gehringer_2

I saw that too - good line.

this would be a lot more entertaining to speculate about if the real stakes weren't so high for so many people - especially poor women. None the less I think you are right that political considerations are at the top of the Justices' minds on both sides. Despite Buddha's protestations there seem to be ample smoke signals saying collegiality and dispassionate consideration of the inherent virtue of issues inside this court is a distant memory. I can see various possibilities - granting those you touched on, maybe adding that there might also be some feeling in the opposite direction of 'if not now, when' about going through with the repeal of Roe just because this may the conservative political power high water mark. It all depends on where the electorate turns in reaction to Trump - or more to the point where the conservative Justices think the electorate turns. I still have hope a major repudiation is brewing out there in the hinterlands - if that is what conservative justices see then it could lead to a 'get all you can now strategy', whereas if they see Biden as just a speed bump on the way to 'inevitable' conservative political dominance, then a strategy that avoids temporarily derailing that and that lets an even stronger conservative political position later give them more cover to move law toward their preferences without generating as much political cost as it might today.

did a little reading on this and from what I found the change apparently is not so much in surgical technique but in the adoption of more aggressive rehab approaches that prevent the atrophy that would normally occur with an injury that has a long rehab. Also some mention of improving the precision of the repair length.

Article in WaPo sort of sets up Luttig as the source/leader of a principled conservative judicial backlash against Trumpism. Don't know if there is anything to that or if it would have any prospect of making a difference, but Greg Sargent spins there is. If anything, most of the conservative judiciary has refused to do anything for Trump anyway. I don't think the MAGAs at the political grassroots are looking to Federal judges for their marching orders in any case. Not to mention that the two judges most likely to throw the republic under the bus, Alito and Thomas, are most certainly beyond the reach of any kind of counter movement.

If the economy turns down, will that cause owners to pull back? Certainly some sources of revenue with fall, but if more people stay home might the value of broadcast right go up?

My target price for Tsla would be closer to $200.

Reasonable K rate as well (22%).

I agree rehab has become a crutch for inaction. A 25 yr old doesn't lose his ability to bat in a week.

The problem for the Dems is that their majority is just two narrow. Sure we can say the left lost the Manchins, but had Biden done enough surgery for Manchin and he loses the AOC side caucus it's the same discussion just from the opposite other way. It's normal to lose votes on the edges with major legislation, the Dems just don't have the majorities sufficient for 'normal' to apply. It also goes back to the mess the Senate has become. You might have gotten pieces of BBB with full Dem caucus support in individual bills, but in the current version of the Senate, you can't pass legislation with simple majorities in our supposed democratic country. So you have to bundle everything together and try to put it through in omnibus style with the filibuster rules doesn't apply.

Sure. I was just commenting out of my sense (after having lived there for a time) that unlike Detroit where we tend to have an inferiority complex about acknowledging the limits our market will support, they almost treat it as part of their civic virtue.

I could be wrong but I think 1776 is also being a bit tongue in cheek about a typo in MB's post. It doesn't say "four separate fatherless homes" it says "four separate childless homes"

he got 4 yrs. He's gotten enough of our time.

who knows? - I was presenting that as more the after the fact inference of his negotiating bottom lines. He either wanted big guaranteed money or at least big short term money with a short term opt out. From my perspective the Tigers wouldn't have (shouldn't have?) had the confidence in him for the former and were just not much interested in the later. And even there we assume facts not in evidence that Correa was even ready to talk short term before the lock-out.

well, 'Hell", "Twins" and "10/350" might go together in a true sentence, but it would be more likely to be : Hell will freeze over before the Twins give 10/350 to anybody."

I find it interesting historically that up until WWII, the US in general had a culturally inferiority complex to Europe and we were always looking for European innovations to steal, upgrade and apply here. Then a little success at global warfare and suddenly no-one can tell us anything and US shit don't stink anymore.

Sure, this is the key. No-one was going to give him >$300M without him proving his health. He was not going to take anything less than >$300M without the 1 yr opt out so he could try for his big payday again. So that's fine, but given that there is no fit there for the Tigers, so why are we complaining he's not here? (just to complete the thought, one yr does work for Minny because they thought they had a shot this season and they have a close prospect for next yr)

No actually they did. It is prima facie evidence top of market because no-one ever did top it and he ended up settling for something short term with a lot less total PV. I can ask for whatever I want, that doesn't make a market. Offers make a market. I think this is a pretty silly discussion (not that's anything different here! ). The guy was on the market, the Tigers talked to him, made an offer, no deal. Happens All. the. time. End of story. He ended up signing a deal that would have been of almost no value to the Tigers. Imputing a ton of ulterior motives and strategies is just spinning.

Not sure why Thomas would have leaked the Dobbs draft. I still tend to think it was Roberts, though on the other hand I don't know if I can give him credit for being that devious. I do think it is interesting how much time has passed between that leak and the non-release of an actual decision - maybe the time is not unusual yet but it has been a while.

I'm sorry, I'm not that impressed with Dave's trading. It's easy to up your current value when you are giving away younger resources and adding payroll. It's just not that big a trick. The reason that not many other GMs get the benefit of adding that kind of instant upgrade trade to their resume is that most owners see past them to the price to be paid later and don't like them.

The Verlander deal was stupid, stupid to make in the first place, stupid to make the particular deal that was made. But keeping him would have been a commitment to rebuild 'on the fly' and they would have had to have moved a lot faster than they have so far do that.

Yeah - bidding against yourself gets you the Dontrelle Willis or Cabrera deal. Wait - wasn't it our one-time dealing genius that came up with those two? Couldn't have been.

due diligence. Why would you not explore a deal? All fans get is press reports and strategic leaks. Until a GM sits down with an agent, it's all nonsense. But there is a larger point I would come back to, which is that if we had MN's deal for Correa right now there would be a huge complaint that all we did was waste 35M on a rental that could have been better spent a dozen other ways.

From Bill Clinton forward the Dems have definitely lost their way. But how much of that is driven by the campaign system? Do candidates have any choice but to try to make nice to at least some section of Wall Street to raise the funds they need? I'm pretty sure Hillary's embrace of Wall Street types was one of the things that left so many young and blue collar dems uninspired about her candidacy.

The solution to this is more people voting in primaries. But too many people want to be able to wash their hands and say 'I'm not a member of either party, it's not my fault they keep putting up crazies in the general election" Well, yes it is, you have chances in every election cycle to help determine the trajectory of the party you have the most affinity for, if you don't use it, you leave the field to the crazies. And it also is if you don't go vote in the general because there is no issue motivating you enough to care if a crazy wins there. Less than 30% identity as members of either party. If primary turnout is 1/2 of party affiliated voters like the general is 1/2 of all voters, that puts 15% of the total population voting in a primary and so 8% wins the day. When 8% of the population can pick your candidate, sure - you've got a problem.

Did he ever have any resources to work with? I have no idea. But It is almost comic though how much Avila is the anti Dombrowski. He may been Dave's #2 but it sure looks like Dave must have shot down any suggestions to do any of things Al has done since he took over. Still, the failure is how slow all the moves have been. If all the scouting and MiLB resources needed revamping and new tech, why wasn't all that complete 3-4 yrs ago so we would be seeing the results now. Maybe that was Ilitch's choice (no reflection on Al), or maybe that was as fast a Avila was able to figure it out (major reflection on Al).