I don't understand the hatred toward Barry Bonds. I'm not sure why the media hates Barry Bonds. They always have hated Barry Bonds, even before these steroid accusations. I mean, they don't have the same hatred toward Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa, and they seem to have the same increased home run production and increased in bulk. And the media can't just claim they didn't realize the steroid use in 1998 so that's why McGwire and Sosa got a pass, since Sosa didn't get the boos and negative media on the road this season when playing with the Rangers.
Barry Bonds led the major leagues in home runs in 1993, long before anyone thinks the bulking up (allegedly from steroids) of 1999 happened. Even if he did take steroids in 1999, do the media think he continuously takes steroids to keep up his massive bulk, even with the excessive media scrutiny and increased testing by MLB? Even if he once took steroids, wouldn't he have lost a lot of that bulk during the past several years? Sure, it does seem unlikely that someone could bulk up as much as he did over just one off season, but there is plenty about Barry Bonds that is extraordinary, so perhaps it just is natural.
Again, the media focus on Barry Bonds and steroids is what is unnatural. If Shawn Merriman of the San Diego Chargers, an immensely talented linebacker, sets the all-time sack record this year, will the media say the sack record need an asterisk, as Merriman was actually shown to have used steroids in the past? Had he not been suspended for violation of the drug policy last year, he was on pace to do exactly that, and despite the suspension he went on to play in the NFL Pro Bowl. Why love Merriman and hate Bonds, someone that has never been shown to be in violation of the drug policy? There is no sports-related reason. So let's celebrate Barry Bonds. My only disappointment was that he hit the record-setting home run 9 days after I was in attendance at AT&T Park to watch him play.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Why Bud Selig sucks
I think it's good to be reminded from time to time why Bud Selig has done such a bad job as baseball commissioner.
1) He was commissioner during the baseball strike which served no purpose.
2) The All Star Game tie.
3) The All Star Game "now counts." It seems he didn't understand that the All-Star game always counted to baseball fans. The problem with the All-Star game wasn't that it didn't matter, but that he showed he really wasn't a baseball fan by allowing the All Star game to end in a tie. (Another sign he's not a baseball fan -- his "herculean" effort to watch Barry Bonds hit the record-tying home run. I mean, he's not even watching every game. He took time off for the Hall of Fame induction and another day off for no particular reason.)
4) Interleague play. Since teams aren't playing each team evenly, this really isn't fair. If baseball would want to follow the NFL's lead (like it did in adopting interleague play/wild card) they would rotate the teams that play in each city and give up the need to keep the rivalry games. Sure, rivalry games bring big crowds, but it's not worth the cost of the integrity of the schedule. If the integrity of the schedule didn't matter, then I'd rather see the Red Sox play the Yankees about 40 times per year.
5) Uneven divisions. Why does the NL Central have 6 teams while the AL West has only 4? The Milwaukee Brewers, Selig's former team, had to move to the NL where they "traditionally" played? Why wasn't this addressed prior to expansion? I guess this fits Selig's thought process of the schedule not really meaning anything.
1) He was commissioner during the baseball strike which served no purpose.
2) The All Star Game tie.
3) The All Star Game "now counts." It seems he didn't understand that the All-Star game always counted to baseball fans. The problem with the All-Star game wasn't that it didn't matter, but that he showed he really wasn't a baseball fan by allowing the All Star game to end in a tie. (Another sign he's not a baseball fan -- his "herculean" effort to watch Barry Bonds hit the record-tying home run. I mean, he's not even watching every game. He took time off for the Hall of Fame induction and another day off for no particular reason.)
4) Interleague play. Since teams aren't playing each team evenly, this really isn't fair. If baseball would want to follow the NFL's lead (like it did in adopting interleague play/wild card) they would rotate the teams that play in each city and give up the need to keep the rivalry games. Sure, rivalry games bring big crowds, but it's not worth the cost of the integrity of the schedule. If the integrity of the schedule didn't matter, then I'd rather see the Red Sox play the Yankees about 40 times per year.
5) Uneven divisions. Why does the NL Central have 6 teams while the AL West has only 4? The Milwaukee Brewers, Selig's former team, had to move to the NL where they "traditionally" played? Why wasn't this addressed prior to expansion? I guess this fits Selig's thought process of the schedule not really meaning anything.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Sarkozy's summer plans
Fresh off his victory in France, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy has announced a trip to New Hampshire. This timing seems to indicate that Sarkozy may be trying to consolidate world power as he heads to New Hampshire, the state with the first in the Presidential primaries. This move has to make Hillary Clinton nervous, as Sarkozy has just beaten France's version of Hillary.
Another theory why President Sarkozy will be visiting New Hampshire is to get into the newest American Express commercial explaining what he would do to make Lake Winnipesaukee clean. If that commercial wouldn't feature Ellen or The Flying Tomato, I just might want to join the cause.
Another theory why President Sarkozy will be visiting New Hampshire is to get into the newest American Express commercial explaining what he would do to make Lake Winnipesaukee clean. If that commercial wouldn't feature Ellen or The Flying Tomato, I just might want to join the cause.
Russia's flag waving
Russia recently planted a flag at the North Pole, claiming the land for mother Russia. Canada previously has claimed the land, and Canada's Foreign Minister said, "Our claims over our Arctic are very well-established. There is no threat to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and as you know, we've made very strong commitments, the prime minister has been there recently, may be there again (soon), so we're not at all concerned about this."
I don't think that Russia is just contemplating an upcoming trial to quiet title to the North Pole. I think that if the land does have valuable oil and gas underneath it that Russia will do whatever it takes to claim the land. They're also an arctic nation, so they may feel a valid claim to the land. More importantly, they also have the military to enforce that claim -- I'm not sure if Canada is willing to do so. What will Canada do? Go to the United Nations? Without the US, actions by the United Nations proved to be meaningless in Iraq. Though the North Pole may be quite important in terms of oil, Russia also has nuclear weapons. Attacking them isn't like attacking Iraq. It seems the best action by Canada might be to have American forces protect their property interest in the pole before the Russians do the same. I'm thinking having Canadian forces protecting the land just wouldn't have the same deterrent effect.
I don't think that Russia is just contemplating an upcoming trial to quiet title to the North Pole. I think that if the land does have valuable oil and gas underneath it that Russia will do whatever it takes to claim the land. They're also an arctic nation, so they may feel a valid claim to the land. More importantly, they also have the military to enforce that claim -- I'm not sure if Canada is willing to do so. What will Canada do? Go to the United Nations? Without the US, actions by the United Nations proved to be meaningless in Iraq. Though the North Pole may be quite important in terms of oil, Russia also has nuclear weapons. Attacking them isn't like attacking Iraq. It seems the best action by Canada might be to have American forces protect their property interest in the pole before the Russians do the same. I'm thinking having Canadian forces protecting the land just wouldn't have the same deterrent effect.
Al Qaeda campaign finance reform
Al Qaeda does web ads? I think they need a new advertising team. I can see advertising being a solid means for spreading terror, but al Qaeda just isn't getting it done. These ads just aren't memorable, and they really aren't all that believable. Perhaps it's the infrequency of the ads, but more likely it's the infrequency of the actual terrorism in the US. I'm not urging more terrorism, but it seems the most effective recent domestic terrorists were the DC snipers. They had frequent attacks in a relatively targeted area. They never needed to advertise for their terror, they had news networks spreading the terror for them.
Also, I'm completely unclear at what these ads are trying to convey. Perhaps instead of being a terror warning video, this is much more a recruiting video. It seems the left has made President Bush hated. A member of Congress called him a "clown." Al Qaeda's images of President Bush surrounded by fire might be a way to get new terrorists to join their team.
I think the recruiting angle makes plenty of sense. Many years ago I kept wondering how on GI Joe that COBRA always had so many recruits. I mean, they weren't a part of any national army, but still had plenty of troops. I'm guessing that today they'd also use web ads to recruit.
Also, I'm completely unclear at what these ads are trying to convey. Perhaps instead of being a terror warning video, this is much more a recruiting video. It seems the left has made President Bush hated. A member of Congress called him a "clown." Al Qaeda's images of President Bush surrounded by fire might be a way to get new terrorists to join their team.
I think the recruiting angle makes plenty of sense. Many years ago I kept wondering how on GI Joe that COBRA always had so many recruits. I mean, they weren't a part of any national army, but still had plenty of troops. I'm guessing that today they'd also use web ads to recruit.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
USA immigrants head to Canada
The number of Americans leaving the country to live in Canada is at a 30 year high. According to ABC News, the reason for the elevated emigration rate is because Americans are disgruntled about the Bush administration policies. Does this mean that the opposite is true of all those that immigrate to the US from Canada, that they are disgruntled of Canadian policies?
The number of Americans that went to Canada were 10,942, or 36 people moving to Canada per million Americans. The number of Canadians that moved to the United States was 23,913, or 716 people moving to America per million Canadians. With the rate of flow from US to Canada being 1:20, wouldn't that indicate America's policies are better?
The big evidence offered by ABC News that Americans were leaving for Canada because of the Bush administration policies was the story of a labor organizer, Tom Kertes, that moved because he wanted to live in a country that respected human rights. Apparently, freeing Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam Hussein shows a lack of care to human rights?
What's best about the Kertes part of the story was that he wanted to get his stepfather up to Canada so his pre-existing health problems (diabetes, possibly other health issues) can be paid by Canadian taxpayers. Enjoy, Canada.
The number of Americans that went to Canada were 10,942, or 36 people moving to Canada per million Americans. The number of Canadians that moved to the United States was 23,913, or 716 people moving to America per million Canadians. With the rate of flow from US to Canada being 1:20, wouldn't that indicate America's policies are better?
The big evidence offered by ABC News that Americans were leaving for Canada because of the Bush administration policies was the story of a labor organizer, Tom Kertes, that moved because he wanted to live in a country that respected human rights. Apparently, freeing Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam Hussein shows a lack of care to human rights?
What's best about the Kertes part of the story was that he wanted to get his stepfather up to Canada so his pre-existing health problems (diabetes, possibly other health issues) can be paid by Canadian taxpayers. Enjoy, Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)