Getting Her Beak Wet

Interesting story on Yahoo! News.

They are reporting that Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) is paying his daughter (& her band) several thousand dollars per gig to play at his campaign appearances. (For the record, her band sucks.)

And there you go. That is the way politicians like to legally funnel campaign money to themselves and their associates. It reminds me of this story as another notable example. A little less recent was this one.

Okay, so you may be thinking/wondering: You're right again, Derek Anderson Fan... but why did you return to blogging to notify us of something that happens all the time?

Good question.

The answer is that I could not let this lousy reporting by Yahoo! News stand without comment. Their article states:

Earlier this week, 80's one-hit wonder band "Survivor" sued Newt Gingrich over his use of the song "Eye of the Tiger" at his rallies.

One hit wonder?!?! Excuse me, sir, but check their Wikipedia page. In addition to the #1 hit "Eye of the Tiger", they had other chart hits like "Burning Heart" (#2), "The Search is Over" (#4), "High on You (#8), and others. You can't ignore history, sir! Just because, in retrospect, those songs really suck doesn't mean they were not hits.

And deep down, you have to admit, "Burning Heart" is pretty cool.

"Sebelius and Obama Should Be Ashamed"

As is often the case, I'm a few days late with this post but I'm sure our loyal follower (the GoogleBot) won't mind.

The latest kick in the balls to the progressive movement by the Obama administration came last week when Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health & Human Services) announced that despite an FDA finding that 'Plan B' posed no health threats and could be sold over-the-counter without restriction, the Obama administration was maintaining the status quo that girls under the age of 17 would need a prescription to receive the medication (despite the fact that it needs to be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter to be effective - which essentially eliminates the possibility of getting a prescription quick enough for it to matter).

When asked about this at a press conference last week, Obama replied that he didn't want a 10 year old being able to buy medication next to batteries and bubble gum that "if not taken properly could be harmful".

That is a load of bullshit, no?!?

Couldn't that line of reasoning be applied to just about anything? I seem to recall that some jackhole died in the past year or two during a stupid radio-show stunt when he drank too much water! Does that mean we need to restrict water purchases because it could be harmful if not utilized properly?

It brings to mind a quote that I associate with Ani DiFranco:

Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.

Moreover, think back to when you were ten... were you perusing the pharmaceuticals looking for medication? When I was ten and happened to get my hands on a few precious dollars, I was buying baseball cards and/or candy. Did I miss out on a rite of childhood? The recreational use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals? And, by the way, considering Obama bent over for Big PHaRMA during the health care reform debate, you'd think he'd be cheerleading people buying their products.

It also brings to mind an old Jerry Seinfeld joke about laundry detergent ads that stressed how good their product was at dealing with blood stains; Seinfeld observed that if you're dealing with clothes with bloodstains all over it, maybe laundry stains aren't really your biggest concern! This feels like that, if a pre-teen is looking to use B (either legitimately or illegitimately as in Obama's ludicrous scenario), then I'm going to suggest that misusing medication (deemed to be safe by the FDA) is really not the biggest concern in this child's life.

This Could Go Either Way

I believe there has been only one occasion have I felt motivated to comment on a movie commercial. I take great pride in my calling out of how awful that stupid Adam Sandler/Jennifer Aniston movie was last winter. Now the resident Furriners buzzkill (Elijah Moon) will probably point out that EVERYBODY could see that was going to suck. Well, I have two points to make.

1. That movie, according to IMDB, grossed over $100m. So, clearly, not everyone knew it was going to suck!

and

2. Okay, Mr. Smartypants, did EVERYONE know that Derek Anderson was going to make the Pro Bowl when he was drafted in the 6th round?!?! I called that. (Now go get your shine box!)

But I digress. Last night was the first time I saw a commercial for a movie called Young Adult. From what I can tell, a woman played by Charlize Theron returns to her podunk hometown wanting to see how her old flame (played by Patrick Wilson) has turned out. When it turns out that he is now married with children, she goes to a bar and runs into an old classmate (played by Patton Oswalt) whom she apparently never would've acknowledged 20 years ago. It looks like they spend time together and they 'click'.


Okay. This is where I am concerned about the plausibility of where they are taking us with this plot. I sure hope they are not going to expect us to follow them to the Hollywood-ending of Charlize Theron learns a life lesson that true love/happiness can be found where you least expect it (in the arms of fucking Patton Oswalt!). YAWN!! We've seen that movie a million fucking times, Hollywood!! And it never gets more believable! If you wanted us to believe that, you should have cast Hillary Swank! Charlize Theron is much too gorgeous to sell that turd.

Now, all that said, this movie is written by Diablo Cody (Juno) and directed by Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank You For Smoking), so maybe it will surprise. This is not a guaranteed stinker - it's not like it's starring Cameron Diaz and David Arquette!

Take that, Elijah Moon! How many other people could see that this movie might really suck and might actually be good?!?

Corporations Are Not People!

It's always a touchy subject when you suggest you know how someone should "feel" about an issue. Emotions are, of course, not determined by the laws of reason.

Moreover, in making the argument I am about to make, I might be persuaded to take an entirely different view with a different protagonist.

Anyway, what I am talking about is that I just saw this article at Yahoo! News:

Microsoft Apologizes For Winehouse Tweet

It has been established that I am not on Twitter (and, hence, did not receive the "tweet" in question), but I was on Napster yesterday afternoon and they had a prominent graphic for their users to click to be directed to purchase the music of the recently deceased singer. It was obviously commercially motivated but I didn't consider it inappropriate or insensitively exploitative.

However, apparently, others did (keeping in mind the Microsoft "tweet" may have actually gone further. I don't know what it actually said, but I suppose I would have to concede that it is more aggressive marketing than the passive Napster graphic).

So today, we have a Microsoft "apology" where they say:

Apologies to everyone if our earlier Amy Winehouse 'download' tweet seemed purely commercially motivated.

Of course it was "commercially motivated"!! You're a corporation, that is what you do! And you know what, your "apology" is commercially motivated!! Some asshole in your Public Relations Department wrote it as damage control. That is it; it's not genuine contrition.

Anyways, I guess the point here is that despite what the US Supreme Court would lead us to believe, corporations are not people. They should NOT have the same rights and protections as people, nor should they necessarily be expected to show any human decency with regards to an artist's death.

The death of Ms. Winehouse is a commercial opportunity for these struggling music retailers and to expect them to not treat it as such is to personify them inappropriately.

I Call Bullshit: O'Reilly Factor Edition

First of all, I get the feeling from watching that show that one could devote a post a day to de-bunking the B.S. they are selling over at The O'Reilly Factor.

Also, I should say that I actually only watched a few segments of the show. There may have been other B.S. that I just didn't see.

Okay, so Mr. O'Reilly starts his show with The Memo (entitled Agony On The Left). It includes:

It is not good for the nation to borrow another $2T on top of the $14.5T we already owe. I think even the dimmest among us knows that is bad. Who wants to keep borrowing? The Left and it's leader, President Obama.

Okay. The use of the terms "not good" and "bad" are perhaps passable in only the most literal sense because, yes, we'd all love if the budget was balanced and everyone had free health care and our schools were perfect and we all got to marry supermodels and watch Derek Anderson make additional Pro Bowls. Other than the last one, none of this is likely to happen any time soon.

As for "who wants to keep borrowing?" line. Is it not disingenuous to indict Obama when The Paul Ryan Plan - which was voted for by 98% of GOP House members - would (officially) add $5T to the national debt over the next 10 years? And that is not to mention the preposterous assumptions his plan makes regarding the unemployment rate and future GDP growth!

After The Memo, Mr. O'Reilly speaks with Dick Morris. One topic they got into, after talking about how horrific President Obama is, was recent polls indicating that, nevertheless, Obama is beating Mitt Romney (47-41), Michelle Bachmann (50-37), Rick Perry (50-37), and Sarah Palin (53-34) in hypothetical 2012 matchups.

Mr. Morris, in a curious twist of logic, claims that means Romney is beating Obama by 6 points because, in a presidential election, undecideds always vote against the incumbent. "Always?", Mr. O'Reilly inquires. Yes, always claims Mr. Morris. He says "I worked for Bill Clinton and I'd take a poll and he'd be at 40 and Bob Dole would be at 40. I would say to him 'you're losing by 20 points' and he would understand that".

At that point, I thought hmmmm... did Bill Clinton not completely crush Bob Dole? It really doesn't seem as if Mr. Morris has any inclination to present any objective facts!

Mr. Morris continues his analysis of the poll by saying that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are only losing because many voters don't know who they are. Does it not seem odd to jump to that conclusion when the undecided in these polls range from 12 (in the Romney poll) to 13 (in each of the other three hypothetical matchups)? What is the evidence that indicates that name recognition is holding back Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry? (Not to mention that I think most independents would, in fact, become less inclined to vote for those two as they learned more about them!)

Wait! I'm not done with Mr. Morris. He crammed a lot of bullshit in his five minutes on the show! As Mr. O'Reilly was about to end the segment, Mr. Morris had a point that he just needed to make -- like it was a really good point or something. He said:

They (Bachmann and Palin) are an existential threat to the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party is essentially based on women. Women and minorities. Therefore, when they see a conservative Republican woman, that threatens them in a way that a man never can. That is why they are so vitriolic against both of them.

Wow! That is some grade-A bullshit right there! There is little doubt that most actual Democrats would love, love, love for either of those two women to get the Republican nomination. They would have no shot at winning in a general election.

That said, I agree only in the sense that I have personally posted on this very blog about how I wish the media was not so fascinated with Sarah Palin. However, it should not be forgotten that is a media fascination - not a Democratic Party fascination. And it's a fascination that is not difficult to decipher. Ms. Palin apparently generates internet traffic; she draws eyeballs... however you want to say it. And to the extent the Democratic Party has any interest in Sarah Palin - it's merely as fundraising bait.

Existential threat?!?!? Wow! That is some wicked delusion he's peddling.

Later in the show, Dennis Miller was brought out. He addressed a topic that I posted on earlier in the week: the tax dispute with the fan that caught Derek Jeter's 3,000 hit. Mr. Miller first mentioned how they were going to "tax the kid's baseball" and followed it up with this longer thought-like fragment:

You can see how we're over-thinking things in this culture now that you can't even catch a ball and give it back to a guy without putting yourself into some weird system where (Tim) Geithner and The Fed come in like fireants and just try to burn it to the ground! It's crazy!

Where to begin with that one? First of all, what the fuck is he talking about bringing up Tim Geithner and The Fed? Talk about pandering to people's angst! Yeah, people can hate Mr. Geithner and The Fed. That is fine - but it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. This is tax law - long ago established through congressional legislation!

And just to be clear, they are not "taxing the kid's baseball". He could have caught it and given it back and nothing would have happened. But that is not what happened. He caught it, gave it back, and accepted compensation in the form of season tickets for a suite and assorted memorabilia in exchange for the ball. That is what is being taxed. It's just like if you win money or prizes on a game-show. That is taxable income. It has been for many, many years. I recall my parents lamenting in the 1980s how people who won prizes (such as a new car on The Price is Right) would have to come up with cash to pay the tax bill for such prizes. Also, consider this article from 2004 regarding people who received "free" cars from Oprah Winfrey.

But in Dennis Miller's world, blame Tim Geithner and/or The Federal Reserve. It's nuts.

I Call B.S. - Mark Mulder Edition

It should probably come as no surprise that new ESPN baseball analyst (and former oft-injured pitcher), Mark Mulder, does not know what he is talking about... the guy went to Michigan State! How embarrassing for him.

ESPN should probably hire smart guys like Chris Sabo or Barry Larkin to be analysts.... oh, they did hire Barry Larkin? Christ almighty!! Why do they need so many guys? Just re-hire Harold Reynolds and go with the classic lineup of John Kruk, Reynolds, and Peter Gammons and everybody will be happy! You could even keep Buster Olney and Tim Kurkjian. They do a good job too.

Anyway, back to Mark Mulder. Why was this guy hired? He clearly does not know what the heck he is talking about, as this is what he had to say regarding Justin Verlander's no-hitter on Saturday:

What makes him so good is the stuff that he has and he pitches to contact - which keeps his pitch count down (and) allows him to go deeper into games. I think if he wanted to, he could strike out a lot more guys but he chooses not to. He gets ahead and stays ahead and pitches to contact.

Okay, that is a reasonable analysis of the Justin Verlander that pitched the no-hitter on Saturday, but that is most definitely NOT consistent with what Tiger fans see on a start-to-start basis.

For example, "pitches to contact" who "chooses not to" go for strikeouts? You don't have to be a baseball historian like the aforementioned Tim Kurkjian to know that Justin Verlander led the major leagues in strikeouts in 2009 with 269. He followed that up with a fourth place finish in the A.L. in 2010 with 219. (By the way, he is currently tied for second in the league in 2011. He is one strikeout behind the current league leader, Dan Haren.)

To continue, then there is the "keeps his pitch count down" comment. That is such bollocks!! I got an e-mail from my father just last Wednesday where he completely unprompted wrote "Last line I saw on JV was 6 IP and 127 pitches... will he ever be able to pound strikes and develop command consistently?" Does that sound like a comment one would make about a guy who does a great job at keeping his pitch count down?

Want more evidence? Just look at JV's game log: Prior to the no-hitter, his last four starts were:

6 IP - 127 pitches
6 IP - 114 pitches
7 IP - 117 pitches
6 IP - 116 pitches

So let's not confuse JV with Greg Maddux or Orel Hershisher!

Oh, and one last piece of evidence. Prior to the no-hitter, Verlander was averaging ~17.0 pitches per inning. That is a total that would put him at the 7th highest in the league - behind six pitchers who don't have a sub-4.50 ERA amongst them as of this posting.

Memo to ESPN, please hire analysts who actually demonstrate that they know what they're talking about! And to reiterate, one hint that they don't know anything is a resume that mentions Michigan State.

Old Enough To Know Better

There is a quote that I often recall from Bill Maher - I don't know for sure that he is the first to make this observation but he is certainly the person I associate the comment with:

Don't become so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance.

I think when he uses it, it would often be used in the context of making sure liberals (in particular American liberals) don't accept, for example, something like Muslim oppression of women as just a legitimate part of their culture. I consider that good advice (for me) considering I am someone who took several classes in anthropology and have a natural tendency to accept cultural differences and view them all as equally valid. It's good to keep in my mind that, in some instances, cultural norms can be judged as "better" or "worse".

I thought of that comment yesterday while watching The Daily Show and seeing Jon Stewart casually defending a UCLA student who posted a racist rant on YouTube. Jon referred to her as an "18 or 19 year old kid (who) maybe doesn't understand what she was saying".

Come on! That is rubbish.

How does someone reach age 18 or 19 and not realize that racism is frowned upon and that even if you do have those feelings, it's probably a bad idea to broadcast them on the internet unless you can do so anonymously (and preferably in an "appropriate" forum)? (Which is to say that I assume there are racist websites all over the internet for people who want to bitch about minorities and immigrants... for example, www.foxnews.com.)

Also, by the way, UCLA is not necessarily a place for idiots. Although I concede I am hesitant to guarantee someone is as smart as their alma mater might suggest considering a mental midget like George W. Bush earned degrees from both Yale AND Harvard.

So, while I agree with Jon that the young lady is not necessarily "unredeemable"... how the hell would I know? In my opinion, Jon is going a little easy on her considering how repugnant her opinions are.

Amy Holmes Fail!

It is always annoying when a pundit says something that, as a viewer, you know is flatly untrue but the host of the show apparently is not aware of the error. (And I don't mean statistics that can be interpreted in multiple ways - even if a certain party stretches credibility for the sake of their interpretation.)

A noteworthy example from last year was when Newt Gingrich said on The Daily Show that Richard Reid (the "Shoe Bomber") was read his Miranda rights (by the Bush Justice Dept) only because "he was an American citizen" - when, in fact, Richard Reid is NOT an American citizen and, in that way, his situation was no different than the "Underwear Bomber". This showed the hypocrisy of the GOP (and the political Right) as they were blasting A.G. Eric Holder and the Obama Administration despite the fact they were following the same protocol that the Bush Administration had (when the GOP had not raised any objection to the reading of Miranda rights). (Note: While Jon Stewart did not correct Newt Gingrich during the interview - he did acknowledge Newt's factual error after they came back from commercial break).

Well, on last Friday's Dylan Ratigan Show, there was a factual error stated by conservative pundit Amy Holmes. There was a discussion of the budget and the need to make significant alterations to the entitlement programs when Ms. Holmes said:

Back in 2005, George Bush tried to do this and some say he wasted an entire year of his presidency and that's when Harry Reid was Majority Leader and Harry Reid didn't want to do it... so as long as Harry Reid is in charge of the United States Senate and the Democratic Party, I don't think you're going to see real progress.

I heard that and Dylan Ratigan just let it go. The fact is that Harry Reid was NOT Majority Leader in 2005! The Republican Party had 55 seats in the 109th congress and the Majority Leader was Bill Frist. George W. Bush could not get his privatization of Social Security plans through the Congress controlled by his own party. The public hated the proposal... according to the Brookings Institute:

Observors noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush's handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent--between his State of the Union address and June.

Anyway, I didn't want to do this post to re-debate the Bush plan. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy of Amy Holmes and the failure to correct by Dylan Ratigan. And, in the bigger picture, the hugely relevant point is that as Republicans try to re-write history (again!) with regards to their fiscal discipline --- it is important to always keep in mind the famous quote typically attributed to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I Call B.S. - Amy K. Nelson Edition

To be perfectly honest, this post probably does not really belong in the "I Call B.S." catalogue. This is more of a potentially shitty prediction from Jim Rome is Burning that I wanted to call attention to. And I guess I could add this to the B.S. Watch List on the right of your monitor.

Here we go:

Jim Rome: The Yankees. Nevermind a World Championship, with their pitching staff the way it is right now, do they even have enough to make the post-season?

Amy K. Nelson: I say 'no shot'... I see them having a lot of problems.

Jim Rome: They need something. They need somebody to help them win. The way they're set up right now, it's not enough.

Now as much as I want this to be true. I think one is WAY over-stepping to say "no shot". Do we not expect the Devil Rays (not a mistake - to me they are the Devil Rays... and University of Hawaii are still the Rainbow Warriors... if you change your name for a stupid reason, I will ignore you) to take a step back? You're telling me that the Yankees have 'no shot' at even a wild card?!?

I'm gonna dog-ear this one.

History Re-Imagined

As one gets older, one interesting thing that starts to happen is you see historic re-tellings of events you actually lived through (and were following at the time). I mean, if I see a History Channel documentary on the Watergate scandal (when I was not yet born), I typically assume they are giving fair and accurate breakdown of events. On the other hand, if I watch a movie like About a Son, a documentary on Kurt Cobain, I have the hyperbole/bullshit radar on high alert.

This weekend I was watching The Tenth Inning, a film by Ken Burns about baseball in the past 20 years, and this comment struck me as completely inaccurate from my recollection from the time period:

Most scouts doubted that Ichiro with his slender frame and unusual batting stance would be able to handle major league pitching. --- narrator of The Tenth Inning

What?!!? Seattle paid $13.125m in November 2000 for the right to negotiate with Ichiro and then signed him to a three-year deal worth over $14m. Now, yes, there was admittedly some extra financial incentive for Seattle to sign him because of the large Asian community in the Seattle area but, make no mistake, Ichiro was certainly no novelty signing!

Now, did scouts expect him to win MVP as a rookie in 2001 and go on to break the record for consecutive 200+ hit seasons? No, I'm sure they did not. And I do distinctly recall Rob Dibble saying he would get an Ichiro tattoo if Ichiro won a batting title (which he did and he did) - but Rob Dibble is not a scout, let alone "most scouts"... so, Ken Burns, I hate to say it but I Call BS!

In fact, I have located the "smoking gun" for my BS call. Baseball America is without question the leading authority on baseball prospects; here is their Top 100 for the spring of 2001. Hmmm... if most scouts didn't think Ichiro would be able to handle major league pitching, why does Baseball America have him at #9?!?!

I Call B.S.: Hollywood Edition

I have another first for my second post of 2011...at least, I think so...have I Called Bullshit on a movie before?


Anyway, over holiday break I saw a commercial for a new movie called Just Go With It starring Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston. Holy shit!! The commercial features Sandler deciding he could "see (him)self ending up with this girl". The girl in question is Brooklyn Decker (that is her to the right). She is, needless to say, SUPER HOT! Adam Sandler is an average looking guy who also happens to be 20+ years older than she is. Only in Hollywood is this not a laughable scenario... well, unless of course, the Sandler character is super rich... which may or may not be the case.

Wait! I'm not done with this stupid ass movie. So the plot of the movie apparently has the Sandler character having to convince Ms. Decker's character that he likes kids and could be a good father. Hence, he apparently convinces the Aniston character to allow him to use her kids as a pretend family. Can I make not so bold prediction? If I know dumbass rom-coms, Sandler is going to start to care for Aniston's little brats and is eventually going to conclude that he and Aniston make a good couple. She is going to resist at first but eventually they end up together - happily ever after. Who knows... maybe they even make the very end of the movie being Ms. Aniston's character becoming pregnant with Sandler's kid (or an epilogue with her having had such a baby). I think I am going to cry just thinking about it! (Oh wait, did I say cry? I meant I think I'm going to hurl.)

The only upset with this movie is why it doesn't star the reigning Queen of Horrible RomComs, Katherine Heigl?!? Although, come to think of it, Aniston is really only one rung higher on the dignity ladder than Ms. Heigl. So, Sandler and Aniston... fair enough.

SKIP IT!!!

ICBS - Troy Aikman Edition

Troy Aikman is generally considered a very milquetoast NFL analyst. He is not prone to hyperbole. He does not match the quality standard of Cris Collinsworth, but he certainly does not plunge to the depths of Joe Theisman either. Hence, it was surprising when he let furl with this statement during yesterday's Dallas-Minnesota game:

I think he's one of the top two receivers in football... if he's not the best. The only guy who I think comes close to him is Andre Johnson.

Now, I know what you're probably saying: Hey Furriners... didn't you just say that Randy Moss was the second best receiver of all time? Therefore, it's not THAT stupid.

First of all, don't interrupt me. Secondly, Troy was not talking about Randy Moss. He was talking about Miles Austin! Seriously. I am not kidding.

Okay. If he wants to argue that Miles Austin is the second best receiver in the game. Whatever. That is subjective and I can not disprove him. I think he's wrong. You likely think he's wrong (unless you're related to Miles Austin or Kim Kardashian). But to say that Larry Fitzgerald or Calvin Johnson or Reggie Wayne or (insert your own pick here) is NOT CLOSE to Miles Austin?!?! That is indefensible.

Congrats, Troy. You are this weeks bullshitter of the week(end).

New Honda Ad

In between episodes of World Series of Pop Culture on VH1, I watch Detroit Tigers games. Last night on FoxSports was the first time I saw an ad for Honda Motors in which they ask:

Did you know that in the first six months of 2010, 90% of Honda vehicles sold in North America were made in North America?

Hardworking Americans made this milestone possible.

They say this while showing a graphic of the (continental) United States.

You know what they don't want you thinking about? Canada and Mexico are part of North America! (See kids: Geography is NOT completely worthless. However, Geometry is worthless... skip that... it is stupid.)

How many of these cars that you are trying to lead us to believe were made in the United States (supporting the American labor force) were actually made by our good neighbors to the north and south (one of which is better than the other... I won't say which one. Hint: Arizona knows what I'm talking about.)

You know what else reads insincere: "Hardworking Americans made this milestone possible". I got news for you. Hardworking Americans also help make the Saudi royal family rich... it does not make it a good thing.

I point this out only because I loathe BS in advertising. It is not a huge issue for me if a car is made in Canada or Mexico or the USA. I understand globalization. I support the free market (with some regulations that support the public good) - sorry Republicans... liberal/progressive is not synonomous with socialist/communist - no matter what Glenn Beck teaches you at his school for suckers, er, I mean, his respected university. Of course, as a Michigan native, I have a desire for the domestic auto industry to be successful, but I still want them to earn their market share rather than just expect all of us to buy their products because of some corporate patriotism.

My One Man Crusade Continues...

...As I always do, I watched the Tigers game last night.

The situation:

Ninth inning. Gregor Blanco on first with Mike Aviles at the plate and one out.

Aviles hits a ground ball to shortstop. Peralta fields it, flips it to Will Rhymes to try to turn the double play.

Will Rhymes was CLEARLY NOT ON THE BASE when he caught the ball! Nevertheless, Blanco was called out by the second base umpire.

Alas, Aviles beat it out and Billy Butler followed with a home run off of Phil Coke. That should've been a three-run homer!

I'm like Ralph Nader in the 1970s... out to change the world for the better. Ralph Nader of the '00s... douchebag!

(You know what I just remembered? A couple weeks back, Tigers TV broadcasters Rod Allen and Mario Impemba actually defended the "neighborhood rule" as a way to protect the players... I wonder if this an understanding between the umpires and players (union?) only? Or does this also have a 'wink-wink' understanding the teams as well? Or was that just Rod and Mario talking out their asses? Let's get Ralph Nader to look into this... he's got nothing to better to do.)

Put The Lions on MNF!

Are the Detroit Lions ready for primetime? Perhaps not.

Nevertheless, we need to get Jon Gruden into the same building as Calvin Johnson because on yesterday's MNF broadcast, Gruden said this:

Let me tell you about Manny Lawson. I saw this guy at the combine a few years ago when he came out of N.C. State. He's the fastest big guy I've ever seen!

What-the-fuck-ever!!!

Lawson lists at 6'5", 240 lbs.

Johnson lists at 6'5", 236 lbs.

Who do you think would win in a race between Lawson and Johnson?

Also, what about:

Vernon Davis (listed at 6'3", 250)
Greg Olson (listed at 6'5", 255)
Taylor Mays (listed at 6'3", 230)
Matt Jones (listed at 6'6, 222)

The Married...With Children Rule

I admit it... that is a terrible name for the premise of this post but bare with me.

The idea is that, if I recall correctly, Al Bundy would rather mercilessly tease and insult Peggy - but if someone else were to go too far in insulting Peggy, Al could get quite protective of his better(?) half.

This is not unique to that show, of course (which is why it's a terribly named rule); I'm sure that is common to many relationships (for example: adolescent siblings where the older sibling is protective of the younger).

I bring this up because of the comments of Petros Papadakis (a USC grad) regarding University of Michigan football on Jim Rome is Burning yesterday. I like Papadakis; he is one of the more enjoyable guests that Mr. Rome has on his (now one-person) panel. However, yesterday he earned a nomination for the Furriners BS Watch List.

Here are quotes from Mr. Papadakis on the subject of U of M v. Notre Dame:

Michigan needs this game worse than Notre Dame and, no, they're not going to get it.

What happened to Notre Dame under Charlie Weis is what happened to Michigan under Rich Rodriguez. They lost their identity. They're no longer a physical, angry football team.

It's too much of a culture change. You can run a spread and still be physical. Brian Kelly has proven that at Notre Dame (Really? After one game?). Rich Rod has not proven that. Too much of a change for the people of Michigan.

As a Michigan alum, I say 'go fuck yourself, Petros'. While I reserve the right to complain about our unarguably disasterous run under Rich Rodriguez, I don't need you telling me it's "too much of a culture change". I can handle the culture change. I just can't handle going 0-2 against Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, AND Illinois. That's the problem, big boy.


Needless to say, the stakes are very, very high for tomorrows game.

Run, Denard, run.

It's okay with me.

For The B.S. Watch List

Michael Smith said this on Jim Rome is Burning on 9/3:

If they don't go 2-2, they got no shot at the last 12 (indecipherable because Jim talked over him).

This comment was made about the Pittsburgh Steelers trying to survive without Ben Roethlisberger (and Byron Leftwich) for the first four games of the season. I certainly disagree with this take; a 1-3 Steelers team could certainly still make the playoffs.

We'll just have to re-visit this prediction if the Steelers go 1-3.

Is It Just Me... Or Is Duberstein Bi-Polar?

Okay, I'm late with this one but I wanted to talk a little more about Ken Duberstein's appearance on Charlie Rose on 8/19. (See the first mention of it here.)

As I may or may not have mentioned on that post, Mr. Duberstein has strong conservative credentials but seemed, for the most part, to be offering sincere critiques of Barack Obama (and his administration) - as opposed to using only Frank Luntz approved talking points that is so often the methodology of Republican leadership (You know 'em: McConnell, Boehner, Pence, Michael Steele, etc).

That said, consider these two opinions expressed by Mr. Duberstein within the same 30 minute segment on Charlie Rose:

commenting on the lack of bipartisanship in legislation:

"There are ways to go about legislating where you don't get 100% of what you want. (Obama) got almost 100% of what he wanted. There are ways to incorporate the other side of the aisle that really would have made a difference."

and then a little later he critiques Obama's leadership:

"I think he is too much of a legislator and not as much of an executive... that he tries to acquiesce and get everybody together and on board rather than saying 'this is the principle, this is what I want, let's go do it and fight for it'. There may be a little bit too much give rather than give-and-take. But the mentality is one of much more accomodation than it is the forceful 'this is what I want, this is the direction we're gonna go in."


So there you have it. According to Mr. Duberstein, President Obama is a apparently a wimp who nevertheless succeeds in getting nearly 100% of what he wants.

By the way, if I can push back against his first premise... he gets "nearly 100% of what he wants"?!!? Then why no 'Public Option' in the health care bill? Why is Gitmo still open (with no prospects for closing anytime soon)? Why is 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' still the law of the land? Why has the energy bill been dropped from the Senate's agenda? Why no comprehensive immigration reform? Why are the White Sox dropping the standings?

I hope Obama wants Matt Leinart to start for the Arizona Cardinals - because then I could be sure it will never happen!

Dick Armey Is Full of Shit

That Dick Armey is full of shit should not be a news flash to anyone. If you do not know who Mr. Armey is (and the extent with which he is a shit containing vessel), I would argue you need to be better informed.

Anyway, I wanted to address a quote from Mr. Armey on Meet The Press this past weekend where he was (sort of) debating lame duck Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Mr. Armey had this to say:

I'll give you anywhere from a minimum of $2T to a possible $8T worth of real stimulus to the economy from the private sector if we can just relieve the private sector that's sitting on it's cash from the fear that this administration is going to screw up the future of this economy.

This gives me yet another chance to post this link from Mr. Barry Ritholtz and also this well written blog post from Furriners.

According to the Total Liquid Assets graph in the Ritholtz post, there is just over $1.8T of cash on the balance sheets of America's 500 largest nonfinancial companies. I am guessing that is where Mr. Armey is getting his suggestion that "a minimum of $2T" of stimulus could be given to the economy if not for Obama's policies. The problem is that the graph shows that the balance had already risen to over $1.4T as early as 2005! And that was when the economy seemed to be doing okay (and it was - provided you were already very wealthy).

While there may be a small kernel of truth to the private sector having some concerns about the implications of so-called ObamaCare, Mr. Armey has no interest in having an intelligent discussion of policy. Instead, he chooses inflammatory rhetoric with no legitimate factual basis. He is a partisan hack only concerned about his own self-interests (read: he is full of shit).

Another Dumbass Republican

Okay. So I didn't even try to be clever with that title but this ass clown pissed me off. This is another dispatch from Monday's Hardball (without Chris Matthews). I also didn't take down any direct quotes because this gentleman clearly was not worth it but, nevertheless, I wanted to comment on the discussion.

The ass clown in question is Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA). The discussion concerned the economy. Mr. Scalise clearly knew his talking points and blathered on about businesses hoarding cash (which is a conceit I have previously discussed several times on this blog) and how the Economic Recovery Act was a complete failure that didn't create any jobs.

So what does Mr. Scalise want to do to fix the economy?

Well, if you guessed "Extend the Bush tax cuts", you'd be right! You so smart!

He said - and I know I said I didn't have a direct quote so I either lied or consider this a paraphrase (I'm not sure which):

SS: Those tax cuts will generate new income. The tax cuts will create more jobs and it'll bring in more money to the federal government - that's been the case all throughout history.

Okay. That is standard boilerplate supply-side economics pushed by the Republicans. It is what it is. My biggest problem with it is that you have some Republicans (those who seem to pay not even a cursory attention to facts) saying the Stimulus Bill didn't create ANY jobs while simultaneously arguing that tax cuts are the key to economic recovery. Do they not f'n know what was in the Stimulus Bill!?!!? The Stimulus Bill had HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS! If the Stimulus Bill didn't create jobs, then tax cuts do not create jobs! It's that simple... it's not up for debate.