Alexander Hamilton, Economic Prophet
I cannot recommend Ron Chernow's book (of which the above article heavily excerpts) more highly for the detail and scope of what it undertakes to cover on one of the "forgotten Founding Fathers."
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Points to Ponder:
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
Let’s take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your children won’t decide when they’re in school where they will go or what they will do for a living. They will wait for the government to tell them where they will go to work and what they will do.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
Former Representative Halleck of Indiana has said, “When the American people want something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if your representative writes back to you and tells you that he or she too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let them get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell them that you believe in government economy and fiscal responsibility; that you know governments don’t tax to get the money the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say “I have heard from my constituents and this is what they want.”
Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. [Ronald Reagan (circa 1961)]
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings on "ObamaCare":
This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...
[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.
And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)
In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.
This was originally written as a footnote for a posting in another publishing medium. Without further ado...
[I]f this health care crap goes through, I will be considered a criminal. Because I am not going to buy health insurance PERIOD unless it is a purely catastrophic-only policy. I do not want health insurance, I do not need it, I take reasonably good care of myself and am improving in this area with each passing year (hence I look younger now than I did ten years ago), I never go to the emergency room for anything, I pay cash every time I go to the doctor, and I do not want to subsidize those who are irresponsible with their own health choices. So if this crap is passed, I will be fined and will not pay that fine which means I will have a misdemeanor on my otherwise spotless record and probably spend time in jail on this. Those who wonder why I rarely comment on this list and am slacking on my blogging in recent months, the reason is I am working through various channels to build coalitions politically to fight this garbage.
And though I have said it for months in other mediums, I have predicted a 40 seat GOP pickup in the House next year (and 6 in the Senate) of which I note here for the record. Unlike a lot of commentators or apologists, if I am wrong on something I will admit to it later to the same extent in which the original comment was made. (In this case, a post-post script of a list posting.)
In the aftermath of the last election, I revised my prediction to be a 41 seat GOP pickup in the House because Owens will not win re-election.
One problem with knowing history when most people do not is you can see when it is repeating itself and many people do not listen. VDH goes over recent and more ancient history and points to parallels that more people should be aware of. And of course his indictment of Obama's governing is one I would love to see an O-bot respond to but I am not holding my breath!!!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats
This was originally supposed to be posted in early October but I was unable to finish it until now. Nonetheless, Sean Trende has a good article here on the Kilgore election prediction absurdities. I did not have a chance to write an analysis on Kilgore's article but Trende now makes any effort on my part in that area superfluous. I will accompany this with my own reasons for espousing this for what is going on{1} but here it is in a nutshell: I have been saying since June in various and sundry places{2} that I was predicting a 40/6 seat pickup for the Republicans in 2010.
My 40 seat prediction{3} is a number incidentally that Michael Barone has since come around to viewing as "dark horse possibility" as of late compared to "not a snowballs chance" which was his view only six weeks earlier. Charlie Cook is now saying the odds of 40 in the House picked up is in the "33-50% range" compared to earlier when he was not so bold.{4} Here were my thoughts on this matter as of five weeks ago as expressed elsewhere:
[T]he entire House is up for re-election and there are about 50 seats in districts that went for McCain that are Democratic. Add to that the fact that there are Democratic incumbents in weak districts who have voted for crap and tax and also for this health care boondoggle and also that more seniors vote in off-elections than any other constituency and the seniors are PISSED at Obama and the Dems. The Senate for the demographic alignment issues cannot be taken in this cycle (though 6 seats as I said would be a nice dent into their advantage and solidify a filibuster: out of 34 odd seats up in this cycle that is about as good as it could get) and Obama is not up for re-election for three years at that point. So the anger at these arrogant Democratic majorities running roughshod over the public will have to come out somewhere and my guess is the body of congress where everyone is up for re-election and which is chaired by the highly unpopular Nancy Pelosi (who herself will win with about 73% of the vote in her district and therefore does not have the same fear as many of her colleagues will). I remind you in 1994 there was a 54 seat pickup and the environment now is a lot worse than it was then because the bills people were pissed about back then (assault weapons ban and Clinton's 1993 budget raising taxes) are nothing compared to the ones now (crap and tax passing the House with all but 8 votes from Democrats, the government run- health care that the public does not want and which they have been trying to ram through without anyone being able to read). Despite it all, a 40 seat gain would not match the 54 seat gain from 1994 but it would be enough for them to lose the House. And it may even be worse than that.
People like Kilgore can keep telling themselves it will be nothing because the guys in Jaws did not need a bigger boat either!!!
Notes:
{1} I am not sure if I covered any of this on the weblog offhand and do not have time to look for it if I did.
{2} As far as this weblog goes, see footnote one.
{3} Which since Owens won in NY 23 I have subsequently revised to a 41/6 prediction.
{4} Instead, saying the odds were "less than 25%".
This was originally supposed to be posted in early October but I was unable to finish it until now. Nonetheless, Sean Trende has a good article here on the Kilgore election prediction absurdities. I did not have a chance to write an analysis on Kilgore's article but Trende now makes any effort on my part in that area superfluous. I will accompany this with my own reasons for espousing this for what is going on{1} but here it is in a nutshell: I have been saying since June in various and sundry places{2} that I was predicting a 40/6 seat pickup for the Republicans in 2010.
My 40 seat prediction{3} is a number incidentally that Michael Barone has since come around to viewing as "dark horse possibility" as of late compared to "not a snowballs chance" which was his view only six weeks earlier. Charlie Cook is now saying the odds of 40 in the House picked up is in the "33-50% range" compared to earlier when he was not so bold.{4} Here were my thoughts on this matter as of five weeks ago as expressed elsewhere:
[T]he entire House is up for re-election and there are about 50 seats in districts that went for McCain that are Democratic. Add to that the fact that there are Democratic incumbents in weak districts who have voted for crap and tax and also for this health care boondoggle and also that more seniors vote in off-elections than any other constituency and the seniors are PISSED at Obama and the Dems. The Senate for the demographic alignment issues cannot be taken in this cycle (though 6 seats as I said would be a nice dent into their advantage and solidify a filibuster: out of 34 odd seats up in this cycle that is about as good as it could get) and Obama is not up for re-election for three years at that point. So the anger at these arrogant Democratic majorities running roughshod over the public will have to come out somewhere and my guess is the body of congress where everyone is up for re-election and which is chaired by the highly unpopular Nancy Pelosi (who herself will win with about 73% of the vote in her district and therefore does not have the same fear as many of her colleagues will). I remind you in 1994 there was a 54 seat pickup and the environment now is a lot worse than it was then because the bills people were pissed about back then (assault weapons ban and Clinton's 1993 budget raising taxes) are nothing compared to the ones now (crap and tax passing the House with all but 8 votes from Democrats, the government run- health care that the public does not want and which they have been trying to ram through without anyone being able to read). Despite it all, a 40 seat gain would not match the 54 seat gain from 1994 but it would be enough for them to lose the House. And it may even be worse than that.
People like Kilgore can keep telling themselves it will be nothing because the guys in Jaws did not need a bigger boat either!!!
Notes:
{1} I am not sure if I covered any of this on the weblog offhand and do not have time to look for it if I did.
{2} As far as this weblog goes, see footnote one.
{3} Which since Owens won in NY 23 I have subsequently revised to a 41/6 prediction.
{4} Instead, saying the odds were "less than 25%".
Harry Reid on the Cloture Vote Today (HotAir)
A lot could be said about this but basically: comparing those who do not want to imprison others to Leviathan as "Orwellian" puts the "iron" in "ironic" Senator Reid. Does the "D" after your name stand for "Douchebag", "Dumbshit", or both???
A lot could be said about this but basically: comparing those who do not want to imprison others to Leviathan as "Orwellian" puts the "iron" in "ironic" Senator Reid. Does the "D" after your name stand for "Douchebag", "Dumbshit", or both???
Video: Norah O’Donnell challenges teen Palin admirer to televised debate (Hot Air)
This has to be seen to be believed. I will be posting a thread written about three months ago which follows up on the theme of corruption in journalism but for the moment, this is a case study in how far the msm has degenerated.
This has to be seen to be believed. I will be posting a thread written about three months ago which follows up on the theme of corruption in journalism but for the moment, this is a case study in how far the msm has degenerated.
Breitbart To AG Eric Holder: Investigate ACORN or We Will Release More Tapes Just Before the Election
Having already written in some detail on the subject of ACORN and corruption in recent months{1} along other matters pertaining to this issue{2}, I want to reiterate something I have said more than once in various and sundry other mediums if not this one:
Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart are genuine journalists as well as heroes.
And considering how badly 2010 is already going to be for the Democrats{3}, this news from Andrew Breitbart could very well only compound things beyond even what I have predicted{4} will happen.
Notes:
{1} On ACORN and Corruption (circa October 1, 2009)
{2} On Hannah Giles, ACORN, and the Fourth Amendment (circa October 24, 2009)
{3} I will go over this later today when I have more time and motivation to.
{4} See footnote three.
Having already written in some detail on the subject of ACORN and corruption in recent months{1} along other matters pertaining to this issue{2}, I want to reiterate something I have said more than once in various and sundry other mediums if not this one:
Hannah Giles, James O'Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart are genuine journalists as well as heroes.
And considering how badly 2010 is already going to be for the Democrats{3}, this news from Andrew Breitbart could very well only compound things beyond even what I have predicted{4} will happen.
Notes:
{1} On ACORN and Corruption (circa October 1, 2009)
{2} On Hannah Giles, ACORN, and the Fourth Amendment (circa October 24, 2009)
{3} I will go over this later today when I have more time and motivation to.
{4} See footnote three.
To pick up on something I just noted in another posting, I was recently made privy to the fact that someone else has decided to take up the sort of stuff the now defunct Coalition of Fog used to do and run a weblog directed against the idiocies of one Mark Shea. I wish them the best of luck in retaining their sanity as they attempt to navigate the depths of Shea's psyche.
I can sympathize for those who are ticketed and certainly if the cops were not supposed to give tickets for failing to speak English, they should not have. But at the same time, I am SICK AND TIRED of people who come to this country or are here a generation or more who do not assimilate. You can keep your native traditions and language within your family, etc. but in order to vote, in order to drive, in order to receive any benefit whatsoever, you should assimilate and learn the English language. Otherwise get the HELL out of this country!!!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Congressman Says He Now Has ‘About 40 Likeminded Democrats’ Who Will Vote to Kill Health Bill if He Doesn’t Get Floor Vote on Pro-Life Amendment
Though ultimately the above amendment was passed and Nancy Pelosi's proposed health care bill along with it by a narrow margin (220-115), the principles I wrote in another medium retain their validity.
To reiterate them at this time, I do not for a second believe anyone who claims something is "not in the bill" who then votes against amendments to insure that what is "not in the bill" is not later on snuck into said bill either by rider, interpretation, etc.{1} Abortion whatever you think about it is not "health care" and therefore an amendment like this -which insures that any bill passed cannot later be interpreted or applied to allow for abortion- is wholly appropriate. I would personally prefer to see this whole misguided attempt at so-called "health care reform" crumble and burn in toto but if something is going to get through, than the more innocuous and less damaging, the better.
Note:
{1} Such people are unethical hypocritical pieces of garbage and should be shunned by anyone who purports to take reason, logic, and ethics seriously.
Though ultimately the above amendment was passed and Nancy Pelosi's proposed health care bill along with it by a narrow margin (220-115), the principles I wrote in another medium retain their validity.
To reiterate them at this time, I do not for a second believe anyone who claims something is "not in the bill" who then votes against amendments to insure that what is "not in the bill" is not later on snuck into said bill either by rider, interpretation, etc.{1} Abortion whatever you think about it is not "health care" and therefore an amendment like this -which insures that any bill passed cannot later be interpreted or applied to allow for abortion- is wholly appropriate. I would personally prefer to see this whole misguided attempt at so-called "health care reform" crumble and burn in toto but if something is going to get through, than the more innocuous and less damaging, the better.
Note:
{1} Such people are unethical hypocritical pieces of garbage and should be shunned by anyone who purports to take reason, logic, and ethics seriously.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
On the White Hizzouse Targeting Fox News:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This material was originally written to expand further on something written in another publishing medium by a good friend on the subjects noted in the title of this posting. It is posted here slightly revised and sans the original material of interaction but those who want to know the context can review this speech by Senator Lamar Alexander delivered on the Senate floor today to understand the magnitude of the subject at hand. -ISM]
While I watch Fox less than most others of my general outlook who watch it, those who would find nothing wrong with Fox being attacked by a sitting president and his administration in many cases would have crapped their pants if President George W. Bush and his administration had tried similar things with the alphabet channels, CNN, or MSNBC. Apologists of various views often do not follow a simple but important principle that what is right or wrong is right or wrong period, not determined by who does a particular action. The government trying to intimidate or silence the press outside of rare circumstances{1} is wrong PERIOD. It is what happens in police states and banana republics, NOT a society purporting to be a free Republic such as ours which talks about the importance of free speech and democratic rights.
There is a reason that while the mainstream media is dying and the lions share of their papers and publications are dwindling in subscriptions and it is not because of the internet. I say this because similar declines are not only avoided by Fox News but also The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily all of which are increasing in subscribers. The Washington Times saw a decline but roughly less than half a percent which is probably too small to consider any kind of trend. The pattern is that periodicals and networks that do not actually do investigative journalism and do not report the news are losing viewers and readers while those that do these things are increasing.
If anyone needs a case in point to substantiate this assertion, I will go one better and provide you with two:
1) CNN purports to "fact check" the SNL comedy skit mocking President Obama for his two presidential accomplishments (namely "jack" and "squat").
2) The biggest story of corruption in decades was uncovered by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe in busting ACORN:{2} those two did more investigative journalism on that matter than every news network. And only Fox was willing to give them airtime. The others avoided it as long as they could and when they did report it, they tried to make excuses for ACORN and find ways of shooting the messengers.
Those two alone outline the reason why while I get most of my news from the web when I do turn on a television to watch the news, 95% of the time I turn to Fox News. And the actions by the Obama administration only make me more determined in that choice. Any liberal who would claim to want "free speech" who would NOT defend Fox News from government intrusion and intimidation is a hypocrite and deserves to be exposed as such. (Conversely, any liberal who would go to bat for Fox News against government intrusion and intimidation deserves to be commended for their principled stand.)
Notes:
{1} There are very few of these areas and I am not about to go over them now except to state that the general rule I refer to here does have a few exceptions.
{2} I went over this subject in an expository musing on ACORN and corruption written mostly in mid September but completed and finally posted with last minute updates on October 1, 2009.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: This material was originally written to expand further on something written in another publishing medium by a good friend on the subjects noted in the title of this posting. It is posted here slightly revised and sans the original material of interaction but those who want to know the context can review this speech by Senator Lamar Alexander delivered on the Senate floor today to understand the magnitude of the subject at hand. -ISM]
While I watch Fox less than most others of my general outlook who watch it, those who would find nothing wrong with Fox being attacked by a sitting president and his administration in many cases would have crapped their pants if President George W. Bush and his administration had tried similar things with the alphabet channels, CNN, or MSNBC. Apologists of various views often do not follow a simple but important principle that what is right or wrong is right or wrong period, not determined by who does a particular action. The government trying to intimidate or silence the press outside of rare circumstances{1} is wrong PERIOD. It is what happens in police states and banana republics, NOT a society purporting to be a free Republic such as ours which talks about the importance of free speech and democratic rights.
There is a reason that while the mainstream media is dying and the lions share of their papers and publications are dwindling in subscriptions and it is not because of the internet. I say this because similar declines are not only avoided by Fox News but also The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily all of which are increasing in subscribers. The Washington Times saw a decline but roughly less than half a percent which is probably too small to consider any kind of trend. The pattern is that periodicals and networks that do not actually do investigative journalism and do not report the news are losing viewers and readers while those that do these things are increasing.
If anyone needs a case in point to substantiate this assertion, I will go one better and provide you with two:
1) CNN purports to "fact check" the SNL comedy skit mocking President Obama for his two presidential accomplishments (namely "jack" and "squat").
2) The biggest story of corruption in decades was uncovered by Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe in busting ACORN:{2} those two did more investigative journalism on that matter than every news network. And only Fox was willing to give them airtime. The others avoided it as long as they could and when they did report it, they tried to make excuses for ACORN and find ways of shooting the messengers.
Those two alone outline the reason why while I get most of my news from the web when I do turn on a television to watch the news, 95% of the time I turn to Fox News. And the actions by the Obama administration only make me more determined in that choice. Any liberal who would claim to want "free speech" who would NOT defend Fox News from government intrusion and intimidation is a hypocrite and deserves to be exposed as such. (Conversely, any liberal who would go to bat for Fox News against government intrusion and intimidation deserves to be commended for their principled stand.)
Notes:
{1} There are very few of these areas and I am not about to go over them now except to state that the general rule I refer to here does have a few exceptions.
{2} I went over this subject in an expository musing on ACORN and corruption written mostly in mid September but completed and finally posted with last minute updates on October 1, 2009.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Briefly on the Al Cy Young:
The AL Cy Young was given recently to Zach Greinke of Kansas City. The following were my original statements made on October 4, 2009 in another publishing medium as to who should get it this year -later buttressed by additional arguments to sustain my original assertions but here were my original thoughts on the matter which remain unchanged in lieu of the recent news.
CC Sabathia in my mind blew his shot at the Cy Young by failing to win his 20th game in his final start and thus giving some limp to the Yankees going into the playoffs. Zach Greinke by blowing his final start should also lose out on the Cy Young since he had a chance to play spoiler for the Twins' playoff chances and did not get the job done.
King Felix won his 19th game and with an ERA in the 2's with the third fewest walks (after Greinke and Roy Halliday) is therefore is my defacto pick for the Cy Young. In my mind, besides the stats a player should do whatever he can to advance his team so the jury is still out on Verlander in my mind but if he loses today, no Cy Young for him give it to King Felix.
The AL Cy Young was given recently to Zach Greinke of Kansas City. The following were my original statements made on October 4, 2009 in another publishing medium as to who should get it this year -later buttressed by additional arguments to sustain my original assertions but here were my original thoughts on the matter which remain unchanged in lieu of the recent news.
CC Sabathia in my mind blew his shot at the Cy Young by failing to win his 20th game in his final start and thus giving some limp to the Yankees going into the playoffs. Zach Greinke by blowing his final start should also lose out on the Cy Young since he had a chance to play spoiler for the Twins' playoff chances and did not get the job done.
King Felix won his 19th game and with an ERA in the 2's with the third fewest walks (after Greinke and Roy Halliday) is therefore is my defacto pick for the Cy Young. In my mind, besides the stats a player should do whatever he can to advance his team so the jury is still out on Verlander in my mind but if he loses today, no Cy Young for him give it to King Felix.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Matthew Continetti is right: the idea that "they will get something done on health care" that is being floated around by pundits of various stripes is playing into a myth. There is nothing in stone saying that they will get anything done and when you look at the magnitude of the hurdles and the various competing and often glaring contradictions in different constituencies, etc., it should be glaringly evident that it will be darn difficult to pass even a severely watered down bill that will make all parties in the House happy{1}, likewise in the Senate. Then said divergent congressional bills would have to be reconciled in a way to make all parties happy and pass both houses before the president could sign and seal the deal. In other words, A LOT to do and quite possibly impossible. Keep your chins up, keep calling congresspeople and senators, and keep fighting folks!!!
Note:
{1} I originally wrote this for another publishing medium in the days before the House voted on Pelosi's bill last Saturday night barely passing it 220-215. Other than the bit footnoted, I stand by the rest of what is noted above.
Berkeley Breathed, drawn back to 'Bloom County' but looking forward | Hero Complex (Los Angeles Times)
Yeah Berke Breathed is mostly a liberal but I gotta admit that I miss Bloom County and am looking forward at some point in the future to getting the five volume anthology of every strip ever drawn.
Yeah Berke Breathed is mostly a liberal but I gotta admit that I miss Bloom County and am looking forward at some point in the future to getting the five volume anthology of every strip ever drawn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)