1776

Yes, I do realize that the number can and has fluctuated.

Expanding the court by 4 seats is, in essence, changing rules isn’t it? What’s the difference in this and adding 20 yards to the football field when your opponent has the ball in the red zone? Maybe not the best example but you get the idea. If you can’t win playing by the rules, change the rules. What’s the difference? I would ask this question whatever the makeup of the court.

Are you suggesting the elimination of states as we know them today?

Political figures have, for the most part, evolved into self serving beings. They themselves are placing themselves above law. That the choice between Trump or Biden for the top office in the land is on us, the voters. Incumbents win the overwhelming majority of races. Politicians insulate themselves from accountability in numerous ways. An article in WSJ reported the other day that only 22% of the population can name only ONE branch of government! We have an ignorant and uninformed voting base that is terribly uninformed and under educated. I’ll bet as much as 75% of voters in this country can’t name their U.S. House representative. There is so much wrong in this country now it is shameful. Why don’t voters remove these cons from public offices? A population willing to accommodate poor character in leadership won’t improve any government or country.

Populations varied from state to state in 1787 as well. The population apportionment of representation is through the House of Representatives. The founding fathers purposely intended for the Senate to be represented evenly by the states. The purpose of the Senate is, in large part, to check the whims and shenanigans of the House. The Senate was in intended to be a check point on extreme ideas and legislation coming from the lower House. As much as I abhor politics in general these days, I believe the Senate is satisfying that expectation to a degree. The idea of six year terms with 1/3 of the Senate facing the voters every two years is intended to maintain a degree of stability in that chamber. If the Senate is determined by population per state, there will be under representation in the Senate by smaller states. The argument that the Senate should be determined by population undermines the intent of the founders. The government in general was in need of a mechanism to guard against powerful majorities, not endorse them. The separation of powers, though muddied and skirted by today’s self serving politicians, was designed to make it difficult for significant change without strenuous debate and compromise. It would be a mistake to determine Senatorial representation by state population. A Congress (Senate & House) based solely on populations would literally deny smaller states a voice in Washington.

Disagree entirely on the above comment. Read Catherine Drinker Brown’s book, ‘Miracle at Philadelphia.’ The book details the arguments laid out during the making of the U.S. Constitution. To this day I am in awe of how these men foresaw what they did in 1787, drawing from historical precedents, good and bad, to bring our constitution to realization. Franklin’s words become more prescient by the day regarding our republic.

To repeat, but for a few well placed trash cans, Hinch would be just another name in the phone book.

Al loves him some Mexicans.

The 10 year benchmark is currently sitting on 2.728%. That’s down from being above 3.0% last week. The bond massacre has taken a breather recently.

Of course it’s going to rain! This game is scheduled to be on youtube! 🌧

I know and understand the focus on guns at this point. I am not going to debate the gun ‘thing’ because I’m not in that room. I do find it appalling that there are so many people in this country that have no problem killing other people, NO problem whatsoever. Guns end up as tools too often, yes. But the fact that someone can walk into a school, business, crowd, whatever, and just begin killing other human beings randomly. Guns aren’t responsible for the hate people have of others. Guns laws can be debated and legislated forever, but the lack of regard for human life won’t be resolved through gun legislation. This country is in a really bad place right now.

From its 2021 peak in the 4th quarter of last year, the NASDAQ is down a shade over 30%. P/E’s matter again.

A few blurbs from the weekend WSJ… “The futures market is pricing S&P dividends per share at $64.55 per share this year, but only $60.60 in 2023., implying a drop of 6%, according to Goldman Sachs.” Same article… “Eight of the past rate-hike cycles ended eventually in recessions, Deutschmark data show.” Same article… ”None of the data we track, even leading indicators that look forward, are indicating that recession is on the horizon,” said Cliff Hodge, chief investment officer at Cornerstone Wealth. Same article… …”The analysts added that the S&P 500 is edging closer to the typical decline of about 24% seen in recessions dating back to 1946, and the current sell off, at more than 90 trading sessions, has extended well beyond the typical downturn not associated with a contraction.” So there you go, it’s anybody’s guess where this one ends up. I thought the futures market projecting S&P dividends was interesting.

There is nothing to see. The Tigers aren’t going anywhere, new ownership or not.

Detroit has a relatively new park. That was a huge move ownership has made in recent history. So an old and outdated park isn’t in the conversation. So, beyond that, what would benefit a buyer by relocating the team that can’t be accomplished here in Detroit. A new ownership can improve the team and system here without moving. There is a fan base in Detroit starving for competent leadership and investment. This doesn’t require moving the team at all. I’m not understanding how an owner can improve his wealth, per se, by relocating the franchise. Besides, I’m pretty sure MLB would not allow a new owner to relocate this franchise, period. Am I missing something here?

Why would a potential buyer not keep the team in Detroit? Seriously.

I remember some conversation about this last year. Good to see we’re moving in the right direction in 2022 🙄

The elusive win #10.

I would definitely look at bringing Grossman back.

Hinch is no better in Detroit than Ausmus was, to date.

Surely you jest! The magic was in the trash cans.

Yep, that’ll do it.

But for a few well placed trash cans…?

Comment was unprofessional and uncalled for. Maybe it was intended to be a joke-poor timing.

Without question. Shortly after Hinch was hired he conducted interviews that would give you the impression, if you didn’t know better, that he was the GM. At the time that was my impression when hearing him speak. I honestly think Al has relied heavily on Hinch’s opinions and advice.