Conspiracy theories to the right of me, conspiracy thinking to the left ...

With apologies to Stealer's Wheel's Steve Miller's song, "Stuck in the Middle with You," and with no apologies to Chris Mooney's insinuations that people of the political right are more likely to engage in "motivated reasoning" than those of the political left, our latest conspiracy theory?

The tea partiers are allegedly behind a would-be takedown of Obamacare's federal exchange website, conspiracy thinking most recently fostered by a selective reading of a Department of Homeland Security staffer's statement about cyberattacks:

A top Homeland Security Department official testified Wednesday that there have been approximately 16 cyberattacks on the HealthCare.gov website and one "denial of service" attack that was unsuccessful.

The testimony by Roberta Stempfley, acting assistant secretary of homeland security's Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, was the first public  acknowledgement by an administration official that there have been any cyberattacks on the Obamacare website.

However, there are several problems here.

First, it ain't serious. I knew that, before I read further. Just sixteen cyberattacks? I figured that wasn't much for a large federal government website. And, I was apparently right, as reading further confirmed.

On Wednesday, another department official admitted there had been “confusion” over statements on the issue, but added, “None of these incidents were considered significant. There have not been any reports … of any successful attacks on the HeathCare.gov website to date.”

The official noted, as a comparison, that DHS had recorded “approximately 228,700 cyber incidents” during the last fiscal year, “an average of more than 620 per day, involving federal agencies, critical infrastructure, and the department’s industry partners."

But, yet, many an Obamiac type says something to the effect of, no there has to be more.

Well, there isn't. And, the fact that there isn't, while many people want to believe there is, is yet another reason why, although I'm a left-liberal of some sort, at least in American terms, I regularly stress I'm a skeptical left-liberal.

Second, we don't even know who's behind the miniscule 16 cyberattacks. Pimply 16-year-old hackers? Anonymous types bored over no Occupy Wall Street? Chinese Red Army hackers wanting to further discredit Obama? Iran getting revenge for Stuxnet? Tea partiers? All of the above? Others?

How about identity thieves?

Noting the large amount of personal information that will be entered by consumers applying for health insurance on the site -- including Social Security numbers, addresses and income information — (Rep. Ron) McCaul said in his opening statement: "All of this information is a tempting target for hackers, identity thieves and other malicious actors. We already have reported cases of hacks, fraudulent websites and documented security vulnerabilities in the system."

Sounds as likely as anyone.

And, even if there is some semi-organized attempt to take down the website for ideological reasons, as Information Week says there is, it also notes, as conspiracy-mongers don't, that this is amateurish:

Eisenbarth said this DDoS tool most likely can't deliver what it promises. "The request rate, the non-distributed attack architecture and many other limitations make this tool unlikely to succeed in affecting the availability of the healthcare.gov site," he said. Furthermore, he noted that to date, Arbor has seen no "active use of this software." 

That said, my pleas to Obamiacs to stop the conspiracy thinking, to stop blaming, ultimately, anybody but Dear Leader in the mirror, will almost certainly fall on deaf ears.

Third, this isn't the first such conspiracy theory monging.

In October, something similar came up. Turned out that, first of all, the problem wasn't that bad, secondly, it was limited to New York State, and thirdly, New York State has a state-level exchange and nothing to do with the federal exchanges.

Fourth, let me offer an alternate conspiracy theory. This is all part of Obama recanting about Obamacare and preparing a true single-payer national health care system, since he's already become the best arguer for that.

Fifth, back to my first paragraph.

This is not even close to the first time liberals have engaged in at least a mild disconnect from rational thinking, even though Mooney claims conservatives are much worse; a claim that's not just wrong, but simplistic to the point of motivated reasoning itself. (Such problems run through his "Republican Brain" book.)

Don't try to hand-wave this away by talking only about Jenny McCarthy and anti-vaxxers. Some liberals, outside of legitimate corporate worries about Monsanto, still harbor a bunch of generally false beliefs about much of GMOs as foodstuffs. Others, even while wondering how we can cut fossil fuel use, refuse to have a rational discussion of the pros, as well as the cons, of nuclear power.

And, though not an actual conspiracy theory, the claim that Obama is actually fighting against the Trans Pacific Partnership by at least one Obamiac certainly is among the same vein of motivated reasoning.

That's why I even invented a blog tag called "pulling a Chris Mooney."

Mooney, in his book and other writings, has a huge blind spot about tribalism. Tribalism has a lot to do with motivated reasoning and very little to do with political leanings or ideologies. Therefore, both liberals and conservatives, scare quotes or not, can be equally tribal.

Beyond that, Mooney  went intellectually downhill in my book for other reasons, starting with buddying up with Sam Harris, then from there diving deep into the shallow pool of Gnu Atheism. (If you want to find a cesspool of tribalism and motivated reasoning, you at least dived into the right place, Mooney.)

This all said, I don't doubt that wingnuts who favor not giving health care to poor people, wingnuts who think the UN is about to take over our golf courses, will like this post. Well, overall, you're nuttier, and certainly more callous, than liberals. So, buzz off.

That said, it's frustrating to see just how willful Obamiacs can be about keeping the blinders up. Of course, assuming she runs for president, the Hillarystas will be even worse.

One more year — keep Jack Morris OUT of #Cooperstown and the #HOF

Note: Not for reasons of hubris, but, if any readers do know a BBWAA voter, please forward this on.

This is an extensive overhaul of posts I've written the past few years about why I think Jack Morris, whom I call the anti-Bert Blyleven, should be kept out of the Baseball Hall of Fame, namely because just as sabermetrics proved the case for Blyleven, they prove the case against Morris.

First of all, I want to tackle the chief argument for Morris, raised by Murray Chass and other voters — Game 7, 1991 World Series, and Morris' 10-inning 1-0 shutout.

To which my blunt answer is: So what.

Don Larsen pitched a perfect game in the World Series. Bill Wambsganss converted an unassisted triple play in the Fall Classic. Neither one is in the HOF or ever will be.

Or, if you want a closer parallel, let's take a one-time Morris teammate. Kirk Gibson hobbled out of a dugout for his 1988 World Series Game 1 miracle, and he'll never be in the Hall, either. (That said, especially if you look at WAA rather than WAR, he's got at least as good, if not a better argument in some ways, than Morris!)

Or, by WAR, if you want a very close comparison to Morris in career, AND, someone with as much World Series drama? Luis Gonzales won the 2001 World Series for the Arizona Diamondbacks with his broken-bat walk-off single, but nobody's ever mentioned him as a HOFer. Morris? 43.8 WAR. Gonzales? 51.5. Morris? 9.6 WAA. Gonzales? 19.8.

Now, why do I say we should keep Black Jack out?

For pitchers, my two baseline go-to stats are ERA+ and WHIP. You should have at least 110 in the former and no more than 1.25 in the latter. The latter number comes by eyeballing Hall of Fame pitchers. The former is simple: on ERA (which, over a pitcher's career, does substantially equal FIP), you should be 10 percent better for your career than the league as a whole. That's a reasonable minimum.

Morris is not only a near miss,  he roundly flunks with a 105 and 1.296.

Next, his value? His value at winning games, per what is a complaint about him at times and a would-be justification at others? His Wins Above Replacement, or WAR, of 39.8 would be OK if it were Wins Above Average, or WAA. But it's not, it's WAR. Speaking of WAA, as I'm learning to gauge that more, I think 30 is a minimum cutoff.

There, it's even worse. Hell, Morris can't even break single digits, at 9.7.'s WAR. Speaking of WAA, as I'm learning to gauge that more, I think 30 is a minimum cutoff. And, I'm like it better than WAR as a judge of Hall of Fame-level talent.

Bottom line? If it weren't for Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Period. End.Of.Story.

Let's take yet two others from my list of World Series counterexamples, both of them precisely because they were in moments like Morris' in 1991: Joe Carter and Bill Mazeroski.

Carter, despite his walk-off homer in Game 6 of the 1993 World Series, has even less Hall of Fame cred than Morris, but, if I went by that, and then looked at nearly 400 HRs and nearly 1,500 RBIs, without some sabermetric eyeballing, I could argue he should be in the Hall, too. Instead, he couldn't even pass the first-year sniff test with the BBWAA.

Maz? The Veterans Committee wrongly let him in, in my opinion. The writers never pushed him past 50 percent. Total WAR of 36.1 and WAA of 4.6 doesn't cut it. And, lest anybody says that he was "discriminated against" because he was a defense-first person, Ozzie Smith had 71.6 career WAR and his career WAA of 41.5 topped Maz's career WAR, even.

So, again, Jack Morris shouldn't even be at the point where those of us who are sabermetrically minded are worried that today's baseball writers will be dumb enough — sorry, folks no other phrase works but dumb enough in bold — to vote him in the Hall.

But, 66.7 percent of writers were dumb enough last year, so here we are again.

On Morris, and why he should get in the Baseball Hall of Fame, one "tout" for him has been that he was "The Pitcher of the ’80s." But, a number of other people have noted, the ’80s really kind of sucked in terms of starters, other than Nolan Ryan, who you'd really call more of a ’70s pitcher.

Beyond that, if Black Jack really was "The Pitcher of the ’80s," why did he never win a Cy Young in the 80s? (Or in the ’70s or the ’90s, for that matter?)

That's as in he never won one! Zip, zilch, nada. He never even finished second in the voting. (Before you ask, Blyleven's two third-place finishes are the same as Morris'.)

Good question, eh? I'm trying to think of other starting pitchers, since the MLB went to separate Cys for both leagues, to get in the Hall without winning once. Or even finishing second once. Blyleven's the only one I can think of, and that was when voters looked a lot at W-L percentage, and very little at anything else. (Bleleven definitely should have won in 1973, even though he only finished seventh!)

Now, I'm going to raise the smackdown bar even more.

Among his contemporaries or semi-contemporaries, Brett Saberhagen, David Cone and David Wells are all more fitting candidates than Morris. So's Bob Welch.

All three have much better WAR and much, much better WAA than Morris. All three beat Morris on my two baseline stats. Wells just misses the HOF hurdles on both, but is still ahead of Morris. Cone easily qualifies on ERA+ and is borderline on WHIP. Saberhagen easily qualifies on both. Even Welch narrowly beats Morris on both.

Saberhagen unfortunately had a big case of the injury bug. Cone had some of that. And Wells was a fat, (sometimes) stupid, drunk somewhat better than Jack Morris guy.

But none of them is in the Hall of Fame, or likely to get there.

So, don't taint the Hall even further, in today's statistically enlightened age by voting Morris in.

Now, a little background to my Hall of Fame blogging —

I am a "small Hall" guy. In fact, I think there's plenty of people we should vote back OUT of Cooperstown. Here's some pitchers, and some batters, looking just at the modern baseball era, who need the boot. Please don't make me add Morris to that first list.

Or, there's another way to look at this. Maybe we could have a "provisional" wing, where you get in for 5 years, but just a 50 percent vote can take you out after that. Or, per the two links above, to clear out all the deadwood, BBWAA voters should get one slot every year to vote someone OUT of the Hall. Again, if 75 percent name the same person, out he goes.

Conniving DA Ken Anderson gets 10 days — oops, make that 5, sir!

Anderson, the former Williamson County district attorney, is getting 10 days in jail for his shenanigans in the 1987 murder trial of Michael Morton.

No, take that back! As of Nov. 15, he's out for good behavior after only five. What bullshit.

Like some commentators on the website, I think it's way too little, even if he's also surrendering his law license.

He not only helped get an innocent man imprisoned for 25 years, he helped let the actual murderer, Mark Alan Norwood, run free, and kill somebody else.

If there's anything good out of this scenario, it's this:

After the hearing, Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck announced that an independent review will be conducted of all cases prosecuted by Anderson during his 16 years as district attorney to determine if there were any other cases with hidden evidence.

Now, if we could just do all this, and more, with John Bradley. That said, KXAN says the audit will also cover some cases where Bradley may have been more at fault.

Per the comments on the first link, at the American-Statesman, new constitutional amendment aside, I'll believe that Texas is serious about reining in rogue judges and prosecutors when it actually happens.

And, maybe, if the statute of limitations hasn't run out, the family of Debra Masters Baker needs to see both Anderson and Bradley for wrongful death.

Cornyn's getting primaried — but gets Perry endorsement

Texas' senior U.S. Senator, John Cornyn (R-Tea Party Lite), is getting a primary challenge from a Houston attorney named Linda Vega. And, per her website, she certainly sounds like a tea partier, undiluted.

On the issues link, she also apparently believes money grows on trees, at least as far as funding the government:

We need to stop taxing people and small businesses. 

Well, theoretically, she does allow for taxing big businesses. Of course, they're the ones with all the tax loopholes. You know, the ones that promote "growth."

Add in that she blames both Democrats and Republicans for problems in Washington, per the Chron, and she's a doozy.

And, if the Snooze is right that her announcement presser was poorly attended, Cornyn got the best tea party opponent he could. Low visibility, little personal money to fund her race, and likely little outside connection.

Oh, sure, another, more prominent tea party type could jump in the race. But, having one in there already probably undercuts traction for a second, unless he or she acts quickly.

And, as of Nov. 15, that's less likely. Gov. Helmethair, Rick Perry, has endorsed Big John:

Before officially filing for reelection today, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) was endorsed by Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) at a campaign kickoff rally. Sen. Cornyn accepted the Governor’s endorsement in front of supporters from across Texas at Scholz Garten in downtown Austin.

"Texans are fortunate to have Senator Cornyn defending Texas and our country against the endless onslaught of government intrusion and incompetence demonstrated by the Obama Administration," Gov. Perry said. "Sen. Cornyn stands strong every day in the nation's capital fighting for the conservative principles that have made Texas the beacon of freedom and opportunity in America, and it's vital to the future of our state and our nation that we keep him there to continue that fight."

“Under Gov. Perry’s conservative leadership, Texas has been a shining example that less government, lower taxes and fair regulations helps to grow jobs and move our economy forward,” said Sen. Cornyn. "It’s a striking contrast to the big government, big spending mindset of the current Administration. I’m grateful for Gov. Perry’s support, and I look forward to continue working with him to make Washington more like Texas.”

Stand by, but, short of Gohmert Pyle jumping into the race, this should wrap things up for Cornyn.

Now, tea partiers might counter with the name of Debra Medina as a claim that Vega should be taken seriously. The flip side? Medina got less than 20 percent of the vote in the 2010 gubernatorial primary, and she and Kay Bailey Cheerleader couldn't force Tricky Ricky into a runoff. And, since Ted "the anointed by somebody other than god" Cruz's win in 2012, nobody in the Texas GOP takes the tea partiers lying down.

And, speaking of Medina, per her 9/11 Truther-type meltdown on Glenn Beck, Cornyn just has to find the right question to ask of Vega. That's how Dudley Dewless lost to Cruz. He should have, at a rich, country-club GOP event, or more than one, raised Cruz's belief in Agenda 21 and asked those golfers if they really thought the UN was coming to take over their country club.

On the other hand, maybe Jim DeMint's former PAC will officially endorse Vega, like it has Mitch McConnell's challenger.

Meanwhile, via P Diddie, Cornyn's finally got a general election opponent of the D brand.

McCutchen right choice for NL MVP?

I'm not sure why Fox Sports, and perhaps some others, think that Paul Goldschmidt was "robbed" by Andrew McCutchen winning the National League MVP award.

There's far less controversy here, in my opinion, than Miguel Cabrera beating out Mike Trout again this year. And, in that race, compared to last year, there's less controversy this year, in my book at least, given that to the degree voters emphasize the "most valuable" angle, Cabrera shows that by grittily continuing to play late in the season.

Anyway, here's Fox's stand on the NL side:

Let's revisit the facts. Goldschmidt led the NL in slugging percentage (.551), OPS (.952), total bases (332), home runs (36), RBI (125), extra-base hits (75), intentional walks (19) and other important stats that some mathematic [sic] genius invented like: RE24, WPA, WPA/LI, REW. I think those acronyms speak for themselves, but I will elaborate further as I imagine you are not a statistician and are thinking that Goldy's deficiencies appear on the defensive side. 

Not disputing any of those true things.

But, Cutch lead in WAR, oWAR, dWAR and WAA, or at least was ahead of Goldschmidt. To me, it was about a toss-up, with a slight edge to McCutchen, perhaps. But, there was no "robbery."

The only "robbery" might be Fox trying to gin up a fake controversy for click-bait reasons, but I've taken care of any visitors coming from this page.

Do Democrats have Dream Team II with Van de Putte?

After pleading, expectation and hope, Texas State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte has made it official: She's following fellow state senator Wendy Davis and running for lieutenant governor, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Assuming both win the Democratic primary, it can only strengthen the general election ticket.

Slater notes two points. One is that Van de Putte spoke out during the pro-choice filibuster in the Texas Senate this summer:

When the Republican lieutenant governor failed to recognize Van de Putte to speak from the floor of the Senate, she said: “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” 

That comment back to Dudley Dewless needs to be part of the repeatedly hammered effort to recruit moderate woman voters. When GOP state Comptroller Susan Combs says the GOP has a "below the waist" problem, this is ripe for the picking.

But, per VDP, the focus needs to be on larger women's rights and not narrowly on pro-choice issues.

Second point of Slater:

Strategists say the addition of Van de Putte, a Latina with substantial political experience, could help mobilize Hispanic voters the Democratic Party needs if it hopes to break two decades of GOP political dominance in the state.

Indeed, and she's an authentic Democrat, unlike guv candidate Tony Sanchez of original Dream Team touting in 2002.

Another plus is that, even though guv and light guv technically are elected separately, VDP might help keep Davis from pandering to conservatives.

None of this guarantees anything, of course.

Other than 3 GOP Lite Guv candidates having one more reason to be pissed at Dudley Dewless (Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst) for allegedly botching that special session.