Happiness guru Martin Seligman, who first allowed ideas from his learned helplessness discovery to be psychologically reversed engineered as the basis for the CIA's torture program, has now gone one step further.
Calling soldiers his 1.1 million guinea pigs, he now wants the Army to "be all its Higher Power can be," in essence, claiming that "spirituality" will help troops overcome PTSD.
Hogwash:
Bryant Welch, who also served as APA president, said, "personally, I have not been able to find a meaningful distinction between [positive psychology] and Norman Vincent Peale's Power of Positive Thinking. Both emphasize substituting positive thoughts for unhappy or negative ones."
"And yet the US military has bought into this untested notion to the tune of [$125] million," Welch said.
PTSD "is is not a mental state that can be treated by suggesting to the patient that he or she simply re-frame how they think about the situation, as Dr. Seligman suggests," Welch added.
And, it's just part of a trend. Seligman has previously sold out to corporations. Now, it's our increasingly corporatized military.
What would really help PTSD in the military? Adequate head protection and armaments would be a start. Not fighting unnecessary wars would be better yet.
Update, Jan. 7:Here is a sample of specific questions; by asking about things like religious service attendance, it's clear this goes beyond "spirituality" and ventures into the realm of unconstitutionality.
More here noting how these questions, AND other issues behind them, are clearly a religious test, and therefore unconstitutional. It looks like the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers is eventually going to have to sue.
Or for SCAT, either! A roundup of scat news begins with Seattle Citizens against the Tunnel opposing the use of any city of Seattle land in creating a new highway tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Due to geological and other issues, SCAT and others fear cost overruns could be massive, among other things.
Meanwhile, suburban Phoenix senior citizens, and those who would help them, are trying to clean up problems after SCAT closed due to budget issues, leaving them without rides they had enjoyed before. More crap from Arizona's general budgetary wores.
Meanwhile, scat offers good news, in the short term at least, for the future of English pine martens. And, maybe picking up scat like that is a good way for parents to bond with their children, a columnist says.
How can atheists be very religious, moderately religious or nonreligious? But, that's what Gallup claims. Gallup says:
Americans' degree of religiousness, as defined in this analysis, is based on responses to two questions asking about the importance of religion and church attendance, yielding the "very religious," "moderately religious," and "nonreligious" groups. (See page 2 for details of this classification procedure.)
Gallup does say that the effect is probably based on contact with others in a group.
Beyond that, this poll has other "issues."
The main one is, what is "wellbeing"? In the story about the poll, that's not really explained. Even if it is, that's a subjective issue. For some, it might be more a good partner relationship. For others, it might be a Maslow-type actualization. For others, it might be a $100,000-a-year job.
But, beyond that, what's with the nearly 3 percent of atheists/agnostics supposedly strongly religious?
In this case, it's bad linguistics. I guarantee.
After I wrote a newspaper column, years ago, about my non-metaphysical stances, I was asked to speak at a philosopher's club in Dallas. And, a philosophy professor at a community college told me he prayed regularly. (I had the good grace not to ask him directly, "To whom?")
Another, also illustrative anecdote. I started making a connection with a woman on Match.com several years ago who said she was an atheist. But, as she learned from me what that really meant, well, she "ran like hell." As vest I could figure from hindsight, to her, "atheist" meant something like "spiritual but not religious."
And, that's the problem with polls of his nature by somebody like Gallup — terms aren't clearly identified and nailed down.
I'd been wondering when the "deal" on electoral reform, that was Liberal Democratic Party leader Nick Clegg's price for joining in coalition with David Cameron's Conservatives in Britain, would happen.
Guess I'd not been reading the Guardian often enough to see that a referendum on alternative voting, i.e., an instant runoff system, to replace the first past the post system, has cleared the House of Lords and is set for May 5.
Hence the four months and ticking.
British voters will go to the polls May 5 for a vote on electoral reform, the promised payout by the Conservative Party to Liberal Democrats for joining it in coalition.
Britain's biggest union has officially come out in opposition, though. That despite the fact that the Labour Party could benefit.
Labour Party leader Ed Miliband says he will campaign hard for a yes vote. But, will the party as a whole follow him? So far, 114 Labour MPs have pledged opposition. Even more, on the other side, will the Conservative rank-and-file follow Prime Minister David Cameron? For that matter, how enthusiastic and active will Cameron be in working for the measure?
Witin Labour, it appears, per the opposition of Unite and another large union, to be an Old Labour vs. New Labour split. As Miliband was elected to leadership with union support, it's surprising to see him so ardently push a yes. Could a failure in the referendum not only dissolve the governing coalition, but lead to a putsch against Miliband at the next Labour conference?
As the Guardian notes, Labour proposed IRV, also known as alternative voting, before the most recent national elections. The same editorial notes that Miliband's in his and Labour's interest to push yes, with either a win or a loss drawing Labour and LibDems closer, especially since Cameron's past record is of opposition. (That said, he seems to be honoring his pledge to LibDe's Clegg very narrowly - just putting the referendum on the ballot and not campaigning for a yes.)
Also, by Cameron insisting the referendum be put on the same day as local/regional elections, it looks like Cameron has wrong-footed Clegg pretty well. That is, unless the push for electoral reform really doesn't matter as much to Clegg as it does to the party faithful, as seems the case with other LibDem issues.
Faux News commentator Juan Williams, commenting on the resignation of Ellen Weiss, the NPR exec who fired him after his anti-Muslim comments:
Williams told Fox News that the executive who fired him last year "represented a very ingrown, incestuous culture" at NPR that was not open to different perspectives.
Pots and kettles, Juan. In general, and especially given your new boss.
That also said, it shows cross-media incestuousness by NPR in search of some elusive balance. Hell, stop it. Get Mara Liasson off Faux, too, NPR.
The NPR internal review of Weiss's actions is here.
There's actually some good things in there about reporters' participation and interaction with today's political world, and reframing NPR standards.
As for Faux, it has no standards in the first place.
Already the House GOP is fudging on deficit issues by wanting to extend tax cuts for the rich and kill medical savings in Obamacare. And, how can you be bipartisan with folks who break their own rules in their first 24 hours in power?
If sister Blue Cross made such a request in Texas, it would probably be granted without scrutiny, just to try to show how bad Obamacare is, for example.
That said, California's laws on health insurance regulations are about as toothless as Texas, beyond the federal mandate of spending costs on actual coverage-related issues. And, in reality, the federal guidelines on that are kind of loose.
Update, Jan. 6, 2011: Well, we know now that the lies of Andrew Wakefield involved deliberate fraud.
And, Anderson Cooper calls Wakefield the liar that he is:
Too bad Anderson didn't also call him a mass murderer.
Update, March 2, 2010: Maybe sensory processing disorder is one of the things that some people call autism. And, there's debate over whether it is an actual "issue," as proponents try to get it in DSM-V.
It may not be called that, but maybe it is, in its more severe manifestations.
What if sensory processing disorder is one of the things that some people call Asperger's, if not full-spectrum autism. What if a child had sensory overload so bad as to have a seizure? And, had learning delays because of this? And were hypersensitive to certain foods?
At the same time, per a lawyer friend of mine with experience in various special education issues, sometimes, parents need the right "label" to get the right special services for their children. At the same time, she notes school districts resist such labeling, because they lose money on most special education services.
So, to Flavius and others, I am more than willing to see possible new treatments scientifically investigated. Let's stop promoting ones, or defending other people promoting ones, that have been investigated, but disproven. If true liberalism is going to be "reality-based," doesn't that have to apply across the board?
And, on DSM-V, what will be the low end of the "spectrum" in "autism spectrum disorder," anyway?
Update 2, March 2, 2010: Meanwhile, due to fear tactics of people like Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, one in four parents are afraid to vaccinate their children.
One good thing? Some doctors are refusing to treat anti-vax parents or their children any more.
Update, Feb. 9, 2010: Per previous speculation on my part, part of the rise in autism diagnosis that is actually an increase in autism cases is linked to older parents.
But, note that it's both parents and not just mothers. “It’s important we not turn around and blame mothers,” Dr. DoloresMalaspina said. “The evidence is very, very strong that there is a paternal age effect.” That said, the researchers said the parental age effect does not account for all the increase in diagnosis.
Of course not. As I originally noted on this post, the change from DSM-III to DSM-IV, and an "updiagnosis" from Asperger's to autism is part of the equation. So, too, is the fact that we don't really have a tight definition of what constitutes autism.
Update, Feb. 4, 2009: Bob Carroll has now kindly linked to this story in his latest Skeptics' Dictionary newsletter.
In the DSM-III, the previous version to the current one of the American Psychiatric Organization’s “bible,” you can also see the diagnosis of schizoid disorder of childhood. (PDF of entire DSM-III.) In fact, different websites note this phrase was once used for Asperger’s syndrome.
Diagnostic criteria for Schizoid Disorder of Childhood or Adolescence A. No close friend of similar age other than a relative or a similarly socially isolated child. B. No apparent interest in making friends. C. No pleasure from usual peer interactions. D. General avoidance of nonfamilial social contacts, especially with peers. E. No interest in activities that involve other children {such as team sports, clubs). F. Duration of the disturbance of at least three months. G. Not due to Pervasive Developmental Disorder; Conduct Disorder, Undersocialized, Nonaggressive; or any psychotic disorder, such as Schizophrenia, H. If 18 or older, does not meet the criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder.
So, we have a “relabeling” from DSM-III to DSM-IV on Asperger’s, which may easily be misdiagnosed as full-blown autism, and people claim there’s an epidemic, then start blaming vaccines, promoting alternative medicine, etc.
Going by what you can find around the web about adult-manifest SPD, I offer these insights:
Causes? Unknown but likely multivalent. A relative with schizophrenia increases the likelihood for SPD, which indicates some genetic background. Environmental factors are likely involved. The time crunch of modern parenting may be a factor.
I will certainly venture that the increased genetic fragility of more and more women having later-life pregnancies is an issue. There may also be genetic fragility issues, or uterine stress issues, with test-tube conception.
And, without being too Freudian, other parenting and home-life issues may be contributory in many cases.
And, color me skeptical in another way about the uptick in diagnosis, whether of Asperger’s or full-spectrum autism. Who is making such diagnoses? Medical doctors? Or chiropractors, homeopaths, chiropractors and other voodoo practitioners?
Treatment? Talk therapy. Of course, schizoids are loners, so it’s tough to get them to stay in too long in one-on-one therapy. In group therapy, they may simply let others talk more and stay silent.
Medications are not indicated unless other mental health issues are also involved.
Update, March 4:
Per comments, it is true that I don't have exact numbers of schizoid disorders of childhood. But, even a quick Google search led me to find that in Great Britain, a country with about 18 percent the population of the US, multiple research studies of children diagnosed with SCD; I also found one from Denmark. This should indicate the diagnosis was NOT uncommon.
And, for anyone defending the idea of an “autism epidemic,” YOU don’t have numbers. Or, even if you’re defending the idea of anything close to that.
You admit yourself that we don't know what autism is. And I show one likely vehicle for how what “autism” wasn't has become what “autism” is.
The bottom line is this:
Per Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. (And, since we’re talking science here, that evidence must be scientifically verifiable.)
Claims of an “autism epidemic” are certainly extraordinary. Such claimants therefore have the burden of proof for producing a scientifically verifiable cause of such an epidemic.
So far, they have failed utterly.
I offer the alternative of how a psychiatric rediagnosis, combined with a possible medical updiagnosis, may be a significant cause of an alleged “autism epidemic,” along with offering a possible empirical cause for any increase that may be real – that empirical cause being more and more late-fertility age births by mothers in the developed world.
And, the fact that Asperger’s is listed as a condition in DSM-IV opens a whole new can of worms. Is it, or “autism,” a physical or a mental disorder?
Update, Feb. 3, 2010: As to what may be causing an increase in actual cases of autism? I do think that, after you subtract out the above, there is such a thing.
Like some other childhood fragile-genes syndromes, it's more older, i.e., post-40, women in the western world having babies. That includes you, Jenny McCarthy. Not to be too harsh about it, but, look in the mirror as part of your blame-casting.
Finally, let's note, as the American Psychological Association now works on DSM-V, that in the non-nutter, but profit-driven, world, though the APA denies it, DSM-V and its process of editing and formulation is connected indeed to the pharmaceutical and the insurance industries.
Why does she remain so beloved though, despite the likelihood her kid didn't even have autism?
1. The miracle cure, even though it wasn't even a cure. 2. The religious angle. 3. The American penchant for conspiracy theories. 4. The American anti-intellectual strain, as Richard Hofstadter noted 50 years ago.
Karl Greenfield notes all those, in the first page:
But she can't be ignored. If the debate about vaccine safety is settled — vaccines don't cause autism; they don't injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health — then why are so many parents reconsidering vaccinating their children? The answer has to do with our era's strained relationship with scientific truth, our tendency to place more faith in psychological truths than scientific ones. McCarthy's emergence — the Playmate turned pseudoscientist, the fart-joke teller cum mother warrior — can make one feel nostalgic for the time when celebs turned up on talk shows only to hawk their flicks or books, not to promote explosive public-health ideas. But McCarthy says she is speaking the truth — her truth.
And, her "truth," as Greenfield notes, is all emotional tugging. No actual truth.
The Salon story on McCarthy, though, has some serious scientific holes and weaknesses, namely, by being wishy-washy pablum. Contra the story, McCarthy IS a "full-range loon."
And, note my original, in-depth blog post for why, in very scientific terms, there's been an "explosion" in autism.
Update, March 2, 2010: Meanwhile, due to fear tactics of people like Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, one in four parents are afraid to vaccinate their children.
One good thing? Some doctors are refusing to treat anti-vax parents or their children any more.
Update, March 13, 2010: Three more federal vaccine court rulings have all rejected a vaccines-autism link; specifically, all cases ruled out the thimerosal-autism link.
As I've said before, I sympathize with the pain of parents, mothers especially, who suffer with the struggles of raising autistic children.
BUT, but — many, many other parents in general and mothers in particular go through such struggles without grasping at conspiracy theories in general or blaming vaccines in particular.
And, in doing so, endangering their children and other children, on the vaccines issue, and dumbing down America, and paranoiafying it up, at the same time.
Now that Bert Blyleven is in the Hall of Fame, let's look once more at Jack Morris and why he shouldn't be, since we have two years left to block him, to put it bluntly.
On Morris, and why he should get in the Baseball Hall of Fame, one "tout" for him has been that he was "The Pitcher of the 80s." But, a number of other people have noted, the 80s really kind of sucked in terms of starters, other than Nolan Ryan, who you'd really call more of a 70s pitcher.
Well, Roger Clemens actually won his first Cy in 1986. But, before that? Among starters?
See, there's a LOT of UHHH? as far as long-term success of primarily 80s pitchers.
Hershiser was solid but a bit short of top level, and had too short a career. Mike Scott was a short-peak flash. Gooden? Sniff, sniff, and even more, chug, chug, we know what happened there. The others? Even lower. So, *somebody* had to be "top pitcher of the 80s" and it was Morris.
Another way to look at this? Ryan, in 1999, was the last "pure starter" (as opposed to the half-and-half Eckersley) to be elected to the Hall. Until yesterday, that is.
Bert Blyleven had finally made the Hall of Fame, as has Robbie Alomar. (That said, even with all the years of enlightening more people, it's still sad he got "only" 79 percent, while Alomar zoomed past him, in his second year of eligibility to 90 percent. The biggest "issue" with Alomar is his career negative dWAR. Not sure whether it's more him being overrated by us all these years or more an issue with dWAR.
That said, per complete ballot information at Baseball-Reference.com's home page, it's clear the steroid era's fallout is looming large.
But, on the purely political side, President Obama may well miss the advice of David Axelrod, unless Ax's leaving is to become part of starting the Obama 2012 team. Both are leaving the White House as Obama continues to shake up staff.
With a new chief of staff rumored to be coming in too, and one with which, if it is William Daley, to the best of my knowledge, Obama doesn't have extreme closeness, there's going to be some management, power structure, and other voids that open up.
Plus, if Gene Sperling is the man to replace Larry Summers as economic adviser, there's "message" issues too ... especially messages, or the lack thereof, to the purer progressives at whom both Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel liked to sneer. Progressives, don't hold your breath.
Nooohhh, that's not a blue state, it's not a deficit-loving liberal haven.
It's Tejas, controlled in governorship AND both houses of the same, part-time, Third World legislature for the whole last decade.
That's right — over the next two years of the two-year budget cycle of the unrepresentative Third World-type legislature that meets only ever other year, the current shortfall projection is $95 billion with a B. Round it up to $100 billion for convenience.
And, of course Texas Republicans never raise taxes, noooooo.
But, as documented in the story, which actually only tells the half of it, Texas Rethugs have had no problem increasing fee after fee, and even inventing new ones, over the last decade.
That said, Rethugs, now that you have a supermajority in the House and are likely to impose one in the Senate, like in 2009, you can drain away on the rainy day fun. Texas Democrats, you can't do a damned thing to influence the budget otherwise, anyway. So, you can either be ball-less Obamiacs, or force the GOP to round up unanimity to drain the rainy day fund itself.
Now, if the GOP in the Texas Senate pledges NOT to do what it DID do in 2009 - that is, lowering the supermajority bar from 2/3 to 3/5 - House AND Senate Dems may work more with their GOP counterparts. But, since the GOP now has a House supermajority, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Note: This corrects the original version, where I said the GOP had a supermajority in both House and Senate.
Dude, who appointed the Catfood Commission? The same guy who hasn't said he saw anything wrong with the advance leaking by its co-chairs. The same guy who hasn't rejected the report of its majority. The same guy who had no problem letting the GOP de-electrify the "third rail," and even helped.
Right-to-work laws have NOTHING to do with state budgets and deficits. It's clear that this is a wet-dream opening for an anti-employee party that it hasn't seen since the likes of St. Ronald of Reagan 30 years ago.
As for unfunded pension liabilities? Those fall on nonunionized as well as unionized retirees, and the lack of funding won't be addressed one thin dime by a state passing a right-to-work law.
That said, the AFL-CIO has its work cut out for it on dealing with this crap. You can help. Don't let wingnuts lie to you when they raise issues like this.
Beyond that, since it's clear the GOP at the Washington level simply doesn't care about deficits, why would the statehouse GOP be different on other mattes of fiscal trutihness?
That said, I have a bone to pick, a small one, with Baseball-Reference’s HOF lists. The comparative sabermetric tools we value, like WAR, OPS+ and ERA+? Why aren’t they included on these lists? It would make the comparisons much easier.
And, why are HOF pitchers who ever, even just once, swung a bat in their lives, listed again under the “batters” category? Ditto for managers who had a cup of coffee in the major leagues.
I start with one basic stat; that’s OPS+.
Unless you’re in a fielding-primary position like shortstop, you should be at 110 or higher, and ideally, 115 or better. Kind of like how Baseball-Reference tweaks its fielding sabermetrics per positional difficulty, I tweak the OPS+ bottom line per position. Shortstop? A 100 is OK, or even less than 100 if you bring a LOT to table as a fielder. (Think Ozzie Smith, while noting Omar Vizquel is NOT in the same category.) As for pre-“modern” players in the sense of pre-1960, I’ll cut infielders as fielders yet m ore slack based on infield quality of the old says.
Catcher? If you have a reputation as a pitcher’s catcher, I’ll lower it below 110. Second and third base, 110 is really the minimum. 115 for outfield positions and 120 or better at 1B.
Overall WAR gets looked at next, and dWAR gets an extra look for “fielding” positions especially. Overall WAR should be 50 or higher except for a career shortened by acute injury.
Beyond that, I look for a mix of longevity and a peak set of years. It's subjective, but a good candidate should have some of both. And, of course, every such discussion has an element of subjectivity, no matter the number of sabermetric stats at hand.
OK, so whom should we consider tossing out? Here's my list, with brief notes on each.
Jim Bottomley? Probably the worst 1B in the HOF. Crappy numbers, given the era in which he played.
Roger Bresnahan. He passes the OPS muster, but didn’t play long enough.
Max Carey. OPS too low; WAR on borderline; don’t think he was outstanding, though he was above average, as fielder.
Earle Combs. Didn’t play that long a career, not a defensive outfielder.
Frank Chance. Borderline, but really, shortness of his career is part of the problem.
Bobby Doerr? Should have racked up better numbers playing all through WWII in a diminished MLB. And didn’t. If those numbers came 10 years later, I might cut more slack.
Elmer Flick? Didn’t play that long. But, impressive stats from the dead-ball era. Borderline.
Rick Ferrell? Not that good of a defensive catcher to make up for offensive limitations. In fact, he was below average defensively as well as at the plate.
Nellie Fox? Borderline. Near-great defensively, but perhaps a touch overrated. Not that good offensively.
George Kell? Out. Especially given that he played 1B as well as 3B.
High Pockets Kelly? Also out. Not that long of a career, and other things. If he were a full-career 1B, I’d rank him below Bottomley.
Freddie Lindstrom? Out! Not that good of a fielder, not a great hitter, too short a career.
Ernie Lombardi? Borderline. Not sure his above-average, for a catcher, bat, makes up for below-average defense.
Heinie Manush? Just not quite good enough for quite long enough.
Rabbit Maranville? Nice nickname, but even for being primarily a SS, not sure his fielding makes up for a weak bat.
Phil Rizzuto? Iffy. I’ll give him the missed wartime years benefit of the doubt. Edd Roush? Out, I think. It’s like looking at Harold Baines.
Bill Terry? Great stats, but, in the very life ball era of the 1930s, and too short of a career. Borderline.
Pie Traynor? Negative career dWAR. Time to get this icon out, I think! He’s overrated in the field.
Lloyd Waner? “Little Poison” probably shouldn’t be there. Contra another blogger, to whom I saw WTF?, Paul Waner aka Big Poison, is a perfectly legit HOFer.
Hack Wilson? Too short a career, fielding liabilities, very live ball era inflation.
You'll note 22 players on that list. That's a fair chunk of the HOF. Before worrying if we have too few third basemen in there, maybe we ought to instead address the "too many" at a number of positions.
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, touted by many media pundits as a possible "mainstream conservative" 2012 Presidential candidate, has suddenly fallen in love with a coal-gasification plant that his own state's natural-gas utility commission rejected.
Wait. We have a conservative GOP governor, from a party with a lot of global warming denialists, that won't support cap-and-trade, let alone carbon taxes, which means coal gasification is hugely unfeasible economically, and he does this?
Oh, and isn't guaranteeing the gas will be bought at a prince of $3 per million BTU over current rates for natural gas ... uhh, isn't that socialism?
I've blogged recently about Baby Boomers' retirement woes, and in that post, noted that many of them were drinking the Reagan Kool-Aid 30 years ago.
Well, Der Spiegel has an in-depth article on "the decline thing," and, in a different way, it kind of makes the same point. Much of the middle class willingly believed that the pony Reagan hiomself believed had ot be near the shitpile was there.
No, Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme, but, as Paul Kennedy could tell us from "Decline and Fall of the Great Powers," even before the housing bubble, other ways in which the U.S. economy became more and more finance-based were.
As was the outsourcing of jobs.
To riff on Martin Niemoller, "First they outsourced the unskilled industrial labor and I didn't complain. Then they outsourced the skilled industrial labor and I didn't complain. Then they oursourced the tech-skilled labor and I didn't complain. Then they outsourced gray-collar work and I didn't complain. Then they outsourced the less-skilled service labor, and I .... "
Well, with more and more call centers overseas, what next? Corporate paralegal work? India is a democracy, based on the Anglo half of Anglo-American legal principles.
At the same time, the middle class believed the Reagan undercurrent story that they should identify with the rich. Combined with the pee-down economics, it WAS class warfare in a country where everybody wants the appearance of middle-class-dom, believes the BS about mobility, lumps the upper of upper-middle class with the lower of lower-middle class, and otherwise sets itself up for sociological exploitation.
Like this, from the Spiegel story:
Sociologist Robert ... Putnam is worried about economic imbalances and new disparities within society. Today an American CEO earns about 300 times as much as an ordinary worker. In 1950, that number was only 30. The consequence is "social segregation," says Putnam, by which he means that people go to different schools and parties and live in different neighborhoods, and that there is no longer any overlap between groups.
But, again, Americans brought this on themselves.
The "ownership fetish," as in home ownership, which Spiegel discusses on its next page, is another example: I had hoped that the Americans would change their way of thinking, that they would take responsibility and only spend as much as they made," says (Axel) Jakobeit. Jakobeit, described as German by birth but American by choice, should have known better.
And, per Univ. of Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan, is home ownership for lower income levels a partial equivalent of "bread and circuses"? I wouldn't totally disagree, at least.
Robert Reich is on the right track:
Reich has dissected the causes of the crash in his book "Aftershock," in which he analyzes an American character trait that seems oddly simplistic: If my neighbor has more, than I want more too. And I get what I want, because I'm an American.
Spiegel's on the right track, too. Simplistic.
Germany's to cold for me. And, my German is limited. There's Canada. Or Australia. That said, if the wingnuts in the US want to talk about "ownership society," can I withdraw my Social Security contributions if I emigrate?
Unfortunately, in addition to being simplistic, American exceptionalist means the belief in the magic pony, if it's even gone that far away now, will return soon enough.
And, for Preznit Kumbaya, the magic pony to be peddled is "college education." That's even as college costs have risen, and continue to rise, far faster than inflation and slower only than healthcare costs, and we don't need that many college graduates without creative college-needing jobs.
A few are realizing the responsibilities that go with actually getting a bit of a seat at the table.
Others are realizing the coffee they smell is the Koch Brothers brand, at a cost of about $1 billion a cup more than Hills Brothers. (Do they even make that any more?)
And, for those tea partiers who have smelled this particular brand of coffee? Charles and David Koch campaign contributions.
Guess what, Ms. Gena Bell of Ohio, ardent supporter of John Kasich for governor and angry at being used like a cheap prop by Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity?
Your new governor drank the maximum allowable $5,000 Charles Koch cup of coffee. Feel enthusiastic now?
Or, now that you have a paid political job yourself, will you have a different take?
And other Ohioans who feel similar to her, but never were offered political positions, will you shrug off billionaire money in politics? Will you even actively campaign against it? Will you push the GOP to address the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, at least to some degree, through campaign-finance legislation?
Several states are gearing up to massively fight against illegal immigration, with numerous problems.
The first problem, as already noted in the federal court action against Arizona's SB 1020 from last year, is that immigration is a federal-control matter, not a state issue.
The second, and even more important, in the new potential state laws, is that "birth citizenship" is part of the 14th Amendment and actions to try to remove that are unconstitutional.
The third? The "War on Drugs" looks like it's going to become a "War on Illegal Aliens." Asset forfeiture seizures of cars and property? (The story isn't clear on the Oklahoma bill, but, based on the War on Drugs model, I'll assume pre-conviction seizures are what's planned.
Finally, the "anchor baby" nonsense indicate that, legitimate concerns and fears aside, this is all wingnut-driven.
Dude, Speaker Permatan John Boehner can't even spell the word. Mitch McConnell certainly can't.
And, bipartisanship in the last few months? Yeah, it got us the New START treaty, and an on-paper start to the end of of DADT. It also got us the first non-electrifying touch of Social Security's third rail, a deficit increase through extending tax cuts for the rich, and other illiberal financial positions.
My new year's resolutions for President Hopey Dopey?
Balls, two. A user instruction manual to go with.
And, the scarecrow's brain to develop some principles over which to use them.
I have been a strong defender of voting Bert Blyleven into the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame. I've been at least as adamant about keeping Jack Morris out.
That leads to this question:
Among post-1900 players now in the Hall of Fame, whom would you remove?
I’ll also simplify by ruling out all players who were Negro League inductees.
That said, before we get started, I have a bone to pick, a small one, with Baseball-Reference’s HOF lists. The comparative sabermetric tools we value, like WAR, OPS+ and ERA+? Why aren’t they included on these lists? It would make the comparisons much easier.
And, why are HOF pitchers who ever, more than once, swung a bat in their lives, listed again under the “batters” category? Ditto for managers who had a cup of coffee in the major leagues.
That said, on to the matter of hand. This post, I tackle pitchers.
I use two basic stats for starting the analysis, then bring in a third.
Those stats? WHIP and ERA+. Pitchers can control their walks, and, with partial allowance for the quality of fielding behind them and the size of park in which they pitch, can still, by pitch location, etc., control their hits surrendered. So, WHIP is a good comparison measure. And, from how well they bear down against batters when they have runners on base, how well they hold those runners, etc., they can control ERA, and ergo, ERA+, pretty well.
My standards? A HOF-worthy pitcher should have an ERA+ of 110 or better AND a WHIP of 1.25 or lower. Miss one or the other, and I’ll start raising an eyebrow. Miss both, and I’ll raise both eyebrows. If a pitcher just barely misses both, then the third comparison stat — WAR — comes into play.
Anyway, among pitchers that I would consider voting out would be Red Faber, Waite Hoyt, Clark Griffith (he was inducted as a player), Bob Lemon (he was the Jack Morris of his time), Burleigh Grimes, Jesse Haines, TEd Lyons, Hal Newhouser (got lucky to pitch during WWII, take those years away and he’s mediocre), Eppa Rixey, Red Ruffing, and possibly even Early Wynn. (If sabermetrics have taught us that wins aren’t the only thing to matter for a Cy Young award or even a Hall of Fame election, then, if metrics otherwise are bad enough, then we shouldn’t blanche at considering the possibility of ejecting a 300-game winner. AND, Wynn’s other metrics ARE bad. An ERA+ of only 107 and a WHIP of a horrible 1.329. Throw in the fact that his WAR is only 50.2, and outdoes Jack Morris in the definition of “lucky pitcher.”)
And, as discriminating baseball buffs know, there are unlucky pitchers, too. Felix Hernandez just last year. Or Bob Gibson, who somehow managed to “lose” nine games in 1968 despite a 1.12 ERA.
The pitchers I would consider throwing out of the HOF remind us, again, of why we need to keep the Jack Morrises of the world from getting in there in the first place.
The way I see it, five golfers have a realistic shot at eh World No. 1 next year — Westwood, Woods, Mickelson, Kaymer and McDowell. The question is, how many will hold the honor, if only for one week, and who will hold it the most?
At ESPN, Bob Harig offers his take on who's most likely to break out. He and Jason Sobel devote an Alternate Shot duo column to more on this issue as well as other 2011 predictions.
My prediction? Everybody but Philly Mick will get it for at least a week, but he will continue to find ways not to. And Westwood will have the most weeks overall.
