldn't exist...it does. And while someone may want to argue that Martinez, had he stayed at third base or moved to first base full time, wouldn't have put up as many great years, that didn't happen. What DID happen is that the DH is completely legal, there is more support for it than there is against it, and Edgar Martinez *did* play full time at DH over his career and established the model for the full-time DH. So, i guess, the argument can keep being what should have happened in people's hypotheticals, or it can be what actually happened.

It is funny to me that Major League Baseball fully embraces the DH in the American League, and always has. So, it seems to me, the writers who are paid to report on MLB, of which some can vote for the Hall of Fame, should accept the rules of the sport. Whether they make sense or not is for editorials. And even if the DH doesn't make sense, it isn't Edgar Martinez' fault.

So, with that, let us analyze what actually happened, and what Martinez actually did in his career. Martinez is one of only 16 players in Major League history with an on-base percentage higher than .400 and a slugging percentage higher than .500 while also having a minimum of 5,000 career plate appearances. He’s one of only 13 to also hit better than .300. Throw in his 300 homers, his 500 doubles … the names are suddenly: Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, Williams, Musial, Bonds and Martinez. So yeah, there's that.

Fine, so he didn't stick around forever to get his 3,000 hits or 500 homers. Part of that was the injuries he dealt with. He was also already 27 years old in his first full major league season. However, objectively, Martinez had nine seasons that are Hall of Fame worthy. A seven time All-Star, he won two batting titles (1992 and 1995), won five Silver Slugger awards and led the American League in on base percentage three times (1995, 1998, 1999). His career .418 on base percentage is 22nd all-time.

Martinez simply thrived in the era that he played and was one of the most feared hitters in that era. Shouldn't that be more than enough?

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

Thank you to these websites which not only helped me write this waste of bandwidth, they inspired me to poke deeper and realize, once again, how truly great a hitter Edgar Martinez was:

Edgar Martinez' Baseball Reference page

Carnage and Culture blog - This piece, by Sports Illustrated writer Joe Posnanski, was really well written and worth a read as it isn't just about Martinez, but several great players recently up for Hall of Fame induction.

*This is assuming, very wrongly, that the Baseball Hall of Fame actually makes correct decisions once in a while.

Blood, baby, blood!

2009-08-08T18:33:00.002-04:00

In the past several months, I have become a lot more active. It started by buying a bicycle and riding that. Then, to be better at riding, I started going to a gym to take cycling classes and that has helped tremendously. Still, I find that I get winded very easily. Yes, I am out of shape, but I think it goes deeper than that.

It could be explained right away, 'oh, you're just out of shape, that is why you get winded easily. You will be able to go longer and faster if you keep it at.' While this isn't untrue, I do not think that it is entirely accurate. For several years, I was quite sedentary which helped lead to the downfall of an important relationship in my life with my partner at the time. She was much more active than I and for reasons unexplainable to me, even now, I didn't really take part for some reason. I moved back to San Diego, and over the past month or so, I have been exercising much more strenuously.

I find that while I am fairly thin overall, my cardiovascular health is quite poor. I do get winded quite easily, and I wonder if the answer is more complicated than just being out of shape. Meaning, the heart is a muscle, and I did not exercise it for several years. Like anything, such as a foot or arm, or something like that, if you don't exercise it, it will atrophy. I think this is what happened to my heart, but maybe it is all related and I am looking too far into it. Maybe being out of shape, is because I was sedentary and let my heart languish. Whatever the answer is, it is interesting how far I realize I must go to improve my lung capacity. It is a work in progress, but slow but sure, hopefully I can make some headway and help my heart work harder and faster and for longer...longer when I am exercising, and hopefully longer for my life too.

Review on Healthy Fellow Blog

2009-07-07T17:43:00.003-04:00

Reading the Healthy Fellow blog, the first thing that I noticed was that the blog attempts to appeal to many different people's needs at once, which is an admirable thing. Topics as far ranging as what to eat to prevent breast cancer, to holistic brain care to eating different foods of different colors to ensure your health are covered in this blog.

You won't find long, rambling articles that aren't interesting. These articles are well written and quick to point out different arguments to help prove their point. In addition to that, each article supplies footnotes and reference points to back up their theories. Moreover, the author also tries the very things that they are writing about. For example, in the entry about Sacha Inchi, a type of South American almonds, the author ate the almonds and then reviewed them. That kind of attentive writing must be valued, especially when eating and living healthy has become so important to so many people. The Healthy Fellow blog is a very worthwhile read for various nutritional information.

Why Is an Active League a Good Thing?

2009-02-26T21:41:00.003-05:00

This seems like a pretty simple question, right? To me this sounds like, why is crossing the road when there are no cars coming smart? However, you would be surprised by the amount of people who cross the road in traffic, fantasy baseball speaking that is. What I mean by that is, the amount of people that I’ve known who continually go back to public leagues on assorted websites throughout the Internet, even though they consistently disappoint them is astounding. Why am I so outraged? Because I was one of these people as well for a long while.

Oh the allure of these websites and leagues is plentiful. For many, a draft, even an Internet draft with no one around you is exciting. Or the prospect of having a team in a league with a different scoring system than your main league is interesting and you can try different theories. However, when May rolls around and half the league is still participating, and then June when a quarter of the league is actually responding to trade offers but only one other person is posting on the league message board, sooner or later you realize it is a waste of your time. In that vein, Baseball Instinct wants to show you another way. Do not suffer through another unfulfilling fantasy baseball season! Make this season, the season that you try another website, another style of league, but one that actually proves to you that it is worth your time. What about a league with a rookie draft and the power to bolster your franchise’s farm system throughout the whole season? Or a league that is twelve months of the year of constant activity?

So now you are thinking, prove it to me. Here is the thing. Maybe you have been in auction leagues before, or are currently in one now, and it is your main league. Well, that’s great. Baseball Instinct isn’t trying to change that. Maybe you’ve never been in an auction league with salaries before, but are curious. Either way, we are just asking you to try something new, rather than the cookie-cutter websites that you are used to. Why? It is my firm belief after participating in a league with Baseball Instinct’s unique brand of points head-to-head scoring for several years, that one you not only go through a season with this style of scoring, but BI’s unique scheduling system with two games per week, every week, and then head to the offseason where you will then deal with player contracts of all types and arbitration, you won’t want any other way of playing fantasy baseball.

How am I so convinced of this you ask? Well, for one, you are reading this. That alone tells me that not only are you a fantasy baseball fan, but you’re a fantasy baseball fan of a higher order. You could have just gone to one of the massive websites and signed up for another public league. One of the many websites that couldn’t care less about your team and your experience with them, and halfway through the season in that public league, encounter the same thing that you dealt with last season that I described above. But you are reading Baseball Instinct and maybe you’re intrigued about the keeper leagues that they are promoting and you want to know more. That shows that you are ready to take your hobby to the next level. You’ve outgrown impersonal public leagues that aren’t active, and now, you want a committed, stable league where there are many different options at hand and where you know the website will care for the league. And who knows, maybe you’ll meet some good people in the process.

Now to the meat and potatoes since you have come this far. I spoke of BI’s unique scheduling system. Two games per week, rather than the customary one. I don’t know about you, but seven whole days is a long time for me to wait to get a resolution with a game my squad is playing in a head-to-head league. With a BI keeper league, games last from Monday to Thursday, and then a new game starts from Friday to Sunday. This means that there is more interaction with your team in terms of figuring out lineups and fine tuning it to see what works best. And if you are like me, you will start tinkering with possible trades to change your team’s makeup as the season goes along. The schedule alone fosters more activity from owners which then leads to a great attention to one’s team which invariably always leads to trade negotiations. However, with Baseball Instinct the stakes are raised.

You might be skeptical about actually paying money to be in a public league. However, you know the saying, “you get what you pay for”? Truer words have never been spoken…especially in regards to Baseball Instinct’s keeper leagues. For one, a member of the BI staff is personally going to be commissioner of your public league, meaning the website is personally invested in your league’s success and will take great care of bringing enjoyment to everyone in the league by answering questions clearly to help any work through any problems or debates that might arise.

Or how about the saying, “what you put into something, is what you get out of it”? Well, with Baseball Instinct’s keeper leagues, the money you pay, and the time you put into the league will be well spent. You could endlessly analyze a BI league from player salaries, to who you envision you might offer a contract to at the end of the season, to trading possibilities, to your minor league squad, to keeping an eye on your payroll so that you might be able to put in a bid for a player on the waiver wire, and to your next game. Baseball Instinct keeper leagues are not for the faint of heart and are for those who are passionate about fantasy baseball which is why you are here. Likeminded people just like you are also here and for the long haul. Not people who will wither away immediately after a public league draft. A BI league is 14 teams strong with a BI staff member meticulously looking over the league to make sure there are no inactive teams. You won’t stand for it, and neither will they. So the only question remaining is, are you ready for the most active, most intense fantasy baseball league that you’ve ever encountered?

Published on BaseballInstinct.com on February 26, 2009.

Is a Baseball Instinct Keeper League Too Much to Handle?

2009-02-24T15:27:00.001-05:00

As a precursor to this piece, I should stress that this is for those in the crowd who may not consider themselves the most experienced of fantasy baseball players. Or maybe those who have a busy lives and don’t think that they can handle another fantasy baseball league. You may have stumbled across Baseball Instinct from a Google search for “fantasy baseball” for instance. Or maybe you found us on facebook. However you found this website, we are happy to greet you. Maybe you have looked around the website and are thinking that maybe this is a bit too in-depth for you. Or maybe this is the first article you have taken the time to look at and are simply curious as to what Baseball Instinct offers that is unique and different from the rest. Whatever your situation is, we know that your time is valuable and that a Baseball Instinct keeper league will do nothing but enhance your interest in baseball and give you more immersion than you ever thought possible. But is that too much, you might be asking?

While I will be the first to say BI’s keeper leagues are a twelve month proposition and there is a lot to running a franchise, you don’t have to be by your computer 24 hours per day to manage your franchise. In fact, pretty soon after the season starts, you will get a grasp on the team that you have been assigned from Baseball Instinct and where you’ll want to improve. In fact, let me take a step back. You’re thinking to yourself: player salaries, contracts and minor leagues? I don’t have time for all of this! Well, signing up to a Baseball Instinct keeper league right now lets you skip past the auction part which can admittedly a lot to handle for someone who may not be used to it. If you sign up for a franchise in a BI keeper league, you will be assigned to a team at random, and you can skip right past trying to prepare for an auction, and instead, you can start getting a handle on the rules and other aspects of the league to prepare for the season. During the season, while BI keeper leagues certainly have many unique aspects, and it is in-depth, by the time a season ends, you’ll be wondering when you can sign up for another season with the franchise that you worked so hard to develop. By that time, you will be ready to go for an auction and will know a lot of what you need in terms of preparing for it and how to value players.

So you’re saying you have a busy job, a busy home life and a lot of obligations and can’t spend all day on the computer. Well, BI keeper leagues are great for you too. Think of it: there will be 13 other franchises besides yours in your keeper league. Will all 13 of those other people have all day to spend in front of the computer? Most likely not. And as the season gets underway, there is only so much that can be done in managing your team. Oh sure, there are players that are released and you’ll need to judge if they can fit in with your team and under your payroll, or if there is a minor leaguer that you’d like to sign, but much of your time will be looking at your pitching rotation and lineup and your upcoming schedule. You will also be looking at trade possibilities too and how you can better your team. But there is nothing in BI’s unique brand of keeper leagues that will force you to be at your computer every night for four hours. Or even one. You know baseball and you like watching games. That’s all you’ll need - your enthusiasm and your interest.

Yeah, but what about this twelve month per year aspect that BI is touting? Well, there is a lot to fit into 12 months, but everything is staged at different times, and it is never forced upon you with short notice. For example, there will be a minor league draft in the offseason as well as Baseball Instinct’s own brand of player arbitration. These things will not occur at the same time, and in fact, both of these events will take place over an extended time so that there will be a lot of time to do other things in your real life and also easily keep track of your BI franchise.

The point of all of this is that we know that you love baseball and fantasy baseball. We have real lives too chock full with families and jobs and can’t spend all day doing fantasy baseball either, as much as we’d like to. We are simply here to synthesize information for you quickly and in one place, in addition to bringing to you the most unique, most interesting and immersive fantasy baseball leagues on the web. Why go anywhere else? Are BI keeper leagues too much to handle? They won’t be enough for you and you’ll be wanting more soon enough!

Published on BaseballInstinct.com on February 24, 2009

Baseball Instinct Keeper Leagues

2009-02-18T01:54:00.001-05:00

Baseball Instinct is offering a truly dynamic experience that you won’t find anywhere else on the web. The opportunity to be part of your very own keeper league is here, thanks to Baseball Instinct. This is not just any league that is one season and done. It is also not something mass produced by another gigantic website where half of the league owners stop checking the site two weeks into the season. Baseball Instinct is establishing keeper leagues where a person who may not have a bunch of reliable friends to form their own league, can sign up and be in a league where they truly are the general manager of a franchise keeping track of farm players as well as grizzled MLB veteran players. Do you trade a prized rookie for a difference making star to win the league this year and go for broke, or do you concentrate on forming a dynasty? Many decisions will be at a keeper league general manager’s fingertips, but they all add up to that crucial one. Welcome to Baseball Instinct’s version of a keeper league. Prepare for something that you have never experienced before, and if you love fantasy baseball, this will be euphoric.

The Baseball Instinct’s keeper leagues are meticulously cared for by the staff of the website. Each league will be personally looked after by a member of the staff and any owner in the league will be able to ask technical questions and get honest, helpful answers not from an automated service, but from a staff member who truly cares about your experience. When you decide to purchase a franchise in a Baseball Instinct keeper league, you are not just a number to the staff. Instead, you have now become part of their community of fantasy baseball enthusiasts. Your new keeper league is their passion, and soon, it will become your passion.

How much will all of this personalized service cost?
At this point, you are surely asking yourself many questions. The cost probably being the main one, which is understandable. To be part of a fantasy baseball league that offers so much more than just scores, but player contracts, arbitration and your very own franchise farm system as well as the aforementioned personalized service from the staff, it is very inexpensive. Would you rather be in a free cookie-cutter league where no one responds to trade offers and you have no real investment because the league is ending at the end of the season? This type of experience is worth about as much as it costs: nothing. However, Baseball Instinct is offering their own unique brand of keeper leagues for the affordable price of $35. In addition to that, the Baseball Instinct staff is offering a spring registration discount of $10 off. All you have to do is enter the code BI2009 when registering your franchise. If you have any questions regarding the Baseball Instinct keeper leagues, please contact leagues@baseballinstinct.com.

Ok, fine - what else do I get for my hard earned money?
Baseball Instinct knows that now more than ever, money is important for all of us. That is why the staff wants to make your fantasy baseball experience as enjoyable as possible. Baseball Instinct’s goal is to make their keeper leagues an immersive, 12 month a year experience. You may not be Brian Cashman, but you certainly can prove to yourself and others that you can do a better job. A sample league is also being offered to show what a real Baseball Instinct keeper league would look like. There, you can look over how to navigate a league before actually registering and also be sure of what the detailed Baseball Instinct keeper league rules are so you know what you are getting yourself into. The sample league in that link is a template site and other leagues will be created from it. In this sample league, you can see how players would be listed on their respective teams in addition to their salaries.

How are the Baseball Instinct keeper leagues unique?
Well, if each league being run by a staff member at Baseball Instinct tonight isn’t enough for you, read on. In addition to personalized service, the staff at Baseball Instinct will not tolerate inactive teams in any league. When you register to become part of the Baseball Instinct community and purchase your keeper league, you become a general manager of a 12 month, no offseason league. You think the actual baseball season is fun? How about a minor league draft, Baseball Instinct’s own version of arbitration, player contracts and minor league keepers?

You will have to decide on if you should sign Josh Beckett at $29 to a contract or not, but for how long? Could you reacquire Beckett in next year’s auction for a more affordable salary? Or should you lock your ace in for a two, three or four year contract? And do you sign him to a guaranteed or non-guaranteed contract? A guaranteed contract may be too much of an investment for you. You could always sign Beckett to a one year option deal at his current $29 salary. After the season he would become a free agent. These are just some of the important decisions that you will have to make concerning the players on your franchise. The course of your franchise is at stake and is determined by your decision making skills and how deft you are at crafting a league champion.

This is not to dismiss the actual season. Not only is managing your team a unique experience with a Baseball Instinct keeper league, but during the season, these leagues are like no other. Keeper league schedules are based on a two game per week system. The first game runs from Monday to Thursday, and then the second game is from Friday to Sunday which adds up to 49 wins or losses for your team during the season. The leagues are based on a head-to-head points based style where many offensive categories as well as pitching categories by your players will earn your squad points in these games. For a complete list of scoring categories, visit the sample league and go to League, then Rules from the drop down menu.

All of these reasons is why any baseball fan, even someone that is new to fantasy baseball should seriously consider purchasing their very own Baseball Instinct keeper league franchise. In fact, this is part of the beauty of Baseball Instinct’s brand of keeper leagues - any type of fantasy baseball enthusiast can easily be part of it. Whether you are a seasoned pro for 15 years at fantasy baseball or just picking it up this year, you will derive endless hours of enjoyment.

It is also a terrific option as well if you love fantasy baseball but simply don’t have a bunch of friends who are as nuts about fantasy baseball as you. You want a league with a lot of details in addition to just drafting players, but your friends want something much simpler. Well, Baseball Instinct’s keeper leagues are for you.

If you are new to fantasy baseball, but want a league that is stable and won’t fall apart after a season or two but will have a legacy to it and some element of history, Baseball Instinct specializes with this and for this reason, their keeper leagues are for you.

If you are frustrated with callous customer service which does nothing to service customers and a rewarding and satisfying experience is what you are after, Baseball Instinct wants to change this. Not just with a staff that cares about their product, but with other fantasy baseball enthusiasts who want to form a community of other enthusiasts to fully share their passion for fantasy baseball. At Baseball Instinct, you will feel right at home.

You like fantasy baseball, but you think you can do better than Theo Epstein with valuing minor league players. Then Baseball Instinct’s keeper leagues are definitely for you.

The point being, any fantasy baseball fan, no matter where their specific passion in the hobby lies, will find that Baseball Instinct’s keeper leagues offer an amazing amount of realism and will transform any mere fantasy baseball fan into a general manager of their very own franchise and will be the perfect marriage between the play on the field and decision making in your own front office to build that championship team that will last for many seasons.

Published Monday, February 16, 2009 on http://baseballinstinct.com

http://baseballinstinct.com/fantasy-leagues/

What the @#$% is Fantasy Baseball?

2009-02-16T17:55:00.002-05:00

You might be asking yourself, how did I end up on this website? Why didn’t Google search work it’s magic as usual? You may have searched for Justin Timberlake or how to put together a bookshelf. However, now that you are here, you are trying to figure out…what IS fantasy baseball? Surely you probably know what baseball might be. Arguably the nation’s oldest pasttime? Played in a park on a diamond? Well, we at Baseball Instinct give you the credit that you deserve and will assume you know what baseball actually is. But for goodness sake, what the #$%& is fantasy baseball!?

Fantasy Baseball is comprised of taking real Major League Baseball (MLB) players, using these players with a bunch of friends in a fantasy baseball league, or with random people that you may not even know over the internet, that you create and dividing them up into teams with a draft and using their playing statistics to determine a winner. In a more concise explanation, fantasy baseball is using real life MLB players to create your very own baseball franchise where you hire, fire
and trade MLB players to acquire the best baseball team you can. Fantasy Baseball is a way for a baseball fan to invest more in the game and enjoy it from a totally different aspect – a truly interactive experience.

The statistics these MLB players generate in their real games are collected, and fantasy points are awarded based on these numbers — the better a player performs, the more fantasy points he accrues for his owner’s team. In fantasy baseball, these points determine a winner. The team that accumulates the most points or victories over the course of the season is declared the league winner.

The modern form of fantasy baseball as we know it was more than likely introduced in 1980 by sportswriter Daniel Okrent from USA Today. He and a group of other sportswriters would meet at a French restaurant in New York City called La Rotisserie Francaise to play. Fantasy baseball is also well known by the name “Rotisserie Baseball” and that is where this name comes from. In fact, the hobby was first known by this name instead of Fantasy baseball.

There are generally two ways to go about compiling your very own fantasy baseball team. The first is by auction where all of the teams in a league have the same amount of money (fake or real) to spend to acquire players. The other way is a draft where each team takes turns selecting players until each team’s roster is filled.

At first, scoring was very basic because in the early 1980’s, newspaper box scores of Major League Baseball games were difficult to find. And when they were found, often only the most basic of statistics were listed, such as home runs, runs batted in (RBI) and team batting average. Therefore, in the beginnings of fantasy, or rotisserie baseball, only eight baseball statistics were used and four each for offensive statistics and pitching statistics. Home runs, runs batted in, runs scored and stolen bases were used for offense while wins, earned run average (ERA), saves and WHIP (walks and hits divided by innings pitched) for pitchers. This became known as rotisserie, 4×4 (because of the four offensive and pitching categories) or “roto” scoring.

Over time, more categories have been added such as on base percentage and runs scored for offense while strikeouts and holds are sometimes used for pitchers. The definitions and validities of these categories can be debated in other columns. This column is just trying to explain to you what the #$%& fantasy baseball actually
is. The original scoring system of rotisserie baseball has gone through many adaptations as well. Many leagues still incorporate the original “roto” 4×4 or 5×5 scoring with four or five hitting categories and the same amount of pitching categories. However, there are many different ways to score and that is one big reason why fantasy baseball is so popular. A “head to head” style of scoring is a very popular method, where the same rotisserie categories are used, but each team in a
league plays against one other team and gets a win or loss at the end of a week. The team with the best record wins the league. Another very viable style is points scoring. In this method, a team gets points for each statistic one of his players produces such as home runs and a pitcher registering a win. This style of scoring lends itself well to head to head scoring or the classic method of adding points up all season long. Fantasy baseball scoring is a very detailed subject and Baseball Instinct will have articles in greater detail detailing the different types of scoring mentioned here.

In addition, there are many different ways to set up leagues as well. There are leagues that play with high stakes that give a large amount of money to the league winner and there are many leagues that simply play for free. There are leagues that incorporate rookie drafts as well as some that have keepers - a system where each team in a league can keep a select number of players on their team from one season to the next. All of these subjects and more will be covered in depth on this website, but this article’s purpose is to simply give you a rough overall outlook on what this hobby is in a very general overlay. It is up to you to keep reading and to continue to learn more. If you like baseball at all, you are already well on your way. Fantasy baseball will take that enthusiasm for the sport and will likely foster it and give you another outlet to pursue that interest. Baseball Instinct very much hopes that this will be the first step on a new journey to take your interest in baseball to new heights and we are here to help.

Could Barack Obama be the Democrats' version of Ronald Reagan?

2008-10-29T19:10:00.005-04:00

Ronald Reagan, without any question, breathed new life into the Republican party in the United States, and his influence was still felt in the 2008 Republican primary debates. Reagan's election helped to shift the electoral map and make many historically Democratic leaning states switch to Republican leaning. Granted, while Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 over Reagan's vice-president George H.W. Bush, and then re-elected in 1996, Reagan was the starter of a new movement in conservatism in this country.

With the economy in dire straits, a remarkably unpopular president and unpopular war, the country is starting to find itself again in a state where the electoral map is shifting once again. With each poll that comes out, more states are sliding more firmly into Barack Obama's column or what was once a Republican safe haven is now a state that has a very realistic chance of going Obama's way.

It is more and more likely, with six days until the election on November 4, that Barack Obama will be elected president. Should this happen, and with more Democratic congressional gains, the Democratic National Committee's and Obama's "50 state" strategy will have paid off. After 2004, the DNC rededicated itself to regions that the Democratic party had ignored and Obama started an unprecidented grassroots campaign which has proven too much for rival John McCain to compete with.

Now comes the hypothetical argument to tie in my initial question of whether Barack Obama can start the same movement for the Democrats as Ronald Reagan did for the Republicans. If, in the 2010 midterm congressional elections, the Democrats make more gains, they will be likely in full control of the congress if they hadn't achieved that already in 2008. And then, in 2012, if Obama is re-elected, the wheels could be set in motion.

President Clinton was responsible for giving this country the travesty also known as George W. Bush because of his missteps which led to his impeachment. If that had never happened, Al Gore certainly would have been elected president, and none of the Bush Administration's awful policies would have started. Clinton should have been the Democratic Party's answer to Reagan, but he destroyed his legacy. However, Obama seemingly has a level headedness that Clinton rarely showed in his public life.

Clinton had quite a bit in common with Reagan, being able to communicate very effectively with the American people and being a moderate in terms of policy. However, Obama has shown that he is also a skilled communicator and polls are consistently showing that people from all races, ages and genders are supporting him. Obama will likely be forced to be a moderate with policies and will have to compromise much like Clinton did to pass popular bills.

If Obama is able to be re-elected in 2010 and closes his 2nd term with favorable popularity, another Democrat from a now-currently "red" state could step into Obama's shoes, such as Indiana senator Evan Byah or Virgina senator Jim Webb. Obama is starting to shift the electoral map, and if is able to be re-elected and stay popular, he could begin a trend where a moderate from a region currently considered "red" could be elected president as a Democrat, and change the electoral map even more.

This is yet another reason why this 2008 election is so vital. For the first time, in a long time, the Democratic presidential contender is inspiring the base and not only that, but is also convincing independent and moderate voters to support him. This is also a skill that Reagan had, most notably in the 1984 presidential election when 49 states voted for Reagan, with much of the support coming from people who were labeled as "Reagan Democrats" - historically Democratic voters who voted for Reagan because he was so popular. This is becoming more and more likely in this presidential election. And while Obama has not even been elected yet, the stage is set for this potential situation to become very realistic.

Iowa, Colorado and Pennsylvania

2008-10-20T00:45:00.002-04:00

For about three weeks now, I have been going back and forth, up and down, looking at the different ways Barack Obama could win the presidency. I've also been thinking of other things, like how John McCain could win and tactics he should be using to win. Maybe I'll get around to that here, maybe not.

I did have an epiphany looking at the electoral college map for Barack. He could win the White House without Ohio and Florida, the two messiest states from 2004 and 2000, respectively. With Iowa, Colorado and Pennsylvania won, in addition to other states he should win, Barack would have 273 electoral votes, just over the 270 limit to win. Could it happen? It's possible.

In Iowa and Pennsylvania, Barack currently holds a lead of over 10 points. However, in Colorado, Barack is nearing the 10 point barrier, but has usually within 6-10 points with several polls in the last week and a half. With the Bradley Effect still a distinct possibility, I like to think no state is safe for Barack unless he has a 10 point cushion there. It helps me to sleep better at night. So let us say for argument's sake that Colorado goes to McCain on Election Day.

Not having Colorado's 9 electoral vote would leave Barack at 264 electoral votes and would not have enough to win the presidency. So winning Iowa and Pennsylvania simply isn't enough. It is a fairly safe bet right now that he should win every state that John Kerry won in 2004. So he will have to win a state that Kerry did not win, and that is not a certainty. States like New Mexico, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Nevada and North Carolina are all in play and all potential possibilities for a Barack win, but far from certain. However, it is optimistic alone that all of these states are possibilities.

The fact is, however, Barack must win one of these states if Colorado doesn't fall his way. His lead of 4-5 percentage points in Florida has been consistent, but that cannot be counted on. Over the last week, Missouri has shifted more towards Barack, but is still stuck around a 4 point lead; again, not enough to count on. New Mexico has begun to look more safe for Barack as he is edging towards consistent double digit leads there. Again though, with 5 electoral votes, that would still leave Barack one electoral vote shy of the White House if he won all 2004 Kerry states as well as Iowa and New Mexico. He needs to win another state in that scenario.

West Virginia is unlikely and cannot be counted on with McCain showing slim leads. Ohio also can't be counted on with miniscule leads for Barack showing there in the last week. North Carolina is in the same boat, but showing even more miniscule leads. Indiana won't fall Barack's way with McCain showing favorable polls there still. So, what are we left with?

Nevada is in the same boat as New Mexico - consistent, but lesser support for Barack, but only five electoral votes. So if Barack won both Nevada and New Mexico, that could do it. This brings to light the many different scenarios that I have been contemplating in my head.

I no longer care about national polls because I don't care what people in Massachusetts or California are feeling, as these states look to safely in Barack's corner. Here are the states that Barack looks like he is in good shape with:
California - 55 electoral votes
Connecticut - 7
Washington D.C. - 3
Delaware - 3
Hawaii - 4
Illinois - 21
Massachusetts - 12
Maryland - 10
Maine - 4
Michigan - 17
Minnesota - 10
New Hampshire - 4
New Jersey - 15
New York - 31
Oregon - 7
Rhode Island - 4
Vermont - 3
Washington - 11
Wisconsin - 10

The above states total 231 electoral votes. That leaves 39 more electoral votes that Barack needs. I only considered the above states as safe ones if Barack was leading by double digits or very close to double digits in recent polls. Eliminating polls, on the other hand, that McCain is leading by at least a fair margin in, there are about 11 states that truly matter right now, because they are realistically in play for Barack.

Pennsylvania - A state John Kerry won in 2004 and an absolute must win for Barack because of its 21 electoral votes. If he loses here, he has his work cut out for him, as Ohio or Florida would simply have to fall for him, and at this point, that is too dicey to count on. Pennsylvania is make or break it looks like for Barack. If he loses here, he could very well lose the election. This state might be the most important one in 2008 - not Ohio or Florida.

Iowa - At 7 electoral votes, it is overlooked, but it is still crucial. With solid poll numbers, mostly in double digits, Barack has to win this state, that was not won by Kerry in 2004. With this state in his column, winning the presidency will be much easier. I didn't count this as a "safe" state since Kerry did not win it in 2004 and because it is a vital state that must switch to Barack for him to win.

Colorado - 9 electoral votes, and as I wrote above, if Barack wins Pennsylvania, Iowa and Colorado, he will win the presidency. He is nearing double digit polling in the last two weeks, but isn't there yet, so to me it is not safe; plus, Kerry did not win it in 2004. But it is a possibility right now, and a very important state.

New Mexico - If Barack doesn't win Colorado, he needs to win a state like this. NM has 5 electoral votes, and with another state like Nevada, Barack could win the White House. Barack is in slightly better shape here than in Colorado - still not at double digits, but close. This is another state Kerry did not win in 2004, but Barack could and must if Colorado doesn't break his way.

Nevada - 5 electoral votes like with New Mexico and this is a tough state for Barack. He is leading consistently in polls here, but by slim margins and this state could go either way. It cannot be counted on, but at this stage, after 230 electoral votes for safe states, 5 more would be very important. This state could go either way so it can't be counted on.

Virginia - Remarkably, Barack is polling well here and with Colin Powell endorsing him, it could help him with military families. Kerry did not carry this state in 2004 but with 13 electoral votes at stake, Barack has a realistic chance of winning here, but it is far from guaranteed. Pennsylvania and Iowa are very likely Obama states, and with Virginia, that would give Barack the White House. All major polls in the month of October show leads for Barack, but averaging well less than double figures. Therefore, this state cannot be counted on either.

North Carolina - A true tossup, but a state Barack has no business competing in. However, with loads of money and fortunes changing with the economy, this is actually a real tossup state. That said, it can't be counted on, and should be assumed McCain will win here. However, with so many states up in the air, even if the majority fall to McCain, there is bound to be one unexpected state that falls to Obama, and a state like this could be it and it would be a difference maker with 15 electoral votes.

Florida - Counting on this state is a mistake, but with 27 electoral votes, and Barack doing well so far in October in polling here, it has to be looked at as a possibility. If this state falls to Barack along with Pennsylvania, Barack will win the White House, so this state is beyond gigantic importance. 7 polls have been done in the last week in this state, 6 have shown Barack with more support, but with no more than 5 points in any. Simply put, Barack cannot depend on this state to win the presidency or else he is in trouble.

Ohio - Like Florida, Ohio has shifted towards Barack recently, but with lower numbers. Also like Florida, Kerry did not win here in 2004, so Barack has his work cut out for him here. But, the fact is, it is a possibility that Ohio and its 20 electoral votes could go for Barack, but for realistic plotting, Ohio cannot be considered.

Missouri - This state is like Ohio, but with even less support...but still, it is there. This state has 11 electoral votes and Kerry did not win here in 2004. However, in the last week, 5 out of 6 polls have shown Barack with more support than McCain and averaging about 4 points. This is a state that cannot be counted on, but it is showing potential for an Obama victory which could change the whole scope of election night mathematics.

Indiana (11), West Virginia (5) - Neither of these states are likely to break Barack's way but at the same time, momentum is shifting, but it probably won't be enough. Kerry did not win either state in 2004, and there likely isn't enough time to change things here. However, these states classify as states that could be complete surprises on Election Day as it is looking like one state, at least, will break Barack's way that wasn't predicted to.

So to recap: there are 231 electoral votes that appear safe for Barack and show little evidence of being surprises on election night. All of those states, 19 in all, are showing double digit leads, or very close to it. Pennsylvania and Iowa are also showing double digit leads but I did not count them because of their vital importance and because Barack did not show well there in the primary election, as Hillary Clinton had more votes in both. But, factoring these two states in, Barack's predicted electoral college total jumps to 259 which leaves him 11 electoral votes shy.

So where else is he going to win to get elected? There are no more absolutely safe states, but more and more, Colorado and New Mexico are showing that they could break for Barack. Those are the only two optimistic states. Counting these two states for Barack, he would then have 273 electoral votes and would win the White House. But what if one of these states surprises? Then what?

Virginia and Nevada would be considered Plan B. They have to be considered less optimistic and more potential. It would not be surprising if Barack won in both of these states, but it is not absolutely likely. Still, it wouldn't be a stretch, and it could happen. So if Barack still needs electoral votes after Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and Nevada?

Florida and Ohio are next. They are both showing support for Barack, and he would only need one of these states to break his way.

The next plan of attack if votes are still needed would be Missouri and North Carolina. Hoping for these is begging for disappointment though. These states would have to be viewed as unlikely and surprising should they go for Barack, but it would not be stunning. If Indiana were to fall to Barack, that would be close to stunning.

To recap: counting all safe states for Barack, he looks to have 259 electoral votes which leaves him very, very close to the presidency, but with no guarantee to win. There are then different options involving 10-12 states, in varying degrees, that would have to pan out.

It is far from certain that Barack Obama will be elected president, however, he certainly has a rosier outlook than John McCain. Aside from nationwide polls, it will come down to those 10-12 bellweather states that will tell the story of this election. While none are completely safe for Barack, more side towards him than McCain, but some (Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina) are in solid Republican strongholds and others (Iowa, Florida) are more moderate but also did not go to John Kerry in 2004.

After all this, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Iowa all must support Barack if he is to be president.

Barack Obama is my new Bill Bradley

2008-10-01T02:27:00.002-04:00

I am 32 years old, which isn't that young but isn't that old. However, when it comes to presidential campaigns in the United States, it feels very young. While I may have been alive for Jimmy Carter's and Ronald Reagan's campaigns, in 1976 and 1980 respectively, I don't remember anything about them. I remember very little about George H. W. Bush's and Bill Clinton's campaigns in 1988 and 1992 respectively. 1996 was really the first time my eyes were opened up to a presidential campaign. I volunteered for President Clinton's re-election effort, but that wasn't the same as when both major parties are vying for the presidency.

So when 2000 came about, and I was four years older, I was even more intrigued about the presidential race. Not only that, but President Clinton's impeachment scandal had happened so there was a lot at stake. After listening to George W. Bush for about 14 seconds, I quickly deduced that he was the antithesis of the candidate that I would ever vote for. Obviously the sitting vice-president, Al Gore, would run for president. However, another person, the former senator from New Jersey, Bill Bradley, decided to run.

While Gore was fine, he offered nothing I was passionate about, while Bradley immediately stoked my interest with his talk about raising the minimum wage, providing health care for all Americans and child poverty. This was someone that represented most, if not all, of my beliefs for the very first time.

While in college I had pursued a degree in political science. In 1996, when running for re-election, I grew interested in President Clinton, and it may have been a lack of awareness of other politicians, but his masterful campaigning and public speaking inspired me. However, Bill Bradley took it to an entirely new level with his obvious sincerity and principled beliefs. Bradley was the first presidential candidate in my life that I truly felt I could believe in.

When he ultimately lost to Al Gore's smear campaign in 2000 (no, I'm not bitter), I felt disenfranchised, probably much like Hillary Clinton supporters did after Clinton lost the democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008. I had volunteered extensively with the Bradley campaign in the democratic primary of 2000, much moreso than I ever did for President Clinton in 1996, because Bradley was the first politician that I truly believed in.

In a way, Clinton was like a partner who you thought you loved, and was pretty great and who offered a lot, but then the relationship ended and you moved on. And then you met Bradley who was everything you hoped for and couldn't believe you thought you loved Clinton. That was what happened with me.

However, speaking of Barack, he has touched on the same feelings of hopefulness that I had with Bill Bradley in 2000. And it may be in part because of the disaster that America has had to suffer with for president for the last 8 years and other poor candidates, but mostly, while Barack isn't nearly as liberal as Bill Bradley, and doesn't seem as principled, I have the same hopefulness and same deep rooted belief in him, that I did with Bradley. I even feel better calling him by his first name because while on one hand he is the most polished of politicians, he also seems to be a modest and humble family man that truly wants to do the right thing.

I suppose I could say Ralph Nader also has evoked these feelings, and if America was truly a democracy, which it is not, Nader would actually have a fair shot at the presidency for which he is running. However, America is not a democracy, but is instead run by corporations, special interests and the two major political parties calling themselves by two different names but really being one big entity representing the same interests. All of these factors have successfully marginalized Nader, quite possibly one of the most influential consumer advocates in America's history. So it makes sense that the political and corporate establishment are scared to death of allowing Nader to spread his beliefs which a great majority of Americans would support.

That said, Barack Obama has become my new Bill Bradley. I was not disappointed once by Bradley, but instead by Gore's smear tactics and his ensuing gutless presidential campaign. However, Barack has run a terrific campaign, and interestingly enough, I sometimes wonder if maybe he could use a few of Gore's dishonorable smear tactics once in a great while. With about three weeks left in the 2008 presidential race, I am truly hoping that the second serious presidential candidate in my life that I truly believe in will be successful. It will, somehow, avenge my grave disappointment about Bill Bradley, and give me the most hope that I have ever had for this country's future. I can hope.

Why is John McCain still respected so highly?

2008-09-26T02:09:00.002-04:00

This isn't going to be a McCain bashing thread; I just want to ask questions aloud that Barack won't ask. I guess I have always found it interesting that McCain is viewed as a great leader and a "maverick" with this supposed history of crossing the aisle and work with Democratic caucuses to get things done. This must be a different person than I know of by the name of John McCain. Maybe that is the mythic John McCain rather than the factual one? Because when I look at voting records and actual facts, I arrive at a different conclusion.

We know that John McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy 894th out of a class of 899. Not a typo. He also cheated on his first wife numerous times before cajoling her for a divorce after he had already started dating his 2nd wife. However, if this track record isn't important to you, let's move on to his track record as a public servant.

With the current economic crisis at hand, let's trace back to the last economic crisis, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the savings and loan scandal where 747 different savings and loan associations failed and ultimately cost the government $160 billion, which, of course, was largely paid for by the taxpayers. In any event, Charles Keating, chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association got special treatment by five U.S. Senators, one happening to be John McCain. McCain and four other senators were investigated for corruption and the overriding analysis was that all of them got off very easily.

Now, what is currently happening with the buyout of $700 billion, and where the economy is showing the same dwindling rates of home building as during the savings and loan scandal - about 20 years later, John McCain thinks he has the answer to this. What puzzles me is that no one has brought up McCain's ties, that I have read, to the infamous Keating Five. I really don't understand this, as track record is important if McCain's myth of being a "maverick" is bandied about incorrectly.

And about this "maverick" tag; why isn't this horrificly misplaced label put to rest with some truthtelling by...someone? The ACLU rated McCain with a 0% which means he has an ANTI-civil rights voting record. The NAACP rated McCain with a 7% for consistently voting against affirmative action. He has consistently voted against rehabilitation for drug abusers, and instead favors sending these people to jail which absolutely does not help society, or these people, in any meaningful way. He has consistently voted against energy independence and public health (according to the American Public Health Assoc.). The AFL-CIO rates him at 15% for voting againts union causes. I mean, I suppose I could go on and on.

However, he has voted FOR family rights, for pro-military (according to SANE - The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy), NARAL gives him a 0% rating for consistently voting against women's rights. Again...I could go on and on with his proven voting records.

The point is, this is a person with a proven track record (there's that phrase again) for voting very conservative and nowhere in his voting record has he bucked from that in the sense that he has rarely, if ever, suprised anyone with moderate to even leftist votes. Ontheissues.org, a non-partisan website, considers McCain a very right-wing conservative based on his votes in the Senate.

So, how has he gotten away with this "maverick" myth? His campaign in 2000 when he ran against the Devil that is now our "president", was portrayed as his "straight talk express" and as a rational, thinking human being, he seemed like a crazy person compared to Thanksdad who smeared his way past McCain, not on any facts but simply on libel and slander. Unfortunately, that 2000 campaign portrayed McCain largely as a maverick, and it is unfortunate since it is so wildly undeserved. In later years, he earned headlines while working with Senator Russ Feingold on the failed campaign-finance reform bill which has done nothing to actually help campaign finance. He then worked with Senator Ted Kennedy with illegal immigration, which also accomplished nothing. His supporters will point to these things, and that's very nice that he actually talked with people of a different mindset...but what did these things accomplish?

Finally, his choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate reminds me of the Keating Five scandal and at the core, how McCain is an irresponsible leader. His choice of Palin who has been clearly overmatched in her very few interviews shows that this was an irresponsible choice. After merely a year and a half as a governor of a very small state, she is now being thrust in a new ballgame and has been exposed, as has McCain's hail-mary choice to maybe tap into the Hillary Clinton voting dynamic.

While I respect Senator McCain, his further irresponsibility about wanting to postpone a presidential debate to work on the economic crisis is another red flag. Why can't a debate happen WHILE you are working on this crisis? Also, what does John McCain know about macroeconomics and how to fix an economy? He has no idea, which is why postponing the debate screams politicking, just as he is whining about Barack Obama using the economy to his political advantage.

Senator McCain is an admirable person and a respectable person for his service to his country, unlike the draft dodging "president" that somehow is in office now. However, is he really a leader that can delegate responsiblity if he cannot choose a worthy vice-president and cannot be trusted with the economy to either stay out of corruption and make wise choices or be unable to handle several important tasks? There is no debate that he served in the military with courage and valor. However, with his many decisions in his personal life and his public life, I wonder what other things have happened and what he chose. The point is, neither McCain nor Obama have any economic expertise or foreign policy expertise. A leader's true value is to delegate responsibility quickly in a serious situation and to quell fears as well as be able to steer people towards a prudent course of action. The public persona of McCain seems to be able to, but looking deeper at the facts, I'm not so sure.

Ben Franklin birthsite in Boston - another travesty

2008-09-24T17:41:00.009-04:00

Ok, back to the jeremiad. Going back to Boston for a visit in August, I had a few key landmarks I wanted to see. Naturally going into Boston was one thing, seeing John Adams' house was another...you get the picture. But I knew that Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston, and about a 15 minute walk from where I used to live in the North End section of Boston. I had never gone to where his birthsite was when I actually lived in Boston, so I was determined to do so when I came back for a visit.

I went to the exact street that Franklin was born on - Milk Street in Boston. The map below isn't great, but if you click on it, you can zoom in on Milk Street.

View Larger Map

In any case, I knew it was across from the Old South Meeting Hall and so I roamed all around Milk Street around that spot and...well...nothing. Thankfully, I remembered the Wikipedia link to Benjamin Franklin which shows the one, solitary marking there is about Franklin's birthplace. Basically, there is a bust on a building about 100 feet high which no one would ever see unless they are looking for it. I took a few pictures of it:

And it just so happened that the bust was above a Sir Speedy printing store, which I thought was ironic in the sense that Franklin's birthplace maybe should be a museum or something. So then, the person I was with astutely comments, "hey, wasn't Franklin a printer?" and voila - another delicious irony.

Still...there is no plaque, nothing anywhere except the bust where you have to crane your head to see it. Usually, when I'm walking, I don't usually stare in the air, high above me. How is it that Boston, one of the central places for the American Revolution...if not the most central, can't afford a few simple plaques for both the Boston Massacre sites and the Benjamin Franklin birthsite? What on earth is that about and why hasn't anyone said anything about it and complained? Well, it is time someone does, so I'm off to write a letter...

'John Adams' documentary sets Emmy record with 13 wins

2008-09-21T23:47:00.004-04:00

This is another anti-Jeremiad post, which makes me wonder to myself if a change of this blog title is in order. In any case, the Emmy awards were tonight, and the 'John Adams' documentary won 13 Emmy awards - the most ever.

From the CNN article linked to in the previous paragraph: "The HBO program, which led all nominees with 23 nods, also earned trophies for Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and writer Kirk Ellis."

Not to get overly melodramatic, but watching this documentary made me want to either plan a trip to Virginia to see Thomas Jefferson's, James Madison's, George Washington's and James Monroe's houses as well as Washington, D.C. or a trip to Massachusetts, partly to see John Adams' home.

I ended up taking a trip to Massachusetts, again, only partly to see Adams' home, but it was certainly a landmark I made sure to see, and it was better than I expected. It also left an indelible mark on me.

This mark was after the strong influence that the John Adams documentary left on me. It was during my viewing of this documentary that my interest in getting into the legal field was again piqued. And thanks to my renewed interest in Adams' life, came a more strongly renewed interest in the legal field and which is now why I am studying to be a paralegal.

There are three main influences of why I had a renewed interest in the law, which I had had intermittently before. Ralph Nader is one, Benjamin Franklin is another and John Adams is the third. Adams' principled approach to law, even to the point of defending British troops against charges that they had murdered Massachusetts colonists, of which he was one, even though he knew this controversial defense would harm his law practice, inspired me to believe that all people deserve representation in a society governed by laws.

It is interesting that before the book that the documentary was based on, from David McCullough, Adams was a somewhat forgotten man in history, and that is very unfair. Because it is people like John Adams who stood up to injustice and defended the rights of others, often sacrificing much themselves. For that, we all have a lot to thank people like him for.

Is the economy really on a solid foundation?

2008-09-19T12:36:00.003-04:00

Looks like John McCain couldn't have been more wrong about the economy. It is interesting that he is now panicking by blaming Barack Obama of taking advantage of his stances because they are politically advantageous? Of course Obama is!

Now, one issue here is, with the federal bailout, why hasn't everyone looked at McCain's track record here? What about his role in the Keating Five in 1989? Does no one care about this? Sure, McCain got off with a slap on the wrist that was criticized by Jonathan Alter in a column in the aftermath.

The Keating Five was a corruption scandal that had to do with the Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Five senators were found to have had improper dealings with Charles Keating Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, including current Republican presidential candidate, McCain.

Even the most guilty of senators, California senator Alan Cranston was also barely slapped on the wrist, even though his hand was caught in the cookie jar. McCain admitted guilt, but only in meeting with Keating, and nothing more.

Now, mistakes are fine and should be forgiven, but when you are running for President, and the economy is now of a central importance, should it really be forgotten? I really hope not. Is this person clearly the best person to be in charge of the economy and dealing with the possibility of more bailouts and having to deal with shoring up regulations in the financial market?

270: the magic number

2008-09-18T20:04:00.003-04:00

Polls are very adorable, but when it really matters, 270 is the only number that really matters. That is the number of how many electoral votes are needed to win the Presidency of the United States.

I'm sure there will be many of these going forward, but here is one map from CNN that is good fodder for discussion.

It shows that Obama is leading, only slightly, 233-189. And really only 153 of those 233 are considered as "safe states" that historically vote Democratic and currently are leaning significantly towards Obama. On the other side, 125 of those 189 are considered "safe" votes for McCain.

There are many "leaning" states on both sides, and some states that they have on both sides, I'm not completely certain about. Even Indiana, who CNN feels is definitely in McCain's corner, is only about 5-6 points off in the latest CNN poll. I know I should be getting data from more sources than just CNN, and I'll try in the future, but for starters, this isn't bad.

Either way though, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio are huge battleground states as they have been recently. But interestingly, Virginia is now considered a battleground state which is a big lift for the Obama campaign. But after 2000, even a state like Nevada with just 5 electoral votes is now coming into focus and is even hotly contested.

But states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey are also incredibly important and states that Obama has to win if he is going to win the Presidency. These are states that are considered "leaning" Democratic, but the stakes are big here.

Right now, Obama and McCain are tied pretty much in national polls. After Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's vice-presidential pick, that helped out their campaign and kept it in the news for an extended time. Now, that seems overwith as the outrageous Lehman Bros. buyout scandal has shifted the focus back to the economy and has put the Obama campaign back on the offensive. But seeing this map made me more optimistic that Obama really does have a chance of winning, if he can capitalize on his huge grassroots network and keep focusing on big states that could potentially swing his way.

The point is this: polls having Obama lagging behind are one thing. But after 2000, the lesson is clear: popular vote be damned. Just get the electoral votes!

Lester Holt is pretty darn good

2008-09-17T12:41:00.002-04:00

This is not a Jeremiad day, but instead a plug for Lester Holt. I find myself being dismayed virtually all the time with network news (NBC, ABC, CBS) and their anchors which include Brian Williams, Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. For some reason, they seem to be not serious journalists and simply talking heads. I envision them coming into the studio, doing no research or work beforehand, and just reading the teleprompter and that's it, kind of like William Hurt in Broadcast News.

However, to me, Lester Holt is a lot different. Everytime he fills in for Brian Williams, it is a breath of fresh air, and when he is interviewed he usually brings something interesting to the table. This may sound stupid and irrelevant, but he also seems like how a newsman should present himself - kind of like in the Edward Morrow sense: refined and stately.

I also respect newscasters much more when they were actually reporters at one time. Lester was not only a reporter, but went to places like Iraq, Somalia and Haiti. Hey, plus he plays the bass guitar.

So, when you see Lester on sometime, give him a watch, because he's the man.

Again, not a ton to add

2008-09-16T14:03:00.002-04:00

I know this will come off as juvenile and what I'm attacking the conservatives of doing, is by taking the presidential race and making it more about pitbulls and lipstick and crap like that, but am I the only one who finds the likeness of these two striking? These two people, Chris Sarandon (from Princess Bride) and Sarah Palin aren't almost twins from birth?

Phil Donahue vs. Bill O'Reilly

2008-09-15T13:23:00.003-04:00

Sorry I haven't added much for a while, but I don't have a ton to add. That will probably change soon though. I guess I just go through spurts. But while you're eagerly waiting for that, here's a fabulous YouTube video clip of Phil Donahue on Bill O'Reilly's show. I'm not completely clear when it was, but it's still accurate.

I love Phil Donahue. If given the opportunity, I would gladly vote for him for any office. Phil just takes control and O'Reilly predictably resorts to pointing his finger and raising his voice and Phil keeps going.

Mass Media is the Enemy as Usual

2008-08-29T18:38:00.003-04:00

Do people really respond to this? long after John McCain announced his vice-presidential choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, predictably pundits - skilled and hacks - made sure their opinions were known. Unfortunately, the world wide web is very wide and blustering hacks are incredibly hired by the mainstream media.

Only hours later, Republican hack Ed Rollins naturally called McCain's choice "brilliant"!!!! And on the other side, Democratic hack Paul Begala called McCain "out of his mind". Brilliant and inane are right on for these two articles. Both of these tired, overblown and recycled people have been throwing these loose, no accountability opinions around for way too long and apparently people do really respond. Why else would they be paid for this crap?

Unfortunately, I'm giving these two partisan idiots attention who make their money on being inflammatory instead of being informative. My point though is, is that these two articles are just off the wall, obvious examples of why the mass media is much of the problem in American politics. It's too bad that the mass media is littered with far less obvious examples of bias, misinformation and inflammatory reporting.

In hindsight, I can see why both Rollins and Begala are employed by CNN. Rollins is very well spoken and Begala is entertaining and both are very experienced having worked on major political campaigns. Obviously this does get ratings. However, when I think of Begala, I invariably think of the infamous episode of Crossfire that Begala used to host with another partison hack, Tucker Carlson, when Jon Stewart was on. While I think Stewart is generally very limited in talent as a comedian, he was right on target. I will let you watch and make your own judgment if I (and Jon Stewart) are out of control or on the right path. And then, hopefully you'll also start assessing other mainstream media and being much more selective rather than watching headline snippet news like NBC, ABC and CBS' evening news programs for example.

Why can't Barack Obama win?

2008-08-28T23:06:00.003-04:00

Watching Barack Obama's speech in accepting the Democratic nomination for President, it made me remember how I used to feel as a college student, just becoming aware of the political process, watching Bill Clinton speak. Watching those Clinton speeches made me believe in the political process and believe that is how things were supposed to happen.

Gradually, I become much less naive, and more informed, but still, that was better than the last seven years of an administration who has done many bad things for this country. Then Barack Obama came into the mainstream at the 2004 Democratic nomination and then declared his candidacy for president in 2007 and that re-energized me.

While Barack has done his fair share of pandering in hopes of getting elected, part of it is also having a president that isn't an embarrassment on a daily basis. While John McCain wouldn't be an embarrassment like the current president either, Barack infuses so much hope whereas McCain has been around for a long while. The point is, Barack makes me want to believe in the political process once again.

And with McCain's recent vice-presidential choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, can the predictable republican talking heads actually claim that Barack is inexperienced still while McCain's vice-presidential choice hasn't even been in the governor's office for two years? Not only that, but she was on the city council for four years and then mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. That's it!

Unfortunately, like most of McCain's choices as an elected leader, while this will be viewed as risky and bold, it is very predictable. Naturally, with a large contingent of Hillary Clinton supports feeling discontent (and selfish), McCain is hoping that this VP choice will get them over to his side in addition to the myth that he is a maverick, even though he has consistently voted with republicans time and again in the Senate.

But at least now, Barack can't be viewed as inexperienced, and even so, former President Clinton brought up the point that when he was running for president, he was much in the same position as Barack is now. The stakes are just as significant now as they were then. In 1992, it was to reverse 12 years of bad republican policies and now, it is maybe even more significant: to reverse eight years of horrific administration policies throughout the world. It is time for a Washington outsider much like in 1992 to reverse course.

There is a long time until November, so polls are meaningless right now, but especially considering the alternate choice, I am very motivated to see Barack Obama elected. In addition, I want to make up for my lack of motivation in hindsight in 2004 for a lackluster candidate (John Kerry), however considering the awful alternative, I should have been volunteering for Kerry. On the other hand, while it is interesting in that the vice-presidential nominee Joseph Biden seems more qualified to be the presidential nominee, I am much more enthused with this election because of the actual candidate, the bad alternative and the stakes in the election. Barack has definitely gotten me back into the political process.