gehringer_2

👍

This is weird MB. You have quoted a post of mine, but part of what appears in the quote was not in the original post? How does that happen? I posted excerpts from an article by D French directly from the NYT website to open that thread. It was all text only, and here where you quote my post, there is a demographics chart was not in the original post or in the original NYT story. Where did that come from? I'm also not sure what the post as to do with Tlaib but that's a different question.

this has always been one of my favs...: 😱

It is probably true for most people, that whether consciously or not, they first react emotionally to some question, then attach themselves intellectually to some rational arguments in support of what they feel about it. Then if/when they enter into some kind of dialogue about it, maybe their mind changes or they think the arguments they adopted remain strong enough that they hold to their position. But there a process (a dialectic if you will) where terms get defined and points of agreement and disagreement and fundamental premises are stated. That is sort of the ideal level of an integrated human intellect. What I think we see more and more of today is with social and media segregation the second part of the process never gets off the ground for too many. They aren't prepared to go beyond their negative emotional response to something and make any defense of why what they are feeling should be justifiable to anyone else who disagrees. There are kindred spirits in their immediate circle who validate them and that is enough. Thus to reject someone's feelings becomes the same as not allowing them their argument. Both sides play to this, but conservatism, being based on resistance to/fear of possible unwelcome consequences of change has a natural predisposition to play to fear above all other emotions, making it far more prone to this kind of elevation of emotion over rationality. For me to come to this conclusion is doubly ironic because in my political youth, it was conservatives like William Buckley who were often the calmer more rational voices as opposed to the supercharged emotion of the anti-war movement. But in the long run I've realized the '60s were the anomaly in that regard. The atavistic fears of conservatism were there, they were just disguised with more sophistication.

Political expediency makes for strange bedfellows. Apparently nothing personal. TBH, Obama didn't have too many scruples about donning the mantle of the imperial presidency once he was facing the dog and pony show Congress under Boehner.

that's a little broader than my guy was aiming for but it works too. Funny thing was that as I mentioned, this guy was from/lived in Southern Ind, and his name was Bob Knight. Lucky for him there was little physical resemblance (he was about 5"10 and I don't remember any particular tendency toward red sweaters....) but it must have been a pain to constantly explain who he wasn't to strangers on the phone. 🤣

To me one of Walz's strengths is that he won't shy from the label, he embraces it and can explain to you why he, as a 'Bubba' himself, thinks you need to see what he does. He also has the advantage that in Minnesota, you might say liberalism is very conservative. I know that sounds weird, but people in MN tend to be both liberal and hard headed (living there was sort of the antithesis of A^2!), so you seldom see even liberal programs in MN that have silly or ideological excesses - so I'm going to guess his liberalism carries less potential baggage as your average 'coastal elite' liberal might.

I like that. A guy I used to work for (you could guess he was Indiana farm country) had a favorite about the market which was "Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered."

As of this moment the S&P is still up about 5% over the last 6 months, 16% over the last yr. Buy and hold investors are really suffering, aren't we?

This. And Walz may be the most articulate speaker since Bill Clinton when he talks about why liberialism/social welfare works for everyone. He argues the straight line from things like better child welfare and education to a safer more productive society in a very difficult to dispute manner. His argument for universal versus means testing school lunches is a great example - he gives two reasons, one for the conservatives and one for the liberals. 1), the universal program is so much easier to administer it's actually cheaper and 2) it prevents the immediate class distinction forming between haves and have nots in the lunchroom.

It will also help energize the progressives. Harris doesn't really have the kind of progressive street cred, Walz does.

I like it. Don't try to be too clever, just pick a good guy. One of the things Walz said during his podcast with Ezra Klein was that as a political leader, you should have an agenda of what you want to do, and if you get it done, you should move on. Not something you hear very often. Now who knows, maybe that's a well practiced line, but it still highlights that he brings some different rhetorical ideas as a campaigner.

The whole organization is risible and it's entire premise is superfluous in a world of paid athletes. When does the whole facade collapse under the weight of its own contradictions? Can't be soon enough.

Overnight futures on the 4 indexes all running up 1%-2% even you post this. Neither making the Yen carry trade less attractive or letting some air out of future expectations for AI really has much to do with the near term health of the US economy.

My memory is not good, but I seem to recall there was a game last season where this was looking like a possibility but then it didn't happen, and it is hard to believe it hasn't happened yet.

well there is certainly no excuse for any manager who puts a reliever into a game after the reliever tells him he is going to blow the save. Wait, What? ... you mean they *don't* tell them? Well that's poor.....

didn't they say last week the announcement would be this Tuesday? Always good to be on schedule.

Good point. There may be fewer Al Kalines but you also see fewer Greg Luzinskis

but Alito and Thomas only in part. /...sigh../

It's a bonus kind of thing isn't it? Not going to decide as many games as the bat and when the steroid era hit and everyone was pumping up that just wasn't good for the ability to throw and there was a period where there was real dearth of guys with good arms. I think it has come back some, hard to know how much just because you have a lot more players today. You might be able to pull as many good arms out of today's league as you had in 1960, but they would still play a much smaller percentage of the total innings played so they make less difference.

Parker wasn't a big HR guy, but a true 5 tool guy during his good years.

Well if if the was Pence, they'd have to make sure Karen Pence was eligible for a top security clearance since Mike wouldn't able to talk to his boss without her in the room....

and you see more guys who start out throwing well, but don't maintain it as deep into their career the way a Kaline did. I will say that I think there is a just a little bit of trend back. Training science is good enough today that it doesn't have to be as much a binary choice as it was and we I think we are seeing more guys that throw well than maybe 10 yrs ago. Tigers haven't had one recently though. 😢

The first key is to get back to where debates are about how to cope with reality, rather than what reality is. You can argue about the former with good faith, arguments about the later too soon take on religious character.

And to think that for a couple of years, Kaline was playing next to Colavito, who also had a cannon. I think the way hitters strength train today just makes it impossible for as many guys to maintain the elasticity you need to throw like the old timers did, and hitting the ball hard is the name of the game so that's the way it is.