If revenge is a dish best served cold, then irony might best be served as lukewarm Laodicean (look it up) mush.
Chow down, tea partiers!
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?
January 01, 2011
Assault on illegal immigrants an assault on civil liberties in general
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.
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.
New Year's resolution from the Prez
Preznit Kumbaya says: "More bipartisanship."
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.
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.
Who would you vote back OUT of the MLB HOF - pitchers
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?
Here’s the list of all pitchers.
And, the list of all hitters.
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.
That leads to this question:
Among post-1900 players now in the Hall of Fame, whom would you remove?
Here’s the list of all pitchers.
And, the list of all hitters.
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.
Your 2011 golf No. 1 is .... ?
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.
Let me have your thoughts in the polls at right.
Harig then discusses Tiger's 2011 possibilities.
Meanwhile, both Harig and Sobel offer their predictions about some up-and-comers.
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.
Let me have your thoughts in the polls at right.
Harig then discusses Tiger's 2011 possibilities.
Meanwhile, both Harig and Sobel offer their predictions about some up-and-comers.
December 31, 2010
Larry Walker: Another non-HOFer getting fluffed
Once again, it's an ESPN columnist fluffing somebody who is a definite for the Hall of the Very Good, but NOT the Hall of Fame.
Jim Caple does the "honors" with Larry Walker.
I gave brief sketches here of why most the people eligible for the Hall on this year's ballot shouldn't get in. Let's look at what I said there about Walker:
I think that's it in a nutshell.
Caple admits to Walker's injury history, but tries to downplay the nature of Walker's home-road splits. So, let's look at some key Walker stats:
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/31/2010.
And, let's do my own thumbnail neutralization.
First, every player is going to have a bit of home-road split, just from the relaxation of not traveling, the support of home fans, etc. And, yes, some older parks may have had fairly serious boosts (or, in the case of DiMaggio in the original configuration of old Yankee Stadium, some detriment). But, Walker's is much greater than normal.
My guess?
His BA falls to about .308, his hit total to 2,050, his doubles to 450, his HRs to 350, his runs to 1,250 and his RBIs to 1,200. I think that's a reasonable normalization of his career numbers.
And, you don't just need my rule-of-thumb guesses. At Baseball-Reference, if you click the "more stats" link near the top of Walker's profile, you'll get much more of a profile, including neutralized states. They peg him at a .299 BA, 365 HRs, 1,201 runs and 1,175 RBIs.
Can you really say that's a Hall of Fame career? I won't. And, as for a string of dominance, with park normalization he might have lost the first of his batting titles, to John Olerud. And, lost his one home run title in 1997 to Jeff Bagwell, who was still playing in the Astrodome.
So, Mr. Jim Caple, and far from the first time for you or most ESPNers on the Hall of Fame, you're wrong.
As a Cards fan, I loved Walker's brief stay there. Hated that a variety of nagging, chronic injuries ended that, and his career, too soon.
But, they were nagging, chronic injuries. Not a sudden thing, like Sandy Koufax's arthritis or Kirby Puckett's vision. That said, Puckett wasn't an obvious HOF choice to me then, and still isn't now.
Jim Caple does the "honors" with Larry Walker.
I gave brief sketches here of why most the people eligible for the Hall on this year's ballot shouldn't get in. Let's look at what I said there about Walker:
Should not get in, any year, though I loved the guy as a Cards fan. Great fielder, but, outside of pre-humidor Colorado, he's a much more iffy batter, for his road splits as a Rocky, before that as an Expo, and after that. Had he not had injury problems, maybe he could have "sold us," but, he did and so he couldn't. (Todd Helton will face similar issues, and with the number of 1B in the league, probably won't qualify either.)
I think that's it in a nutshell.
Caple admits to Walker's injury history, but tries to downplay the nature of Walker's home-road splits. So, let's look at some key Walker stats:
Year Age Tm R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
1989 22 MON 4 8 0 0 0 4 1 .170 .264 .170 .434 26
1990 23 MON 59 101 18 3 19 51 21 .241 .326 .434 .761 112
1991 24 MON 59 141 30 2 16 64 14 .290 .349 .458 .807 127
1992 25 MON 85 159 31 4 23 93 18 .301 .353 .506 .859 142
1993 26 MON 85 130 24 5 22 86 29 .265 .371 .469 .841 120
1994 27 MON 76 127 44 2 19 86 15 .322 .394 .587 .981 151
1995 28 COL 96 151 31 5 36 101 16 .306 .381 .607 .988 130
1996 29 COL 58 75 18 4 18 58 18 .276 .342 .570 .912 116
1997 30 COL 143 208 46 4 49 130 33 .366 .452 .720 1.172 178
1998 31 COL 113 165 46 3 23 67 14 .363 .445 .630 1.075 158
1999 32 COL 108 166 26 4 37 115 11 .379 .458 .710 1.168 163
2000 33 COL 64 97 21 7 9 51 5 .309 .409 .506 .915 110
2001 34 COL 107 174 35 3 38 123 14 .350 .449 .662 1.111 160
2002 35 COL 95 161 40 4 26 104 6 .338 .421 .602 1.023 150
2003 36 COL 86 129 25 7 16 79 7 .284 .422 .476 .898 121
2004 37 TOT 51 77 16 4 17 47 6 .298 .424 .589 1.013 153
2004 37 COL 22 35 9 3 6 20 2 .324 .464 .630 1.093 166
2004 37 STL 29 42 7 1 11 27 4 .280 .393 .560 .953 143
2005 38 STL 66 91 20 1 15 52 2 .289 .384 .502 .886 130
17 Seasons 1355 2160 471 62 383 1311 230 .313 .400 .565 .965 140
162 Game Avg. 110 176 38 5 31 107 19 .313 .400 .565 .965 140
R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
COL (10 yrs) 892 1361 297 44 258 848 126 .334 .426 .618 1.044 147
MON (6 yrs) 368 666 147 16 99 384 98 .281 .357 .483 .839 128
STL (2 yrs) 95 133 27 2 26 79 6 .286 .387 .520 .908 134
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/31/2010.
And, let's do my own thumbnail neutralization.
First, every player is going to have a bit of home-road split, just from the relaxation of not traveling, the support of home fans, etc. And, yes, some older parks may have had fairly serious boosts (or, in the case of DiMaggio in the original configuration of old Yankee Stadium, some detriment). But, Walker's is much greater than normal.
My guess?
His BA falls to about .308, his hit total to 2,050, his doubles to 450, his HRs to 350, his runs to 1,250 and his RBIs to 1,200. I think that's a reasonable normalization of his career numbers.
And, you don't just need my rule-of-thumb guesses. At Baseball-Reference, if you click the "more stats" link near the top of Walker's profile, you'll get much more of a profile, including neutralized states. They peg him at a .299 BA, 365 HRs, 1,201 runs and 1,175 RBIs.
Can you really say that's a Hall of Fame career? I won't. And, as for a string of dominance, with park normalization he might have lost the first of his batting titles, to John Olerud. And, lost his one home run title in 1997 to Jeff Bagwell, who was still playing in the Astrodome.
So, Mr. Jim Caple, and far from the first time for you or most ESPNers on the Hall of Fame, you're wrong.
As a Cards fan, I loved Walker's brief stay there. Hated that a variety of nagging, chronic injuries ended that, and his career, too soon.
But, they were nagging, chronic injuries. Not a sudden thing, like Sandy Koufax's arthritis or Kirby Puckett's vision. That said, Puckett wasn't an obvious HOF choice to me then, and still isn't now.
90 is NOT "the new 50"
Susan Jacoby, whose mother is 90 and grandmother lived to 100, tells us it 90 won't become the new 50 anytime soon, and offers other wisdom from the retirement cusp of the Baby Boom — wisdom you probably won't hear from the rest of her cohort.
Sixty-five-year-old Susan Jacoby says she hopes she doesn't live as long as her 90-year-old mom, noting that our incremental increases in average life expectancy have more and more elderly dealing with chronic pain and such.
And, it's not just that. She notes all the other problems facing the aging Boomers.
As I listed them elsewhere, they include:
Laid off. Forced to take lower-paying jobs. Still holding mortgages, which may be underwater. Stocks and 401(k)s that tanked in the recession. Some serious stuff.
That and more that the newly-retiring start of the Baby Boomer aging wave is all listed here.
Who wants to live to be 90 on Social Security and modest other benefits that are slowly trickling away, or that have to be spent down before Medicaid starts covering nursing home care?
Sixty-five-year-old Susan Jacoby says she hopes she doesn't live as long as her 90-year-old mom, noting that our incremental increases in average life expectancy have more and more elderly dealing with chronic pain and such.
And, it's not just that. She notes all the other problems facing the aging Boomers.
As I listed them elsewhere, they include:
Laid off. Forced to take lower-paying jobs. Still holding mortgages, which may be underwater. Stocks and 401(k)s that tanked in the recession. Some serious stuff.
That and more that the newly-retiring start of the Baby Boomer aging wave is all listed here.
Who wants to live to be 90 on Social Security and modest other benefits that are slowly trickling away, or that have to be spent down before Medicaid starts covering nursing home care?
December 30, 2010
Obama - Indian lover or Indian giver?
Don't believe all the rhetoric about President Obama's recent "Indian summit." His pledge to never forget Native Americans only applies to federally recognized tribes. If you ain't one of those, and can't get through the federal government's byzantine hoops (hoops that the Obama Administration has given no indication it plans on making easier), you're still just as SOL as before.
Official federal nonrecognition is probably most common in California, I am guessing, followed by New England, but it happens all over the country. And, no, it's not just about the right to build an Indian casino. It covers Indian Health Service issues and much more, such as issues over traditionally sacred sites.
Here's a specific example of a tribe that's hurt by nonrecogition. The Houma of Louisiana are state-recognized but NOT federally, and so can't (so far) get any special help for Deepwater Horizon-related damaged.
And, the idea that the federal government has ultimate power over this? It's a bit like old Southern state governments defining people as black on the one drop of blood rule, except now, it's defining that people aren't Indians.
And, it's "ironic," at least, that America's first black president apparently doesn't have a big problem with this.
Official federal nonrecognition is probably most common in California, I am guessing, followed by New England, but it happens all over the country. And, no, it's not just about the right to build an Indian casino. It covers Indian Health Service issues and much more, such as issues over traditionally sacred sites.
Here's a specific example of a tribe that's hurt by nonrecogition. The Houma of Louisiana are state-recognized but NOT federally, and so can't (so far) get any special help for Deepwater Horizon-related damaged.
And, the idea that the federal government has ultimate power over this? It's a bit like old Southern state governments defining people as black on the one drop of blood rule, except now, it's defining that people aren't Indians.
And, it's "ironic," at least, that America's first black president apparently doesn't have a big problem with this.
Rosenthal gets principled on MLB HOF and roids
Ken Rosenthal, as a HOF voter, rightfully hates what the Steroid Era has done to the voting process. So much so that he vows to not vote for anybody in their first year of eligibility. That might be a bit harsh, but, I can understand it. And, he's right that the players' union, which includes the affected players, bears part of the burden of blame.
As for his ballot this year, he's still too much a maximalist for me and, I don't think Jeff Bagwell used, so I disagree with leaving him off, but Ken's making a principled stand there.
That said, here's who all that principled stand might include, depending on these people's likelihood of actual, not just alleged, steroid connection, and the likelihood of them remaining on the ballot more than one year.
Off the different sublists within that list, by my HOF metrics standards, I'd say there's 14-15 people on that list who would deserve semi-serious to serious consideration — if not for being on that list.
Tracy Ringolsby trots out the old "amphetamines in the 60s and 70s argument" to defend admitting roiders. Well, "some people" may say they were of more benefit, Tracy, but others don't. Frankly, too many greenies makes for a jittery batter and REDUCES his skills. And, illicit drug use is a red herring, except noting that the length of his using may have affected Tim Raines, did affect Dwight Gooden and possibly affected Keith Hernandez. That said, Ringolsby is more of a maximalist than Rosenthal. He's a Jack Morris booster, and I think he's being a "homer" on Larry Walker.
As for his ballot this year, he's still too much a maximalist for me and, I don't think Jeff Bagwell used, so I disagree with leaving him off, but Ken's making a principled stand there.
That said, here's who all that principled stand might include, depending on these people's likelihood of actual, not just alleged, steroid connection, and the likelihood of them remaining on the ballot more than one year.
Off the different sublists within that list, by my HOF metrics standards, I'd say there's 14-15 people on that list who would deserve semi-serious to serious consideration — if not for being on that list.
Tracy Ringolsby trots out the old "amphetamines in the 60s and 70s argument" to defend admitting roiders. Well, "some people" may say they were of more benefit, Tracy, but others don't. Frankly, too many greenies makes for a jittery batter and REDUCES his skills. And, illicit drug use is a red herring, except noting that the length of his using may have affected Tim Raines, did affect Dwight Gooden and possibly affected Keith Hernandez. That said, Ringolsby is more of a maximalist than Rosenthal. He's a Jack Morris booster, and I think he's being a "homer" on Larry Walker.
Favre to go out with whimper not bang?
Looks like Brett Favre's NFL career may have actually ended on frozen Minnesota turf a couple of weeks ago. He's still not been medically cleared to play from the concussion he suffered against the Chicago Bears.
Of course, the Favre skeptic in me expects a dramatic last-minute change.
And, the real Favre skeptic wonders if he's egotistic enough to come back next year, even if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, along with the fine for Favre in the Jenn Sterger case, told Brett it would be nice not to see him and his Wranglers next year.
Hubris doesn't always get smacked down; life isn't always a Greek tragedy written by Euripedes. But, in this case, it just may be.
By the way he's handled his multiple retirement teases, Favre has lost chances for a farewell tour that he deserved and more.
Of course, the Favre skeptic in me expects a dramatic last-minute change.
And, the real Favre skeptic wonders if he's egotistic enough to come back next year, even if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, along with the fine for Favre in the Jenn Sterger case, told Brett it would be nice not to see him and his Wranglers next year.
Hubris doesn't always get smacked down; life isn't always a Greek tragedy written by Euripedes. But, in this case, it just may be.
By the way he's handled his multiple retirement teases, Favre has lost chances for a farewell tour that he deserved and more.
Rafael Palmeiro lies like a cheap rug
Alleged or believed baseball steroid users have taken different angles in the court of public opinion (and, in the case of Barry Bonds, in the court of legal record, too).
Bonds has simply clammed up. Mark MacGwire gave a semi-apology, semi-tearful, pseudo-tearful or whatever. Roger Clemens got indignant and had a lawsuit backfire on him. Sammy Sosa forgot the English language, then bleached his face white in an apparent attempt to go undercover.
Meanwhile, nobody has lied about the issue as brazenly as Rafael Palmeiro, apparently, who gets more brazen, if anything, now that he's up for the Hall of Fame.
Here's a good example:
Really? Canseco alleges he shot you up a full decade before the end of your career.
Raffy then says he doesn't understand why people don't believe him, and cites his own statistics as part of why he's believable.
I'm not arguing that, myself. I don't doubt Raffy would likely have had 3K hits without juicing. What IS in question is the source of a power surge that, throwing out 1991 as an outlier, began in 1993 at the relatively late age of 28, per your career record and actually got MORE unbelievable as you moved into your early, then middle, 30s. From the age of 30-38, Raffy, you hit 38 or more home runs nine straight seasons. Now, you may not have juiced as heavily as Bonds, but ...
These numbers are ... unusual, at the least, especially the homer numbers:
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/30/2010.
And, as I've blogged before, there's the issue of a healthy star athlete in his late 30s doing Viagra commercials. Is there a reason you might know that much about Viagra? Have to use it?
Interestingly, given Raffy's 3K hits/500HRs and 1,800 RBIs, his OPS+ is "only" 132 and his career offensive WAR ranks only No. 78. Makes you realize, on the OPS+, just how much steroids, and other offensive tweaks, screwed with the era of about 1994-2005.
Bonds has simply clammed up. Mark MacGwire gave a semi-apology, semi-tearful, pseudo-tearful or whatever. Roger Clemens got indignant and had a lawsuit backfire on him. Sammy Sosa forgot the English language, then bleached his face white in an apparent attempt to go undercover.
Meanwhile, nobody has lied about the issue as brazenly as Rafael Palmeiro, apparently, who gets more brazen, if anything, now that he's up for the Hall of Fame.
Here's a good example:
"I had no motivation to take steroids because I was at the end of my career."
Really? Canseco alleges he shot you up a full decade before the end of your career.
Raffy then says he doesn't understand why people don't believe him, and cites his own statistics as part of why he's believable.
"I don't want to take anything for granted, but there was a legitimate chance that I was going to get 3,000,"
I'm not arguing that, myself. I don't doubt Raffy would likely have had 3K hits without juicing. What IS in question is the source of a power surge that, throwing out 1991 as an outlier, began in 1993 at the relatively late age of 28, per your career record and actually got MORE unbelievable as you moved into your early, then middle, 30s. From the age of 30-38, Raffy, you hit 38 or more home runs nine straight seasons. Now, you may not have juiced as heavily as Bonds, but ...
These numbers are ... unusual, at the least, especially the homer numbers:
Year Age Tm 2B 3B HR RBI BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
1995 30 BAL 30 2 39 104 .310 .380 .583 .963 145
1996 31 BAL 40 2 39 142 .289 .381 .546 .927 132
1997 32 BAL 24 2 38 110 .254 .329 .485 .815 113
1998 33 BAL 36 1 43 121 .296 .379 .565 .945 144
1999 34 TEX 30 1 47 148 .324 .420 .630 1.050 159
2000 35 TEX 29 3 39 120 .288 .397 .558 .954 137
2001 36 TEX 33 0 47 123 .273 .381 .563 .944 141
2002 37 TEX 34 0 43 105 .273 .391 .571 .962 146
2003 38 TEX 21 2 38 112 .260 .359 .508 .867 117
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/30/2010.
And, as I've blogged before, there's the issue of a healthy star athlete in his late 30s doing Viagra commercials. Is there a reason you might know that much about Viagra? Have to use it?
Interestingly, given Raffy's 3K hits/500HRs and 1,800 RBIs, his OPS+ is "only" 132 and his career offensive WAR ranks only No. 78. Makes you realize, on the OPS+, just how much steroids, and other offensive tweaks, screwed with the era of about 1994-2005.
December 29, 2010
Bad, or at least breathless, science, by NASA?
Update, Dec. 28: Here's a lot more on how NASA had motive to fluff this bad science. Read the whole thing, to be sure, but this image ought to say it all:
Inside NASA, some employees have taken to wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters "WWED," which stands for "What Would Elon Do?" — a reference to SpaceX founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk, the Internet tycoon who invested his own fortune in pursuit of his dream of sending humans into space.
That's an agency hugely afraid for its future, and probably thinking it needs all the fluffery it can get, or do.
===
Fact is, as P.Z. Myers, Wikipedia and many other sites noted, arsenic replacing phosphorus in organic compounds, albeit much simpler ones than DNA, isn't even new. As for it actually doing so in DNA, well, the trumpeted NASA experiment doesn't necessarily prove that.
And, NASA's PR machine is still going, in this wire story that connects the iffy experiment to discovery of more habitable planets and more stares:
Meanwhile, more motive for NASA to trumpet itself? Perhaps worries about the successful orbital flight of SpaceX's Dragon. though NASA was kind enough to offer congratulations.
Remember, getting back to the budgetary motive angle, Obama has talked about leaning more on private services to head to the space station.
Update, Dec. 6: If shoddy research controls and mechanics make an experiment bad science, then this looks to pretty officially be bad science. Note to Greg Laden and other "fluffers" - why continue flogging this? Let's see some more posting at Science Blogs and Discover about how this baby ever saw the light of day, instead.
Update, Dec. 7: The Guardian has an excellent roundup of NASA's dissing of all the skeptics and naysayers. Again, fluffers ... more skepticism!
Update, Dec. 8: Slate has an excellent article about how NASA has sponsored not-so-good science AND blown the media coverage issues. And, at least one professor says NASA had motive for this fluffery. But, because of the reason for that motive, it could well backfire:
I didn't think so much about that as budgetary motives, but it makes sense. No big news from Mars probes for a while. Obama announces budget cuts and mission changes. The next planned shuttle flight keeps getting shoved back.
Yep, that's motive.
First, contra the breathlessness, at Gizmodo AND elsewhere (see below) — don't tell me that just because Gizmodo isn't a science site, that NASA had nothing to do with "framing." The evidence for that is becoming more and more clear, despite someone like Greg Laden at Scienceblogs, an unrepentant fluffer here and here. That said, Greg's definitely lost credibility in my eyes over this issue.
But, per the first of his linked blog posts:
I never said, myself, that NASA "lied or cheated." I didn't use the phrase "flim flamed" [sic] for its fluffery, either. But, if that's what you think fluff PR for apparently shoddy science should be called, OK!
The New York Times and Phil Plait both also, among others, seem to have gotten a bit breathless.
Second, it's simply untrue that it "doesn't share the biological building blocks of anything currently living in planet Earth." As this Wikipedia page points out, arsenic substitution in some "sugars" in some bacteria is well-known. And, for readers who criticize Wiki, before this story, the three footnotes on the arsenic section prior to this story come from the University of Minnesota, NIH, and New Scientist. Got problems with all of them, too? Beyond that, Pharyngula, in his post about the NASA story, also has information on how arsenic in organic compounds is nothing new.
Third, I don't get why people have a blanket condemnation of Wikipedia. On current events/politics/living history, YES. But, in general, in the natural sciences, in more ancient history, and many other areas, Wikipedia is pretty reliable.
Fourth, ff NASA is using the same language as the Gizmodo post is, or left itself open to this, then, we're going past breathless science and getting close to bad science. That's what you get for hyping something you embargo, too, BTW.
Meanwhile, the PR should be labeled bullshit, not just breathless. More reality.
The New York Times notes this bacterium was CULTIVATED to substitute arsenic for phosphorus; it wasn't "discovered."
That said, the NYT opens its story with its own "breathlessness":
It makes it sound like we're still largely clueless about chemical bonds and organic chemistry.
Again, though, this Wikipedia page says we aren't, listing other elements, like boron, in possible exotic life.
Finally, also from the NYT ... the DNA claims haven't fully tested out yet, so this might also be rushed science:
And, still more.
Not quite "breathless," but close, here, as Astrobio's coverage also appears not to have read the material referenced by Wiki and Pharyngula.
Again, not quite so true.
In short, this is about 1/10 of what NASA led people to expect.
And, Astrobio does redeem itself by citing a skeptic:
Given budget cut talks, I honestly wonder if there's an ulterior motive to all this breathlessness. Create an adapted form of life under lab conditions, drop hints that get some tech sites to call it "alien," hint that it might be useful for expanding the search for exobiology ...
And, then, ramp up the push for new Mars mission money or something.
====
A sidebar to this story, as written up in detail by Greg Laden, is whether this doesn't open the window to multiple lines of evolution.
I think that's unlikely, even though theoretically possible. Here's why.
Per Nature News, the arsenic-based bacteria were just 60 percent as efficient in growth rate as their original kin. That's a pretty huge efficiency difference. Given that few places on earth, if any, have significantly higher arsenic concentrations than Mono Lake, it would be hard for such bacteria to find an extremophilic location that exempted them from phosphorus-based competition.
Nature News has more on that line of thought:
All good questions.
And, there's yet more skepticism from Nature News.
First, exactly how is the arsenic working?
And, how do the arsenic compounds avoid breaking down?
So, this needs a LOT more research. It ain't Pons-Fleischmann trotting out cold fusion, no, but, it does seem ... sketchy, so far. (That said, I'll admit that Wikipedia's article on cold fusion is iffy itself.)
===
Update, Dec. 20:Arsenic exobiology researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon is dismissive, and in a wrongly, fudging, sense, concerns about hydrolysis of the arsenic compounds in DNA. Seriously, this has gone beyond breathless; this is indeed bad science.
Per Wikipedia's article on alternative life chemistry, linked above, the hydrolysis issue caught my attention the day of the announcement. Obviously, it caught the attention of science professionals, too, and Ms. Wolfe-Simon is left without explanation, so she bloviates.
Meanwhile, here's proof of NASA's fluffery on the arsenic compound/exobiology story that had nothing to do with alien life - the hed on NASA's announcement:
"Get Your Biology Textbook...and an Eraser!"
Inside NASA, some employees have taken to wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters "WWED," which stands for "What Would Elon Do?" — a reference to SpaceX founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk, the Internet tycoon who invested his own fortune in pursuit of his dream of sending humans into space.
That's an agency hugely afraid for its future, and probably thinking it needs all the fluffery it can get, or do.
===
Fact is, as P.Z. Myers, Wikipedia and many other sites noted, arsenic replacing phosphorus in organic compounds, albeit much simpler ones than DNA, isn't even new. As for it actually doing so in DNA, well, the trumpeted NASA experiment doesn't necessarily prove that.
And, NASA's PR machine is still going, in this wire story that connects the iffy experiment to discovery of more habitable planets and more stares:
Meanwhile, more motive for NASA to trumpet itself? Perhaps worries about the successful orbital flight of SpaceX's Dragon. though NASA was kind enough to offer congratulations.
Remember, getting back to the budgetary motive angle, Obama has talked about leaning more on private services to head to the space station.
Update, Dec. 6: If shoddy research controls and mechanics make an experiment bad science, then this looks to pretty officially be bad science. Note to Greg Laden and other "fluffers" - why continue flogging this? Let's see some more posting at Science Blogs and Discover about how this baby ever saw the light of day, instead.
Update, Dec. 7: The Guardian has an excellent roundup of NASA's dissing of all the skeptics and naysayers. Again, fluffers ... more skepticism!
Update, Dec. 8: Slate has an excellent article about how NASA has sponsored not-so-good science AND blown the media coverage issues. And, at least one professor says NASA had motive for this fluffery. But, because of the reason for that motive, it could well backfire:
Some scientists are left wondering why NASA made such a big deal over a paper with so many flaws. "I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," says John Roth of UC-Davis. The experience reminded some of another press conference NASA held in 1996. Scientists unveiled a meteorite from Mars in which they said there were microscopic fossils. A number of critics condemned the report (also published in Science) for making claims it couldn't back up. And today many scientists think that all of the alleged signs of life in the rocks could have just as easily been made on a lifeless planet.
I didn't think so much about that as budgetary motives, but it makes sense. No big news from Mars probes for a while. Obama announces budget cuts and mission changes. The next planned shuttle flight keeps getting shoved back.
Yep, that's motive.
First, contra the breathlessness, at Gizmodo AND elsewhere (see below) — don't tell me that just because Gizmodo isn't a science site, that NASA had nothing to do with "framing." The evidence for that is becoming more and more clear, despite someone like Greg Laden at Scienceblogs, an unrepentant fluffer here and here. That said, Greg's definitely lost credibility in my eyes over this issue.
But, per the first of his linked blog posts:
I've asked for specific critiques of the NASA press release and have received one, which makes a good suggestion but hardly demonstrates that NASA lied or cheated or flim flamed.
You, on the other hand, are quickly making it onto my list.
I never said, myself, that NASA "lied or cheated." I didn't use the phrase "flim flamed" [sic] for its fluffery, either. But, if that's what you think fluff PR for apparently shoddy science should be called, OK!
The New York Times and Phil Plait both also, among others, seem to have gotten a bit breathless.
Second, it's simply untrue that it "doesn't share the biological building blocks of anything currently living in planet Earth." As this Wikipedia page points out, arsenic substitution in some "sugars" in some bacteria is well-known. And, for readers who criticize Wiki, before this story, the three footnotes on the arsenic section prior to this story come from the University of Minnesota, NIH, and New Scientist. Got problems with all of them, too? Beyond that, Pharyngula, in his post about the NASA story, also has information on how arsenic in organic compounds is nothing new.
Third, I don't get why people have a blanket condemnation of Wikipedia. On current events/politics/living history, YES. But, in general, in the natural sciences, in more ancient history, and many other areas, Wikipedia is pretty reliable.
Fourth, ff NASA is using the same language as the Gizmodo post is, or left itself open to this, then, we're going past breathless science and getting close to bad science. That's what you get for hyping something you embargo, too, BTW.
Meanwhile, the PR should be labeled bullshit, not just breathless. More reality.
The New York Times notes this bacterium was CULTIVATED to substitute arsenic for phosphorus; it wasn't "discovered."
The bacterium, scraped from the bottom of Mono Lake in California and grown for months in a lab mixture containing arsenic, gradually swapped out atoms of phosphorus in its little body for atoms of arsenic.
That said, the NYT opens its story with its own "breathlessness":
Scientists said Thursday that they had trained a bacterium to eat and grow on a diet of arsenic, in place of phosphorus — one of six elements considered essential for life — opening up the possibility that organisms could exist elsewhere in the universe or even here on Earth using biochemical powers we have not yet dared to dream about.
It makes it sound like we're still largely clueless about chemical bonds and organic chemistry.
Again, though, this Wikipedia page says we aren't, listing other elements, like boron, in possible exotic life.
Finally, also from the NYT ... the DNA claims haven't fully tested out yet, so this might also be rushed science:
By labeling the arsenic with radioactivity, the researchers were able to conclude that arsenic atoms had taken up position in the microbe’s DNA as well as in other molecules within it. Dr. Joyce, however, said that the experimenters had yet to provide a “smoking gun” that there was arsenic in the backbone of working DNA.
And, still more.
Not quite "breathless," but close, here, as Astrobio's coverage also appears not to have read the material referenced by Wiki and Pharyngula.
The recent discovery by Felisa Wolfe-Simon of an organism that can utilize arsenic in place of phosphorus, however, has demonstrated that life is still capable of surprising us in fundamental ways.
Again, not quite so true.
In short, this is about 1/10 of what NASA led people to expect.
And, Astrobio does redeem itself by citing a skeptic:
Steven Benner, a distinguished fellow at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Fla., remains skeptical. If you “replace all the phosphates by arsenates,” in the backbone of DNA, he says, “every bond in that chain is going to hydrolyze [react with water and fall apart] with a half-life on the order of minutes, say 10 minutes.” So “if there is an arsenate equivalent of DNA in that bug, it has to be seriously stabilized” by some as-yet-unknown mechanism.
Benner suggests that perhaps the trace contaminants in the growth medium Wolf-Simon uses in her lab cultures are sufficient to supply the phosphorus needed for the cells’ DNA. He thinks it’s more likely that arsenic is being used elsewhere in the cells, in lipids for example. “Arsenate in lipids would be stable,” he says, and would “not fall apart in water.” What appears in Wolfe-Simon's gel-purified extraction to be arsenate DNA, he says, may actually be DNA containing a standard phosphate-based backbone, but with arsenate associated with it in some unidentified way.
Given budget cut talks, I honestly wonder if there's an ulterior motive to all this breathlessness. Create an adapted form of life under lab conditions, drop hints that get some tech sites to call it "alien," hint that it might be useful for expanding the search for exobiology ...
And, then, ramp up the push for new Mars mission money or something.
====
A sidebar to this story, as written up in detail by Greg Laden, is whether this doesn't open the window to multiple lines of evolution.
I think that's unlikely, even though theoretically possible. Here's why.
Per Nature News, the arsenic-based bacteria were just 60 percent as efficient in growth rate as their original kin. That's a pretty huge efficiency difference. Given that few places on earth, if any, have significantly higher arsenic concentrations than Mono Lake, it would be hard for such bacteria to find an extremophilic location that exempted them from phosphorus-based competition.
Nature News has more on that line of thought:
For example, if phosphate in ATP was exchanged for arsenate, would the energy-transfer reaction that powers a cell be as efficient? In metabolic processes in which arsenate would bind with glucose, would the bonds it forms — weaker than those of phosphate — be as effective? And phosphate groups bind to proteins modify their function, but would arsenate work as well?
All good questions.
And, there's yet more skepticism from Nature News.
First, exactly how is the arsenic working?
To be truly convincing, however, the researchers must show the presence of arsenic not just in the microbial cells, but in specific biomolecules within them, says Barry Rosen, a biochemist at Florida International University, Miami. "It would be good if they could demonstrate that the arsenic in the DNA is actually in the backbone," he said.
Also, he says, the picture is still missing an understanding of what exactly the arsenic–phosphorus switch means for a cell, says Rosen. "What we really need to know is which molecules in the cell have arsenic in them, and whether these molecules are active and functional," he says.
And, how do the arsenic compounds avoid breaking down?
"It remains to be established that this bacterium uses arsenate as a replacement for phosphate in its DNA or in any other biomolecule found in 'standard' terran biology," says Steven Benner, who studies origin-of-life chemistry at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida.
Arsenate forms much weaker bonds in water than phosphate, that break apart on the order of minutes, he says, and though there might be other molecules stabilizing these bonds, the researchers would need to explain this discrepancy for the hypothesis to stand. Still, the discovery is "just phenomenal" if it holds up after further chemical analysis, Benner adds. "It means that many, many things are wrong in terms of how we view molecules in the biological system."
So, this needs a LOT more research. It ain't Pons-Fleischmann trotting out cold fusion, no, but, it does seem ... sketchy, so far. (That said, I'll admit that Wikipedia's article on cold fusion is iffy itself.)
===
Update, Dec. 20:Arsenic exobiology researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon is dismissive, and in a wrongly, fudging, sense, concerns about hydrolysis of the arsenic compounds in DNA. Seriously, this has gone beyond breathless; this is indeed bad science.
Per Wikipedia's article on alternative life chemistry, linked above, the hydrolysis issue caught my attention the day of the announcement. Obviously, it caught the attention of science professionals, too, and Ms. Wolfe-Simon is left without explanation, so she bloviates.
Meanwhile, here's proof of NASA's fluffery on the arsenic compound/exobiology story that had nothing to do with alien life - the hed on NASA's announcement:
"Get Your Biology Textbook...and an Eraser!"
What if Pujols walks?
Jayson Stark reminds us that, per Prince Albert's own deadline, if spring training is the start of the season, the Cards have 10 weeks left to resign Albert Pujols.
Period.
If not, he's gone. Because he has 10 years overall and 5 in St. Louis, he would have veto rights over any midseason deal, even if he would recognize it as a rent-a-player situation.
I see something in the neighborhood of 7 years, $200 million. And, except for some fielding decline in 2010, most his value numbers have held steady for 4-5 years and, I expect, these numbers will not significantly decline for the next 5, or the next 4 years into a new contract:
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/29/2010.
That said, who's got the money AND a location acceptable to Prince Albert if Mozeliak and DeWitt aren't going to cough up $200 million?
1. Chicago. And, a definite 1B opening. And, a fan base that after initial ooginess, would certainly welcome him. That one-year Carlos Pena contract is nothing.
2. Houston, if it wants to immediately vault to NL Central relevance. (Would probably piss off Brett Wallace to be stuck behind Pujols again.)
3. Atlanta? Definitely. With an aging Phillies team, a still-struggling Mets, and a who-knows Nats, a strong move.
4. The Dodgers - IF the McCourt fiasco gets wrapped up quickly enough. But, not sure that's a team Pujols would visit.
4. Mets - See Braves and Astros.
6. Baltimore badly needs a 1B, but not sure it wants to spend like that.
7. The Angels? If they thought they could move Kendry Morales, sure. Especially now that they lost the Crawford sweepstakes this year. But, that's kind of a big if.
8. The Giants. Hmm ... they've got new money, and Huff ain't getting younger.
My guess on Pujols' preferences? Chicago, then Houston. Just a hunch he might have some revenge factor. Folks at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are thinking coastal only; a poll offers neither of those top options I suggest.
Meanwhile, via an excellent blog on team salaries, here's further assessment of the top contenders' chances.
The Cubs have a good financial setup for chasing Pujols.
Ramirez, Silva, Fukodome all come off after 2011; Dempster, Zambrano after 2012. Fukodome is out; Ramriez is out if not club friendly and ditto for Silva. Like the same on the 2012s.
Astros? Smaller payroll, but no big contracts end in 2011, and just Carlos Lee in 2012.
Braves? No big contracts end after 2011, but both Derek Lowe and Chipper Jones after 2012. They could take a big jump for one year for Pujols and then be better off.
Mets? Beltran's contract ends in 2011; so does Francisco Rodriguez and Oliver Perez.
Angels? Pineiro and Abreu end after this year, but neither has a huge contract and both could be resigned.
So, the Cubs will have a fair amount of free money and in a big market. Astros? It depends on their mentality. Mets will have plenty of money, but doesn't strike me as a Pujols top option. Braves would have to eat a one-year spike, but from 2013 on, would be better set.
So, with that in mind, I'll move Braves up to No. 2 in the running, drop the Astros to No. 3, put the Mets at 4 and Angels at 5.
As for the ridiculousness, seemingly, of paying Lance Berkman $8 million to play either LF or RF? Let's not forget that Fat Elvis can also play 1B, just in case the Cards are able to pull the trigger finger on a trade of Pujols.
And, John Mozeliak is an idiot for not working on a new contract for him at the same time the Phillies did for Howard.
The team as a whole still has the "huh?" factor. Owner Bill DeWitt says talks may not start until January.
That said, the odds that he is gone at or before the start of 2012? 50-50, in my book.
Meanwhile, if the management decides to pull the trigger on a trade, it's not trying to right now. That would be all over the rumor mills.
I know Albert well enough that once he gets into spring training, he doesn't like distractions," (Cardinals manager Tony) La Russa said Wednesday. "I just know where the heart and heads of both the team and the player [are]. They want it to work out. They'll work at it, and we'll see what happens. Once we get ready officially for 2011, Albert's the strongest between the ears that you can find, and nothing's going to get in his way."
Period.
If not, he's gone. Because he has 10 years overall and 5 in St. Louis, he would have veto rights over any midseason deal, even if he would recognize it as a rent-a-player situation.
I see something in the neighborhood of 7 years, $200 million. And, except for some fielding decline in 2010, most his value numbers have held steady for 4-5 years and, I expect, these numbers will not significantly decline for the next 5, or the next 4 years into a new contract:
Year Tm Rfield Rrep RAR WAR oRAR oWAR dWAR
2001 STL 6 19 69 6.9 63 6.4 0.5
2002 STL -4 18 56 5.8 60 6.2 -0.4
2003 STL 14 18 107 10.9 93 9.5 1.4
2004 STL 15 18 93 9.4 78 7.9 1.5
2005 STL 9 19 79 8.2 70 7.2 1.0
2006 STL 14 16 83 8.3 69 7.0 1.3
2007 STL 25 18 82 8.3 57 5.8 2.5
2008 STL 18 17 94 9.6 76 7.8 1.8
2009 STL 12 18 88 9.2 76 7.8 1.4
2010 STL -2 19 72 7.2 74 7.4 -0.2
10 Seasons 107 180 823 83.8 716 73.0 10.8
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/29/2010.
That said, who's got the money AND a location acceptable to Prince Albert if Mozeliak and DeWitt aren't going to cough up $200 million?
1. Chicago. And, a definite 1B opening. And, a fan base that after initial ooginess, would certainly welcome him. That one-year Carlos Pena contract is nothing.
2. Houston, if it wants to immediately vault to NL Central relevance. (Would probably piss off Brett Wallace to be stuck behind Pujols again.)
3. Atlanta? Definitely. With an aging Phillies team, a still-struggling Mets, and a who-knows Nats, a strong move.
4. The Dodgers - IF the McCourt fiasco gets wrapped up quickly enough. But, not sure that's a team Pujols would visit.
4. Mets - See Braves and Astros.
6. Baltimore badly needs a 1B, but not sure it wants to spend like that.
7. The Angels? If they thought they could move Kendry Morales, sure. Especially now that they lost the Crawford sweepstakes this year. But, that's kind of a big if.
8. The Giants. Hmm ... they've got new money, and Huff ain't getting younger.
My guess on Pujols' preferences? Chicago, then Houston. Just a hunch he might have some revenge factor. Folks at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are thinking coastal only; a poll offers neither of those top options I suggest.
Meanwhile, via an excellent blog on team salaries, here's further assessment of the top contenders' chances.
The Cubs have a good financial setup for chasing Pujols.
Ramirez, Silva, Fukodome all come off after 2011; Dempster, Zambrano after 2012. Fukodome is out; Ramriez is out if not club friendly and ditto for Silva. Like the same on the 2012s.
Astros? Smaller payroll, but no big contracts end in 2011, and just Carlos Lee in 2012.
Braves? No big contracts end after 2011, but both Derek Lowe and Chipper Jones after 2012. They could take a big jump for one year for Pujols and then be better off.
Mets? Beltran's contract ends in 2011; so does Francisco Rodriguez and Oliver Perez.
Angels? Pineiro and Abreu end after this year, but neither has a huge contract and both could be resigned.
So, the Cubs will have a fair amount of free money and in a big market. Astros? It depends on their mentality. Mets will have plenty of money, but doesn't strike me as a Pujols top option. Braves would have to eat a one-year spike, but from 2013 on, would be better set.
So, with that in mind, I'll move Braves up to No. 2 in the running, drop the Astros to No. 3, put the Mets at 4 and Angels at 5.
As for the ridiculousness, seemingly, of paying Lance Berkman $8 million to play either LF or RF? Let's not forget that Fat Elvis can also play 1B, just in case the Cards are able to pull the trigger finger on a trade of Pujols.
And, John Mozeliak is an idiot for not working on a new contract for him at the same time the Phillies did for Howard.
The team as a whole still has the "huh?" factor. Owner Bill DeWitt says talks may not start until January.
That said, the odds that he is gone at or before the start of 2012? 50-50, in my book.
Meanwhile, if the management decides to pull the trigger on a trade, it's not trying to right now. That would be all over the rumor mills.
No, 42 percent of people do NOT go to church
For decades, poll after poll has said somewhere from 40-43 percent of Americans go to church on the average Sunday. It's actually HALF that, about 20 percent.
Pollsters have long known that on some things, most notably on racial preference issues, people will, well, they'll lie to an anonymous pollster on an anonymity-guaranteeing poll, producing the answer they think they "should" give to society.
So, rather than ask, "did you go to church in the last week," pollsters instead did a more extensive time-use set of questions, starting with pollees' Saturday nights.
And, with that, a lot of people didn't remember a Sunday activity called church.
That said, the Slate author is right that the ultimate question is, WHY is religiosity so tied to American identity, so much that many people lie about it?
I'll start it with Jan. 20, 1981, and Ronald Wilson Reagan and the Religious Right.
If any man lied about his religiosity, it's him. And, the Religious Right abetted this for ultimately nefarious ends, of pushing the idea of America as a Christian nation.
Pollsters have long known that on some things, most notably on racial preference issues, people will, well, they'll lie to an anonymous pollster on an anonymity-guaranteeing poll, producing the answer they think they "should" give to society.
So, rather than ask, "did you go to church in the last week," pollsters instead did a more extensive time-use set of questions, starting with pollees' Saturday nights.
And, with that, a lot of people didn't remember a Sunday activity called church.
That said, the Slate author is right that the ultimate question is, WHY is religiosity so tied to American identity, so much that many people lie about it?
I'll start it with Jan. 20, 1981, and Ronald Wilson Reagan and the Religious Right.
If any man lied about his religiosity, it's him. And, the Religious Right abetted this for ultimately nefarious ends, of pushing the idea of America as a Christian nation.
December 28, 2010
CFI and organization — Kurtz maybe DID need to go
I didn’t carefully and thoroughly follow every step of the Council for Inquiry’s organizational issues up to the time Paul Kurtz was pushed out as executive director.
Since that time, I started paying more attention, for a number of reasons.
First is related to the reasons Kurtz was allegedly pushed out — the difference between “confrontationalists” (especially among “New Atheists”) and “accommodationalists” as far as how to deal with the nonatheist world in general and especially its more hostile elements. I lean toward the accommodationalist side but, per Ecclesiastes, know there is a time for everything.
Second is related to the organizational issues themselves, specifically, the loss of a $2 million a year donor, because of losing Kurtz. And, there are two subissues here.
No. 1? Orac (sorry, didn’t bookmark a link) is right: You do NOT use the money of one donor in your general fund when that donor’s contributions make up a full one-quarter of your total income. You put that in a trust and use the interest, after a couple of years. OR, as many environmental groups do, you try to set up a matching fund drive between small donors and this guy. You could then use that portion of his $2M a year donation in your general fund but bank the rest.
That one hangs totally on Kurtz’s shoulders. My impression is that he ran CFI too much like a ma-and-pa shop long after it had expanded beyond that point. He obviously needed a full-time director of development who would know this, know how to do this, and tell Kurtz that.
If Kurtz resisted any of this, then he needed to go.
Update, Dec. 28: I have more CFI governance and funding questions.
No. 2? The donor dropoff has led to a number of other issues, one related to a CFI job for which I applied, the position of director of communications.
Now, this spring, Nathan Bupp was still listed as vice president of communications. I assume his position was cut in the financial turmoil, and now, the director of communications opening is a partial replacement, at lower salary.
That said, it’s been going on eight weeks now since the application deadline for that job. I have no idea of where Barry Karr of CFI is at in the process. My guess is that, based on the number of resumes he got early on, a CFI disorganizational disorder has overwhelmed him. I’m assuming that he, and any assistant(s) he has in the hiring process, did NOT start a “preliminary cull” of resumes after getting more than 120 in the first 36-48 hours after announcing the opening. Assuming they didn’t, that’s another organizational black mark.
If CFI doesn't have the money to hire more staffers to help organization, then it needs to focus solely on development issues (along with narrower PR issues in the sense of perception) before anything else.
If staff levels are semi-adequate, then Ron Lindsay needs to do a better job as new CEO, or hire an assistant, with appropriate title, who knows more about management and organizational issues.
Anyway, I have no idea of I will get the CFI position. I know I’m well-qualified for it.
But, in any case, CFI has issues it needs to address.
Beyond the organizational ones, it still needs to address the confrontationalist vs. accommodationalist issue. It also needs to address just what skepticism is and who a skeptic is. It also needs to address legitimate claims for the explanatory power of science vs. “scientism,” as my recent blog on a John Shook post shows.
And, that kind of reflects on why CFI needs a director of communications. Bloggers and online columnists there are kind of scattershot, and the thought quality isn't always that high. If you want to continue to be, and to be seen as, America's top secular humanist organization, well, you have at least some of your work cut out for you.
Update, Dec. 28: Also, in today's online world, with other atheist and secular humanist organizations, what does CFI stand for? What sets it apart from other such groups? With Kurtz now gone, does it have a mission? Until these questions are answered, its funding struggles are likely to continue
Since that time, I started paying more attention, for a number of reasons.
First is related to the reasons Kurtz was allegedly pushed out — the difference between “confrontationalists” (especially among “New Atheists”) and “accommodationalists” as far as how to deal with the nonatheist world in general and especially its more hostile elements. I lean toward the accommodationalist side but, per Ecclesiastes, know there is a time for everything.
Second is related to the organizational issues themselves, specifically, the loss of a $2 million a year donor, because of losing Kurtz. And, there are two subissues here.
No. 1? Orac (sorry, didn’t bookmark a link) is right: You do NOT use the money of one donor in your general fund when that donor’s contributions make up a full one-quarter of your total income. You put that in a trust and use the interest, after a couple of years. OR, as many environmental groups do, you try to set up a matching fund drive between small donors and this guy. You could then use that portion of his $2M a year donation in your general fund but bank the rest.
That one hangs totally on Kurtz’s shoulders. My impression is that he ran CFI too much like a ma-and-pa shop long after it had expanded beyond that point. He obviously needed a full-time director of development who would know this, know how to do this, and tell Kurtz that.
If Kurtz resisted any of this, then he needed to go.
Update, Dec. 28: I have more CFI governance and funding questions.
- For how long had this one major donor been contributing?
- Who besides Kurtz was involved with development/funraising, whether the actual work involved, or at least having a general idea of revenues? Did anybody even consider the matching fund drive idea?
- Who besides Kurtz and (I assume, but maybe I shouldn't) the board of directors) was involved with annual budgeting? Did any of them EVER think to ask the Orac question about why the organization was using all this person's money? Did anybody on the board wonder if, when it decided to escort Kurtz out the door, this donor might object? Did anybody on the board even know who this donor was?
- Again, if there's a lot of "blank spaces" answers for these questions, the problems they represent are still lurking within CFI as an organization.
No. 2? The donor dropoff has led to a number of other issues, one related to a CFI job for which I applied, the position of director of communications.
Now, this spring, Nathan Bupp was still listed as vice president of communications. I assume his position was cut in the financial turmoil, and now, the director of communications opening is a partial replacement, at lower salary.
That said, it’s been going on eight weeks now since the application deadline for that job. I have no idea of where Barry Karr of CFI is at in the process. My guess is that, based on the number of resumes he got early on, a CFI disorganizational disorder has overwhelmed him. I’m assuming that he, and any assistant(s) he has in the hiring process, did NOT start a “preliminary cull” of resumes after getting more than 120 in the first 36-48 hours after announcing the opening. Assuming they didn’t, that’s another organizational black mark.
If CFI doesn't have the money to hire more staffers to help organization, then it needs to focus solely on development issues (along with narrower PR issues in the sense of perception) before anything else.
If staff levels are semi-adequate, then Ron Lindsay needs to do a better job as new CEO, or hire an assistant, with appropriate title, who knows more about management and organizational issues.
Anyway, I have no idea of I will get the CFI position. I know I’m well-qualified for it.
But, in any case, CFI has issues it needs to address.
Beyond the organizational ones, it still needs to address the confrontationalist vs. accommodationalist issue. It also needs to address just what skepticism is and who a skeptic is. It also needs to address legitimate claims for the explanatory power of science vs. “scientism,” as my recent blog on a John Shook post shows.
And, that kind of reflects on why CFI needs a director of communications. Bloggers and online columnists there are kind of scattershot, and the thought quality isn't always that high. If you want to continue to be, and to be seen as, America's top secular humanist organization, well, you have at least some of your work cut out for you.
Update, Dec. 28: Also, in today's online world, with other atheist and secular humanist organizations, what does CFI stand for? What sets it apart from other such groups? With Kurtz now gone, does it have a mission? Until these questions are answered, its funding struggles are likely to continue
Does NASA 'new' life form signal multiple evolutionary tracks
Update, Dec. 28: Here's a lot more on how NASA had motive to fluff this bad science. Read the whole thing, to be sure, but this image ought to say it all:
Inside NASA, some employees have taken to wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters "WWED," which stands for "What Would Elon Do?" — a reference to SpaceX founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk, the Internet tycoon who invested his own fortune in pursuit of his dream of sending humans into space.
That's an agency hugely afraid for its future, and probably thinking it needs all the fluffery it can get, or do.
===
As reported in the New York Times and plenty of places elsewhere, NASA today unveiled the "discovery" of a new bacterium in which arsenic appears to substitute for phosphorus in both DNA and ATP.
First, before getting to the meat of the header, let's explain the scare quote first, then the italics.
The New York Times notes this bacterium was CULTIVATED to substitute arsenic for phosphorus; it wasn't "discovered."
OK, so that would leave us a bit skeptical about how relevant this is to multiple evolutionary tracks.
Second, also from the NYT ... the DNA claims haven't fully tested out yet, so this might also be rushed science:
That addresses the appears to replace phosphorus.
Now, let's get to the meat of the header.
A notable sidebar to this story, as written up in detail by Greg Laden, is whether this doesn't open the window to multiple lines of evolution.
I think that's unlikely, even though theoretically possible. Here's why.
Per Nature News, the arsenic-based bacteria were just 60 percent as efficient in growth rate as their original kin. That's a pretty huge efficiency difference. Given that few places on earth, if any, have significantly higher arsenic concentrations than Mono Lake, it would be hard for such bacteria to find an extremophilic location that exempted them from phosphorus-based competition.
Nature News has more on that line of thought:
All good questions.
And, there's yet more skepticism from Nature News.
First, exactly how is the arsenic working?
And, how do the arsenic compounds avoid breaking down?
That then said, per the specifics of how arsenic is poisonous to multicellular life, as (gasp, I'm referencing it again) Wikipedia's arsenic article notes, while this theoretically opens the door to multiple evolutionary pathways, in reality, I can't see that there's a great likelihood of it, at least this particular pathway.
So, this needs a LOT more research. It ain't Pons-Fleischmann trotting out cold fusion, no, but, it does seem ... sketchy, so far. (That said, I'll admit that Wikipedia's article on cold fusion is iffy itself.)
That said, I'm boosting part of my response to Greg into the body of the post here.
First, I am by no means the only person who has said he or she thought the paper, etc., was rushed. To analogize: Bite size chunks can be undercooked and, IMO, this chunk needed more time on the grill.
Second, per me, PZ Myers and many others, there's disagreement on how "spectacular" the trick is, especially given that this was a trick induced in a controlled environment. Again, I note: Mono Lake already has a high arsenic level, and (so far at least) no similar arsenophilic bacteria have been found in the natural environment of the lake. Add in the relative weakness of arsenic bond to phosphorus ones in water, and, at least on Earth, that leaves open the question of just how likely it is.
Now, tying that to exobiology. I don't know what difference, if any, Mars has from Earth in As/P ratios. Given the fact that wasn't mentioned in the presser, the answer is either "little difference" or else "oops, big NASA error." But, short of something like that, a talk of environmental differences, NASA erred again, or "fluffed/hyped," in making the exobiology link.
Oh, and a final note for Greg the commenter - possibly Greg Laden?
From a commenter at Pharyngula:
So, sorry, Greg, nice try but you're flogging a dead horse.
Update, Dec. 6: If shoddy research controls and mechanics make an experiment bad science, then this looks to pretty officially be bad science. Note to Greg Laden and other "fluffers" - why continue flogging this? Let's see some more posting at Science Blogs and Discover about how this baby ever saw the light of day, instead.
Update, Dec. 9:More yet on the NASA fluffery angle:
Here's proof of the fluffery - the hed on NASA's annoucement:
"Get Your Biology Textbook...and an Eraser!"
Fact is, as P.Z. Myers, Wikipedia and many other sites noted, arsenic replacing phosphorus in organic compounds, albeit much simpler ones than DNA, isn't even new. As for it actually doing so in DNA, well, the trumpeted NASA experiment doesn't necessarily prove that.
And, NASA's PR machine is still going, in this wire story that connects the iffy experiment to discovery of more habitable planets and more stares:
Meanwhile, more motive for NASA to trumpet itself? Perhaps worries about the successful orbital flight of SpaceX's Dragon. though NASA was kind enough to offer congratulations.
Remember, getting back to the budgetary motive angle, Obama has talked about leaning more on private services to head to the space station.
===
Update, Dec. 20:Arsenic exobiology researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon is dismissive, and in a wrongly, fudging, sense, concerns about hydrolysis of the arsenic compounds in DNA. Seriously, this has gone beyond breathless; this is indeed bad science.
Per Wikipedia's article on alternative life chemistry, linked below, the hydrolysis issue caught y attention the day of the announcement. Obviously, it caught the attention of science professionals, too, and Ms. Wolfe-Simon is left without explanation, so she bloviates.
Inside NASA, some employees have taken to wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters "WWED," which stands for "What Would Elon Do?" — a reference to SpaceX founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk, the Internet tycoon who invested his own fortune in pursuit of his dream of sending humans into space.
That's an agency hugely afraid for its future, and probably thinking it needs all the fluffery it can get, or do.
===
As reported in the New York Times and plenty of places elsewhere, NASA today unveiled the "discovery" of a new bacterium in which arsenic appears to substitute for phosphorus in both DNA and ATP.
First, before getting to the meat of the header, let's explain the scare quote first, then the italics.
The New York Times notes this bacterium was CULTIVATED to substitute arsenic for phosphorus; it wasn't "discovered."
The bacterium, scraped from the bottom of Mono Lake in California and grown for months in a lab mixture containing arsenic, gradually swapped out atoms of phosphorus in its little body for atoms of arsenic.
OK, so that would leave us a bit skeptical about how relevant this is to multiple evolutionary tracks.
Second, also from the NYT ... the DNA claims haven't fully tested out yet, so this might also be rushed science:
By labeling the arsenic with radioactivity, the researchers were able to conclude that arsenic atoms had taken up position in the microbe’s DNA as well as in other molecules within it. Dr. Joyce, however, said that the experimenters had yet to provide a “smoking gun” that there was arsenic in the backbone of working DNA.
That addresses the appears to replace phosphorus.
Now, let's get to the meat of the header.
A notable sidebar to this story, as written up in detail by Greg Laden, is whether this doesn't open the window to multiple lines of evolution.
I think that's unlikely, even though theoretically possible. Here's why.
Per Nature News, the arsenic-based bacteria were just 60 percent as efficient in growth rate as their original kin. That's a pretty huge efficiency difference. Given that few places on earth, if any, have significantly higher arsenic concentrations than Mono Lake, it would be hard for such bacteria to find an extremophilic location that exempted them from phosphorus-based competition.
Nature News has more on that line of thought:
For example, if phosphate in ATP was exchanged for arsenate, would the energy-transfer reaction that powers a cell be as efficient? In metabolic processes in which arsenate would bind with glucose, would the bonds it forms — weaker than those of phosphate — be as effective? And phosphate groups bind to proteins modify their function, but would arsenate work as well?
All good questions.
And, there's yet more skepticism from Nature News.
First, exactly how is the arsenic working?
To be truly convincing, however, the researchers must show the presence of arsenic not just in the microbial cells, but in specific biomolecules within them, says Barry Rosen, a biochemist at Florida International University, Miami. "It would be good if they could demonstrate that the arsenic in the DNA is actually in the backbone," he said.
Also, he says, the picture is still missing an understanding of what exactly the arsenic–phosphorus switch means for a cell, says Rosen. "What we really need to know is which molecules in the cell have arsenic in them, and whether these molecules are active and functional," he says.
And, how do the arsenic compounds avoid breaking down?
"It remains to be established that this bacterium uses arsenate as a replacement for phosphate in its DNA or in any other biomolecule found in 'standard' terran biology," says Steven Benner, who studies origin-of-life chemistry at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in Gainesville, Florida.
Arsenate forms much weaker bonds in water than phosphate, that break apart on the order of minutes, he says, and though there might be other molecules stabilizing these bonds, the researchers would need to explain this discrepancy for the hypothesis to stand. Still, the discovery is "just phenomenal" if it holds up after further chemical analysis, Benner adds. "It means that many, many things are wrong in terms of how we view molecules in the biological system."
That then said, per the specifics of how arsenic is poisonous to multicellular life, as (gasp, I'm referencing it again) Wikipedia's arsenic article notes, while this theoretically opens the door to multiple evolutionary pathways, in reality, I can't see that there's a great likelihood of it, at least this particular pathway.
So, this needs a LOT more research. It ain't Pons-Fleischmann trotting out cold fusion, no, but, it does seem ... sketchy, so far. (That said, I'll admit that Wikipedia's article on cold fusion is iffy itself.)
That said, I'm boosting part of my response to Greg into the body of the post here.
First, I am by no means the only person who has said he or she thought the paper, etc., was rushed. To analogize: Bite size chunks can be undercooked and, IMO, this chunk needed more time on the grill.
Second, per me, PZ Myers and many others, there's disagreement on how "spectacular" the trick is, especially given that this was a trick induced in a controlled environment. Again, I note: Mono Lake already has a high arsenic level, and (so far at least) no similar arsenophilic bacteria have been found in the natural environment of the lake. Add in the relative weakness of arsenic bond to phosphorus ones in water, and, at least on Earth, that leaves open the question of just how likely it is.
Now, tying that to exobiology. I don't know what difference, if any, Mars has from Earth in As/P ratios. Given the fact that wasn't mentioned in the presser, the answer is either "little difference" or else "oops, big NASA error." But, short of something like that, a talk of environmental differences, NASA erred again, or "fluffed/hyped," in making the exobiology link.
Oh, and a final note for Greg the commenter - possibly Greg Laden?
From a commenter at Pharyngula:
1) The best As:P ratio they got was 7.3:1 in dry cell weight. They are using media with phosphate contaminants (~3 uM). The extremely slow growth rate (20-fold in six days; compared to E. coli roughly 20-fold in 90 min) suggests limited growth that is occurring from phosphate salvage. ...
3) There is no evidence that As is incorporated into functional DNA or RNA and that such As-nucleotide is competent in replication/translation. They have evidence that As is incorporated into nucleic acids. That’s a major leap from there to functionally competent DNA/RNA.
4) Arsenate diesters are unstable in water. The hydrolysis rates for arsenate esters are 10,000 – 1,000,000 times faster than the corresponding phosphate esters. No stability; no genetic information. The notion that water is kept away is curious at best and the hallmark of pathological science at worst. ...
6) It’s been known that arseno-ADP, the ATP analog, is not stable in water. ... How do you get to arseno-DNA without arsenic analogs of ATP?
So, sorry, Greg, nice try but you're flogging a dead horse.
Update, Dec. 6: If shoddy research controls and mechanics make an experiment bad science, then this looks to pretty officially be bad science. Note to Greg Laden and other "fluffers" - why continue flogging this? Let's see some more posting at Science Blogs and Discover about how this baby ever saw the light of day, instead.
Update, Dec. 9:More yet on the NASA fluffery angle:
Here's proof of the fluffery - the hed on NASA's annoucement:
"Get Your Biology Textbook...and an Eraser!"
Fact is, as P.Z. Myers, Wikipedia and many other sites noted, arsenic replacing phosphorus in organic compounds, albeit much simpler ones than DNA, isn't even new. As for it actually doing so in DNA, well, the trumpeted NASA experiment doesn't necessarily prove that.
And, NASA's PR machine is still going, in this wire story that connects the iffy experiment to discovery of more habitable planets and more stares:
Meanwhile, more motive for NASA to trumpet itself? Perhaps worries about the successful orbital flight of SpaceX's Dragon. though NASA was kind enough to offer congratulations.
Remember, getting back to the budgetary motive angle, Obama has talked about leaning more on private services to head to the space station.
===
Update, Dec. 20:Arsenic exobiology researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon is dismissive, and in a wrongly, fudging, sense, concerns about hydrolysis of the arsenic compounds in DNA. Seriously, this has gone beyond breathless; this is indeed bad science.
Per Wikipedia's article on alternative life chemistry, linked below, the hydrolysis issue caught y attention the day of the announcement. Obviously, it caught the attention of science professionals, too, and Ms. Wolfe-Simon is left without explanation, so she bloviates.
More on the Texas economic miracle mirage
The average sale price on a pre-existing home in Dallas-Fort Worth, the state's largest metropolitan area, declined for the fourth straight month after going up in the first half of the year. While not a California, Arizona, Nevada or Florida-level problem, nonetheless, prices are off almost 10 percent form 2007. And, while the October decline wasn't the worst in the nation, it was worse than the national average. That's why it's funny, almost laughable, to read major DFW real estate agents essentially whistle in the dark about 2011.
That said, most of them probably voted for the eternally lucky Tricky Ricky Perry, and therefore have no choice but to whistle in the dark.
That said, most of them probably voted for the eternally lucky Tricky Ricky Perry, and therefore have no choice but to whistle in the dark.
More on NASA's motives to fluff ArsenicGate
When the story now deservedly known as ArsenicGate broke, with NASA "fluffing" a mid-level exobiology story into something it wasn't even close to being, I blogged both about the bad science involved and how NASA's fluffery didn't stack up to the reality of claims about things like multiple evolutionary pathways.
In both posts, I said that NASA had "good" motive for such fluffery, including, above all, the success at that very time of the first privately-funded orbital space flight.
Well, here's a lot more on how NASA had motive to fluff this bad science. Read the whole thing, to be sure, but this image ought to say it all:
Inside NASA, some employees have taken to wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the letters "WWED," which stands for "What Would Elon Do?" — a reference to SpaceX founder and Chief Executive Elon Musk, the Internet tycoon who invested his own fortune in pursuit of his dream of sending humans into space.
That's an agency hugely afraid for its future, and probably thinking it needs all the fluffery it can get, or do.
But, per the story, NASA can do all the fluffery it want; that doesn't guarantee results.
December 27, 2010
Does Scientific American have a ScienceBlogs problem?
Updated at bottom with addition information that, in my opinion, makes Scientific American look even worse.
A few months back, ScienceBlogs was in full revolt over Pepsi being asked, by SciBlogs' top brass, to sponsor a health blog. Well, what's up with SciAm having Chevy Volt sponsor a special section on electric cars?
Add in the fact that the stories linked off the online cover page of the special section are a mix of SciAm-reported stories and Chevy PR, and it really doesn't look good.
Also, not good? SciAm's stories all talk about "electric cars" when the Chevy Volt isn't. It's a hybrid, and Chevy has finally admitted that. In short, it's bad PR, bad journalism, and if we're counting tech as science, bad science, too.
And, no, it's not the deal that this was "sneaky" like the Pepsi/SciBlogs deal. Sorry, @BoraZ. (That said, depending on who in Scientific American's editorial hierarchy knew about this, and who didn't, and when, it may well be sneaky, for all I know.)
That wasn't the only thing wrong with the Pepsi issue at ScienceBlogs, although it was the first problem and the first-visible one. There was also the question about Pepsi, rather than, say, FiberOne, sponsoring a health-related blog.
So, in line with that, if Scientific American was going to sell itself out for sponsorship from an electric car, then why didn't it get an actual electric car, i.e., the Nissan Leaf, and not the Chevy Volt, which is a hybrid? Right there is an indication of how the "sponsorship" has affected the reporting.
Since the Volt isn't a pure electric ... I'd have to say this is a version of greenwash. It also, besides ethics, makes me wonder just how intelligent about auto tech some SciAm editors are.
I hadn't originally intended to name Bora, former ScienceBlogs blogger of "A Blog around the Clock" and now at Scientific American. BUT ... he just either doesn't get it, or is being defensive about Scientific American. An exchange of several Twitters over more than 24 hours leads me to believe that while it may be primarily the former, it could well be in part the latter.
If it is, Bora, you need to talk to other people at Scientific American rather than being defensive.
After all, you left SciBlogs in part over the Pepsi fiasco. I quote from your post about your leaving:
At the end, you said Seed's image is permanently damaged.
Well didn't Volt, in this case, also pay "to have a seat at the table"? Doesn't that affect SciAm's reputation?
Answers? Yes and yes.
Update, Dec. 28:/ Apparently, I've gotten a bit under Bora's skin, as he thinks I am just pot stirring. In his last Tweet on the subject though, he adds one more point that makes SciAm look even worse, in my book.
He notes that the special project from August! I usually don't read the mag stem-to-stern online or off, but for it to be still promoted 4 months later? And, after GM brass officially admitted the Volt is a hybrid, to STILL, with the side-by-side presentation and the content of the articles, to STILL leave standing the implication that SciAm believes the Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid, AND that Volt could buy such favorable coverage in general.
Also, Bora, this is NOT about "investigative journalism." I know, because, I've actually DONE investigative journalism.
And, do you really think knowing the difference between a hybrid-drive vehicle and a truly electric is "too geeky" for Scientific American?
Wowsa.
Methinks thee doth indeed protest too much. Talk to the hand, Bora, on this one. Better yet? Seriously? Talk to some Scientific American editorial management, as I said when I first wrote this post, before updating it.
And, if this is pot stirring, I take that as a compliment.
AND, per the "lifting up" of new media? Or new-type media venues? The medium is NOT the message, contra McLuhan. New media faces the same ethical responsibilities and issues as old media.
In this case, in fact, since this is an easy issue to address, even solve, online, it's arguably worse than in the pre-Internet age. If I'm going to be in for a pot-stirring penny, I'm in for a pot-stirring pound. My forthrightness in not swooning over new media is probably why Jay Rosens and others don't like what I say on the subject either.
UPdate, Oct. 3, 2011: The Leaf is beating the sales pants off the Volt.
A few months back, ScienceBlogs was in full revolt over Pepsi being asked, by SciBlogs' top brass, to sponsor a health blog. Well, what's up with SciAm having Chevy Volt sponsor a special section on electric cars?
Add in the fact that the stories linked off the online cover page of the special section are a mix of SciAm-reported stories and Chevy PR, and it really doesn't look good.
Also, not good? SciAm's stories all talk about "electric cars" when the Chevy Volt isn't. It's a hybrid, and Chevy has finally admitted that. In short, it's bad PR, bad journalism, and if we're counting tech as science, bad science, too.
And, no, it's not the deal that this was "sneaky" like the Pepsi/SciBlogs deal. Sorry, @BoraZ. (That said, depending on who in Scientific American's editorial hierarchy knew about this, and who didn't, and when, it may well be sneaky, for all I know.)
That wasn't the only thing wrong with the Pepsi issue at ScienceBlogs, although it was the first problem and the first-visible one. There was also the question about Pepsi, rather than, say, FiberOne, sponsoring a health-related blog.
So, in line with that, if Scientific American was going to sell itself out for sponsorship from an electric car, then why didn't it get an actual electric car, i.e., the Nissan Leaf, and not the Chevy Volt, which is a hybrid? Right there is an indication of how the "sponsorship" has affected the reporting.
Since the Volt isn't a pure electric ... I'd have to say this is a version of greenwash. It also, besides ethics, makes me wonder just how intelligent about auto tech some SciAm editors are.
I hadn't originally intended to name Bora, former ScienceBlogs blogger of "A Blog around the Clock" and now at Scientific American. BUT ... he just either doesn't get it, or is being defensive about Scientific American. An exchange of several Twitters over more than 24 hours leads me to believe that while it may be primarily the former, it could well be in part the latter.
If it is, Bora, you need to talk to other people at Scientific American rather than being defensive.
After all, you left SciBlogs in part over the Pepsi fiasco. I quote from your post about your leaving:
What is relevant is that a corporation paid to have a seat at the table with us. And that Seed made that happen.
What is relevant is that this event severely undermined the reputation of all of us. Who can trust anything we say in the future?
Even if you already know me and trust me, can people arriving here by random searches trust me? Once they look around the site and see that Pepsi has a blog here, why would they believe I am not exactly the same, some kind of shill for some kind of industry?
At the end, you said Seed's image is permanently damaged.
Well didn't Volt, in this case, also pay "to have a seat at the table"? Doesn't that affect SciAm's reputation?
Answers? Yes and yes.
Update, Dec. 28:/ Apparently, I've gotten a bit under Bora's skin, as he thinks I am just pot stirring. In his last Tweet on the subject though, he adds one more point that makes SciAm look even worse, in my book.
He notes that the special project from August! I usually don't read the mag stem-to-stern online or off, but for it to be still promoted 4 months later? And, after GM brass officially admitted the Volt is a hybrid, to STILL, with the side-by-side presentation and the content of the articles, to STILL leave standing the implication that SciAm believes the Volt is an electric car, not a hybrid, AND that Volt could buy such favorable coverage in general.
Also, Bora, this is NOT about "investigative journalism." I know, because, I've actually DONE investigative journalism.
And, do you really think knowing the difference between a hybrid-drive vehicle and a truly electric is "too geeky" for Scientific American?
Wowsa.
Methinks thee doth indeed protest too much. Talk to the hand, Bora, on this one. Better yet? Seriously? Talk to some Scientific American editorial management, as I said when I first wrote this post, before updating it.
And, if this is pot stirring, I take that as a compliment.
AND, per the "lifting up" of new media? Or new-type media venues? The medium is NOT the message, contra McLuhan. New media faces the same ethical responsibilities and issues as old media.
In this case, in fact, since this is an easy issue to address, even solve, online, it's arguably worse than in the pre-Internet age. If I'm going to be in for a pot-stirring penny, I'm in for a pot-stirring pound. My forthrightness in not swooning over new media is probably why Jay Rosens and others don't like what I say on the subject either.
UPdate, Oct. 3, 2011: The Leaf is beating the sales pants off the Volt.
Baby Boomers face retirement bust
Laid off. Forced to take lower-paying jobs. Still holding mortgages, which may be underwater. Stocks and 401(k)s that tanked in the recession. Some serious stuff.
That and more that the newly-retiring start of the Baby Boomer aging wave is all listed here.
First, how much of this is the boomers' fault? I'd say a fair amount, beyond the obvious of boomers, as one admitted in the story, not saving enough, at least in a certain subsegment of boomers who thought they could "have it all."
How many boomers actually believed the pre-phrase-invention "ownership society" of how great 401s would be? How many one-time 1960s radicals willingly voted for Reagan? Or more? Of course, many of the people "selling" the ownership society under Shrub were also boomers.
How many have been unrealistic about the whole aging and self-discipline processes? How many still are?
A LOT:
As someone technically a boomer by demographics, but really more a Gen-Xer in more ways, by outlook on life (except not so politically conservative as the average Xer) I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the average retiring boomer, in the abstract.
I don't want to be too harsh, but it gets back to that "have it all" phrase, even more than rose-colored glasses in general. And, not just "have it all," but have it all relatively effortlessly.
A rewarding motherhood AND a full-time career relatively effortlessly? That idea was started by boomers.
The former hippies who voted for Reagan and probably believed they could effortlessly have it all of getting rich yet holding on to at least a few 60s values?
(I won't even ask about how many boomers opposed Vietnam but supported Grenada or Panama.)
Or, to get past stereotyping boomers, how many of the rose-colored glasses wearers have been Republicans for years, and, like Reagan, have never stopped searching for the magical pony amidst all the crap? Too bad the story didn't do a breakout on attitudes.
There's several other issues at stake, too. Two of the biggies are American exceptionalism followed by American historical amnesia, including about our own history, let alone world history.
There was a time before the boomers were born when America had bad problems with income inequality. And now, those times have returned. Boomers apparently didn't learn that this was a possibility.
At the same time, the post-WWII era of massive American economic dominance was an anomaly, NOT a Teilhard-like Omega Point of the exceptionality of America, city on a hill. And, starting with Vietnam (remember that, Boomers?) most American military involvement, for better and often not for better, have been predicated in part on American exceptionalism.
Finally, what does the future hold for following cohorts? To answer that, first, some demarcations.
The Baby Boom has traditionally been considered to run 1946-1964. Why the Census and others use 1964 as the end point, I don't know. (The peak birth year of the boom was 1958.)
I'm going to take 1961 as the cutoff. Either Kennedy or Nixon would have been the first president born in the 20th century, so, it's a good sociological break.
But, I will NOT start GenX there. Instead, I propose a Transitionals mini-generation running 1961-1969. This cutoff point still leaves this cohort old enough to at least vaguely remember the end of Vietnam and the end of Ford, if not of Nixon. It also leaves even the young end old enough to be in junior high school by the time Reagan was elected and in adulthood by the time he was gone. In short, less affected by Reaganism than actual GenXers. I base this not just on me, but anecdotal experience of friends my age. (Personally, I can't identify with the increased materialism or the increased conservativism, on average, of true GenXers.)
I run GenX at 1969-1985. That leaves even the youngest entering high school by the time of 9/11. And, I run Millennials from 1985 to 2003, tentatively, using the Iraq war as a break point. The degree to which American politics has changed since then correlates to that.
That and more that the newly-retiring start of the Baby Boomer aging wave is all listed here.
• Mortgage Debt. Nearly two in three people age 55 to 64 had a mortgage in 2007, with a median debt of $85,000.
• Social Security. Nearly 3 out of 4 people file to claim Social Security benefits as soon as they're eligible at age 62. That locks them in at a much lower amount than they would get if they waited.
The monthly checks are about 25 percent less if you retire at 62 instead of full retirement age, which is 66 for those born from 1943 to 1954. If you wait until 70, your check can be 75 to 80 percent more than at 62. So, a boomer who claimed a $1,200 monthly benefit in 2008 at age 62 could have received about $2,000 by holding off until 70.
• Medical Costs. Health care expenses are soaring, and the availability of retiree benefits is declining.
"People cannot fathom how much money will be needed to simply cover out-of-pocket medical care costs," says Mitchell of the University of Pennsylvania.
A 55-year-old man with typical drug expenses needs to have about $187,000 just to cover future medical costs. That's if he wants to be 90 percent certain to have enough money to supplement Medicare coverage in retirement, the EBRI said. Because of greater longevity, a 65-year-old woman would need even more to cover her health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health expenses: an estimated $213,000.
• Employment. Boomers both need and want to work longer than previous generations. But unemployment is near 10 percent, and many have lost their jobs.
First, how much of this is the boomers' fault? I'd say a fair amount, beyond the obvious of boomers, as one admitted in the story, not saving enough, at least in a certain subsegment of boomers who thought they could "have it all."
How many boomers actually believed the pre-phrase-invention "ownership society" of how great 401s would be? How many one-time 1960s radicals willingly voted for Reagan? Or more? Of course, many of the people "selling" the ownership society under Shrub were also boomers.
How many have been unrealistic about the whole aging and self-discipline processes? How many still are?
A LOT:
Many seem to view their plight through rose-colored granny glasses. An AARP survey last month of boomers turning 65 next year found that they worry no more about money than they did at age 60 — before the recession or the collapse of home prices. But in an acknowledgment of reality, 40 percent said they plan to work "until I drop."
As someone technically a boomer by demographics, but really more a Gen-Xer in more ways, by outlook on life (except not so politically conservative as the average Xer) I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the average retiring boomer, in the abstract.
I don't want to be too harsh, but it gets back to that "have it all" phrase, even more than rose-colored glasses in general. And, not just "have it all," but have it all relatively effortlessly.
A rewarding motherhood AND a full-time career relatively effortlessly? That idea was started by boomers.
The former hippies who voted for Reagan and probably believed they could effortlessly have it all of getting rich yet holding on to at least a few 60s values?
(I won't even ask about how many boomers opposed Vietnam but supported Grenada or Panama.)
Or, to get past stereotyping boomers, how many of the rose-colored glasses wearers have been Republicans for years, and, like Reagan, have never stopped searching for the magical pony amidst all the crap? Too bad the story didn't do a breakout on attitudes.
There's several other issues at stake, too. Two of the biggies are American exceptionalism followed by American historical amnesia, including about our own history, let alone world history.
There was a time before the boomers were born when America had bad problems with income inequality. And now, those times have returned. Boomers apparently didn't learn that this was a possibility.
At the same time, the post-WWII era of massive American economic dominance was an anomaly, NOT a Teilhard-like Omega Point of the exceptionality of America, city on a hill. And, starting with Vietnam (remember that, Boomers?) most American military involvement, for better and often not for better, have been predicated in part on American exceptionalism.
Finally, what does the future hold for following cohorts? To answer that, first, some demarcations.
The Baby Boom has traditionally been considered to run 1946-1964. Why the Census and others use 1964 as the end point, I don't know. (The peak birth year of the boom was 1958.)
I'm going to take 1961 as the cutoff. Either Kennedy or Nixon would have been the first president born in the 20th century, so, it's a good sociological break.
But, I will NOT start GenX there. Instead, I propose a Transitionals mini-generation running 1961-1969. This cutoff point still leaves this cohort old enough to at least vaguely remember the end of Vietnam and the end of Ford, if not of Nixon. It also leaves even the young end old enough to be in junior high school by the time Reagan was elected and in adulthood by the time he was gone. In short, less affected by Reaganism than actual GenXers. I base this not just on me, but anecdotal experience of friends my age. (Personally, I can't identify with the increased materialism or the increased conservativism, on average, of true GenXers.)
I run GenX at 1969-1985. That leaves even the youngest entering high school by the time of 9/11. And, I run Millennials from 1985 to 2003, tentatively, using the Iraq war as a break point. The degree to which American politics has changed since then correlates to that.
Libertarianism - teens still needing to grow up? Trotskyists?
Christopher Beam has a generally good (albeit badly flawed in two ways, see below) overview of where today's libertarians in the U.S. stand, from individual Libertarian rebel types through Paul pere and fils and on to the Free State Project in New Hampshire, and, above all, what might be the Libertarian ground zero of the Cato Institute and Liberty magazine.
The Peter-Pannish teens might well apply to the Free State Project types. (Maybe even a bit to Rand Paul!) And, to the individualistic rebels.
That said, it's arguable, at least, that a place like Cato, or similar ones that are even more hardcore, are Trotskyist in spirit. Witness the "purges" of folks like Will Wilkerson. And, especially among Randians, there's a history of Trotskyist purges, starting with her own background from Old Russia, running through her own personal purge of Nathaniel Branden, and going on from there.
That said, the article's got a couple of BIG flaws, too.
First, Mr. Beam, civil libertarians are NOT the same as economic libertarians, let alone bigger "movement" libertarians. And, not all economic libertarians, even, follow Straus/Mises/Hayek, let alone Rand.
I have no idea why he threw in the observation and "lumping in" of civil libertarians on the first page of the story. Maybe as a "hook" of some sort? But, places like the ACLU and CCR have plenty of good old-fashioned economic liberals who also proudly identify as civil libertarians, but have no truck for the people he profiles in the article.
Second, and even worse, on the last page? Mr. Beam? The Constitution is not, and was not, a "libertarian" document.
The Peter-Pannish teens might well apply to the Free State Project types. (Maybe even a bit to Rand Paul!) And, to the individualistic rebels.
That said, it's arguable, at least, that a place like Cato, or similar ones that are even more hardcore, are Trotskyist in spirit. Witness the "purges" of folks like Will Wilkerson. And, especially among Randians, there's a history of Trotskyist purges, starting with her own background from Old Russia, running through her own personal purge of Nathaniel Branden, and going on from there.
That said, the article's got a couple of BIG flaws, too.
First, Mr. Beam, civil libertarians are NOT the same as economic libertarians, let alone bigger "movement" libertarians. And, not all economic libertarians, even, follow Straus/Mises/Hayek, let alone Rand.
I have no idea why he threw in the observation and "lumping in" of civil libertarians on the first page of the story. Maybe as a "hook" of some sort? But, places like the ACLU and CCR have plenty of good old-fashioned economic liberals who also proudly identify as civil libertarians, but have no truck for the people he profiles in the article.
Second, and even worse, on the last page? Mr. Beam? The Constitution is not, and was not, a "libertarian" document.
Marty Peretz - bigot, Zionist nut, more.
NYMag has a good, but occasionally flawed in-depth profile on the man who has gotten ever more extreme in his Zionism, even while dissing not only all Arabs but claiming even upper-income blacks don't go to classical concerts or museums.
His fixed-idea nuttery on Israel? Here's how wrong he is:
HUH?
It's neolib dreck, if it's that liberal, on general politics.
More specifically, can we talk about Andrew Sullivan's "Bell Curve issue"? Oy.
His fixed-idea nuttery on Israel? Here's how wrong he is:
"Obama has committed himself to a contiguous Palestine: Gaza and the West Bank. That means a discontiguous Israel.”That said, Benjamin Wallace-Wells "fluffs" TNR as a magazine with the claim that, since he's taken it over, he's generally kept its politics well to the left of his own.
HUH?
It's neolib dreck, if it's that liberal, on general politics.
More specifically, can we talk about Andrew Sullivan's "Bell Curve issue"? Oy.
Douthat gets out teh bipartisan stupid
Ross Douthat is back to his junior David Brooks worst, spinning imaginary story lines that just aren't true. The newest entry? His lauding the bipartisanship of the lame-duck Congress.
First is the backstory that the midterm elections killed a "liberal fantasy." What's liberal about Obamacare, a sellout to private insurers? Answer: Zero. Other than Obamacare, what major item on his agenda could you call liberal? Cap-and-trade rather than straight-up carbon taxes were going to be a sellout to certain lines of big business. Obama's worse than Bush on civil liberties.
So, this "liberal fantasy" was actually a wet dream of the semi-nutbar Douthat and the full-nutbar GOP.
Now, the "bipartisanship"? A good majority of the GOP voted against cloture on the New START treaty. A still-strong majority voted against the treaty itself. The DREAM Act was NOT, contra Ross, killed by bipartisanship, unless a curmudgeon, GOP-in-drag Democrat like Ben Nelson counts as "bipartisan."
The "bipartisan" tax deal? Only "bipartisan" because Democrats have no balls. If that's part of how we define "bipartisan," well, stand by for plenty more.
First is the backstory that the midterm elections killed a "liberal fantasy." What's liberal about Obamacare, a sellout to private insurers? Answer: Zero. Other than Obamacare, what major item on his agenda could you call liberal? Cap-and-trade rather than straight-up carbon taxes were going to be a sellout to certain lines of big business. Obama's worse than Bush on civil liberties.
So, this "liberal fantasy" was actually a wet dream of the semi-nutbar Douthat and the full-nutbar GOP.
Now, the "bipartisanship"? A good majority of the GOP voted against cloture on the New START treaty. A still-strong majority voted against the treaty itself. The DREAM Act was NOT, contra Ross, killed by bipartisanship, unless a curmudgeon, GOP-in-drag Democrat like Ben Nelson counts as "bipartisan."
The "bipartisan" tax deal? Only "bipartisan" because Democrats have no balls. If that's part of how we define "bipartisan," well, stand by for plenty more.
December 26, 2010
I give the UK coalition six more months
To speak British-style, the Lib Dems have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Tories on the massive budget cuts in the service sectors and elsewhere in government.
But, Prime Minister David Cameron has yet to deliver to Nick Clegg on the electoral reform that was the Lib Dems price for joining coalition.
I give Cameron six months to deliver that. Why that long? I'm guessing that if it doesn't come by then, Lib Dems will sack Clegg as party leader. And, any promise he made to Cameron to see through the coalition for the full five years will not be binding on his successor.
Even now, the Guardian notes that support for the coalition, primarily within the Lib Dems but also from Conservatives, is falling sharply:
Among LibDem voters, support is 50-50.
Meanwhile, Labour's Ed Miliband waits in the wings:
And, so, Labour hopes to peel off dissatisfied Lib Dem voters.
At the same time, Lib Dem and Tory ministers in government seem to be having more distance developing. (Speaking to a media roundtable where you as a politician think you're off the record and the media thinks you're not doesn't help!)
But, Prime Minister David Cameron has yet to deliver to Nick Clegg on the electoral reform that was the Lib Dems price for joining coalition.
I give Cameron six months to deliver that. Why that long? I'm guessing that if it doesn't come by then, Lib Dems will sack Clegg as party leader. And, any promise he made to Cameron to see through the coalition for the full five years will not be binding on his successor.
Even now, the Guardian notes that support for the coalition, primarily within the Lib Dems but also from Conservatives, is falling sharply:
The latest Guardian/ICM poll finds that after six months of Conservative-LibDem rule just 43% think coalition government was the right decision for Britain while 47% now disagree. In May, in answer to a slightly differently worded question, 59% backed the coalition while 32% disagreed with the decision to form it.
Among LibDem voters, support is 50-50.
Meanwhile, Labour's Ed Miliband waits in the wings:
Asked about the party leaders, only 12% thought Nick Clegg's prospects would improve in 2011, against 47% who think he will have a worse year. For David Cameron, 23% think 2011 will be better and 36% worse. Only Ed Miliband can look forward to a happier new year. While 27% think the coming year will be worse for him than the one before, 29% think it will be better – the only net positive score on all the issues asked in the survey.
And, so, Labour hopes to peel off dissatisfied Lib Dem voters.
At the same time, Lib Dem and Tory ministers in government seem to be having more distance developing. (Speaking to a media roundtable where you as a politician think you're off the record and the media thinks you're not doesn't help!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)