jackie hayes

But if it's hard to define what a winner is, how do we know we don't have them? And how do we know if Renteria is one? The reason I asked is simply that I don't trust arguments where terms aren't defined well -- and putting something in quotes usually means that it's kind of a fuzzy term. This is one example -- Renteria is a "winner". Does that mean that the Cards won't win without him? If so, why? And would Uribe be a winner if the Sox had won? I would understand if you said that he has greater mental fortitude, or a better obp -- something concrete. But saying he's a "winner", how can that be judged without a better definition?

Good points, but I still don't think KW has carte blanche. I mean, Hawk may have left on his own, but... There's a reason it only took a year. And Krause had really earned the tenure. (JMHO, I don't want to get into an all-b/c-of-MJ argument here.) As for Hemond, I don't really know. I don't think he did.

Any reason you think that? I'm guessing he has this season and the next to win, maybe just one.

Just curious... Why do you put quotes around "winner"?

I think if he keeps up his obp, this is a good idea. I'd much rather have a high obp guy with so-so speed than a moderate obp guy with plus speed at the top of the lineup. Heck, if Jamie Burke keeps hitting like he did last season (unlikely, I admit), I would like to see him near the top of the lineup.

I would really like to see steroids eliminated from baseball, but clearly the players' union is going to fight any further regulation. Purely as a hypothetical, I've been thinking about a strike or lockout. I can't decide if I would be willing to go a season without baseball if it meant a legitimate testing policy, so I wanted to see what everyone else thinks. So if MLB could institute an effective testing policy only by staring down the union with a full-season lock-out, would that be a cost worth paying? Thoughts, opinions?

"Get stewed. Books are a load of crap." -- Philip Larkin I don't finish the book if I hate it, I don't know if I can be fair. I'll offer Pynchon's Mason & Dixon -- it has some REALLY good parts, but gets tedious, I don't think it was really worth the effort. Edit: I would never say that this is one of the "worst" books, but I doubt anyone here has truly read one of those. There have to be some doozies out there.

I thought the Red Sox were adamant about only signing a ss for a couple years, b/c of Hanley Ramirez. Why would they be willing to take on Renteria for 4 yrs?

One thing I miss about Manuel, that he tried to keep his criticisms in-house. We could all see that Ozzie doesn't trust Willie, I'm just getting tired of hearing it.

Yeah, I would -- ads promoting a particular religion. I'm not opposed to the Mormon 'public service' ads. I'm not convinced they're anything more than that, but I admit I don't remember anything about them in detail, just that when they've been on I never thought they're proselytizing. Edit: I'd add, though, that even though I would reject those ads, I think this one is worse, because instead of simply promoting a religion (which I don't like), this one attacks other religions. It's basic message is not 'Look into the UCC', it's 'Those other denominations don't follow Christ.' That seems deeply offensive.

I never said it had anything to do w/ the FCC, I don't think it does. But I don't know how you reach the second conclusion, that it has to do with the "politics". I don't hold those politics, but I would reject the ad too.

Really a breach of trust (in fact, if not in law) for anyone who started work w/ the government of Michigan with that as part of the contract. Is there any reason the government has to do this? It sounds like the excuse is more along the lines of, going w/ the "spirit" of the amendment, but I'm not sure.

In my mind, this ad can be interpreted 3 ways (not mutually exclusive). First, as an advertisement for a particular religion. Second, as an attack on other Christian denominations (without necessarily a plug for themselves). Third, as a call for tolerance through society in general. If it's the first type of ad, then I think the networks are correct in refusing it. I don't think it's healthy to have proselytization on tv. Religion is not just another product (if it can be called a "product" at all), it is much more important than your beer choice. I don't imagine networks want to be associated in any way with particular religious views. (Suppose a group that worked to convert Jews bought a large amount of time on NBC -- how would that make the network look?) And how would you define the limits of this? Suppose a radical Islamic group wanted to post an ad -- not a terrorist group itself, but an apologist organization. Should ABC, et al, be required to run the ad, or allowed to judge this particular set of religious views not 'valid enough' to be able to pay for a spot? If it's the second type of ad, I also think that the networks are correct in refusing it. I see no reason to force the networks to tick off half of their audience (perhaps more). And I'm not sure why this denomination feels the need to, either -- it would seem rather petty unless it's b/c the ad also functions as suggested in the first interpretation. Moreover, this particular ad is especially incendiary -- it aims to link anti-gay aspects of other denominations to racism and discrimination against the disabled. (Btw, I am trying to be pc, but I'm not sure if all the terms are neutral, apologies if not.) That's a lotta insult to heap on some of your viewers, and certainly there's some limit to the attacks that should be allowed in ads. Now, if it's the third type of ad, the network should either allow it or be very careful in not allowing issue ads. Those would include thinly-veiled "pro-family" ads. But it's absurd to think that this ad fits any such description -- the context of the church, the mention of Jesus -- this is all about religion and which religious views are acceptable, NOT tolerance in a general way. If they want to make an ad like that, it's easy -- you see these ads all the time, 'spend time with your kids', the kid saying 'I'm getting mixed messages about women and violence' to the postman. But don't pretend that it's about tolerance generally, when you put bouncers in front of a church.

That won't be enough. The Twins are more than a little bit off on their offer. He'll get some awfully good offers from other teams, like the Blue Jays and/or the M's.

Well... Maybe. That's actually hearsay, what the church says CBS says. But I agree that it's not a good reason to reject the ad.

I think religions are treated differently than companies. (The ABC spokesperson says something to this effect in the article.) Which I don't mind, personally. But if they'll accept ads promoting a specific religion (which I seriously doubt), then this one should be allowed.

I don't know, I don't find this to be a very controversial decision. I thought this argument was right on -- "An NBC spokeswoman said the problem with the ad was not its depiction of same-sex couples at church, but rather its implication that other religions are not open to all people." I think that message is clear from the ad, and I also think a network would naturally be opposed to broadcasting a message that attacked another religion. (I can't remember any examples of such messages -- eg, the Mormon ads are pretty broad-based, everyone should spend time w/ their kids, etc.) I don't see this as kowtowing to "values" voters (and I'm not at all a "values" voter myself).

Agreed -- if he had that season that Butters put up, I would absolutely call that "great". But these numbers (.320-.330 obp with some power) would be good enough, and they're a lot more realistic.

From what I've read, RJ has essentially no cartilage left in his right knee. Does anyone know if that's something risky, or is it easily dealt w/? I mean, I know he does take steps to deal w/ it (injections of various types), I want to know if those are pretty much guaranteed to work or not. Just curious, b/c it sounds bad...

The other question is whether RJ would agree to waive his no-trade in July. I've read that he wouldn't -- but then again, it doesn't sound very credible to me. At that point, why would he say no?

In what world are Rogers, Lilly, and Chacon on the same list as Hudson, Kazmir, and Burnett?

Dunno about that -- I think our o-line needs a lot of work. Maybe at lt, wait and see, but we almost certainly need a guard unless someone steps up. And that's the starting unit -- there's almost no depth too. A wr and te wouldn't hurt, either. And Grossman hasn't proven yet that he can lead a team for a full season (although we shouldn't draft high for a qb, I like him so far). I think our offense needs a LOT of work.

Is this like one of those things where someone does an absolutely pathetic job in the hopes that he can be fired and collect unemployment insurance? Cause Bowden can't possibly last long at this rate.

Complete bs. There are many reasons the value of the dollar could be falling, only one of which is loose monetary policy. He doesn't happen to mention the others, of course. And he provides no evidence that monetary policy is too loose -- why would he? He claimed a few years ago that the Fed was being too tight. Wouldn't want to contradict himself.... And where are his "host of studies [that] demonstrate that deficits in their current range have no discernable impact on interest rates"? (Notice Kemp himself doesn't even address the logic behind "crowding out.") The best recent scholarly discussion is Gale and Orszag, who have serious concerns about the effect of the deficit on interest rates (and on the economy in general). But then, these are professional economists with a nonpartisan think tank (Brookings), why would we trust them? Kemp is a hack, and his piece is garbage.

But then he wouldn't get free shipping...