tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-141691442024-03-07T21:19:00.884-05:00DISSENT INTO MADNESSJ Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.comBlogger176125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-58539270518331888112009-06-30T00:32:00.000-04:002009-06-30T00:33:12.942-04:00Ron Paul Is Right (As Usual)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://lighthousepatriotjournal.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/ron-paul-desk.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 454px; height: 322px;" src="http://lighthousepatriotjournal.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/ron-paul-desk.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Administering a multi-billion dollar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Ponzi scheme</span></a> in the private sector makes you '</span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1182097&srvc=business&position=0"><span style="font-weight: bold;">extraordinarily evil</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">.' They'll throw the book at you.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Administering a </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.ssa.gov/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> for the state is not only legal, it's compulsory. They'll hand you the keys to the kingdom!</span><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-34800799326941340422009-06-04T00:24:00.004-04:002009-06-23T23:28:09.452-04:00An Objective, Dispassionate and Totally Devastating Appraisal of Chris Osgood as Hall of Famer<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Bill Hicks used to joke about the abortion debate <a href="http://www.endevil.com/billhickslines.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">thusly</span></a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>"I, ah...this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks."</blockquote><br />This bit reminds me of the debate surrounding <a href="http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/osgooch01.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Chris Osgood's</span></a> Hall of Fame viability. <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/community/profile.htm?UID=7f199720956b03f0&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a7f199720956b03f0Post%3a611cfdf7-aac2-4f3b-8d54-0575b36e3ead"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Kevin Allen</span></a> makes a pretty reasonable case for "Ozzie." On the other side, the sum of <a href="http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/a2y/comments/elite_enough_for_you/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this guy's argument</span></a> is that Osgood was great in that one game against Chicago so <a href="http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/psh/comments/osgoods_hall_of_fame_case/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this other guy</span></a> - who convincingly presents the "con" argument - can "suck it." People, how are we gonna reach a consensus?<br /><br />The case for Osgood, it seems to me, revolves around three things: 1) He's a money goalie in the postseason, 2) he is popular among teammates and fans, and 3) durability and good fortune have helped him compile impressive counting stats.<br /><br />Osgood's candidacy is the touchstone for another type of Hall of Fame debate: "peak" value vs. "career" value. Evaluating career value rewards good players with steady, unspectacular careers - someone like Curtis Joseph comes to mind.<br /><br />Peak value looks at a player at his best: was this player ever considered one of the best at his position? Ken Dryden embodies peak value over career value - he is undoubtedly one of the greatest goaltenders ever, yet his 258 career wins (over 10 seasons) ranks only 35th in NHL history, behind such luminaries as Kelly Hrudey and Gilles Meloche.<br /><br />Looked at in terms of career value, Chris Osgood presents a superficially strong case for the Hall of Fame: 389 career wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 2.47 career GAA, 49 shutouts. These credentials stack up well against some existing members (Billy Smith, Gerry Cheevers). So what's with the backlash?<br /><br />Through no fault of his own, Chris Osgood's achievements are seen as the product of luck and opportunism: he plays for a modern dynasty in a low scoring era, distorting his statistics in multiple ways:<br /><br />1. Historically and without adjusting for context, Osgood looks far better compared to goalies from higher scoring eras (like the '80s) than he really is;<br /><br />2. Because he's played the bulk of his career for some truly great Red Wings teams, Osgood's numbers look inflated when compared to his lesser supported contemporaries.<br /><br />Let's take a closer look:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">PEAK IS WEAK</span><br />Chris Osgood's peak value would represent one of the lowest of any Hall of Fame goalie:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#black_ink"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Black Ink Test</span></a> (led NHL) = 2: Wins (1996), GAA (2008)<br /><a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/leader_glossary.shtml#gray_ink"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gray Ink Test</span></a> (top 10 in NHL) = Wins (6x), GAA (4x), SV% (3x), SO (5x)<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Major Awards:</span><br /><ul><li>Zero Vezina Trophies</li><li>Zero Conn Smythe Awards</li><li>Zero 1st Team NHL All-Stars</li><li>One 2nd Team NHL All-Star</li></ul><span style="font-weight: bold;">THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT!<br /></span>We would expect a Hall of Fame caliber goalie to perform significantly better than league average in many key metrics, such as SV%. Over the course of Chris Osgood's career (1993-2009), the NHL SV% among all goalies (Osgood and empty net goals excepted) is <span style="font-weight: bold;">.905%</span>.<br /><br />Chris Osgood's SV% over that span: <span style="font-weight: bold;">.906%</span>.<br /><br />*(A concession: SV% is quantitative, not qualitative. I'm presuming for argument's sake that SV% is support-neutral and intrinsic to a goalie's skillset. This is unlikely but we have to hope it evens out in the long run. There is no real way to isolate or control for shot quality or defensive support based on team/environmental factors. So it's probably the best we can do for now. If anything, this presumption helps Osgood, because theoretically the Red Wings would limit the opposition's quality scoring chances.)<br /><br />So we've established that Osgood's SV% is roughly league average, which should make it obvious why his other numbers are so dazzling: it's all about the support of his talented teammates. And that can be measured by how many shots on goal he's faced compared to league average.<br /><br />For his career Chris Osgood has faced <span style="font-weight: bold;">26.2</span> shots on goal per 60 minutes (SOG/60). The NHL average over that same span is <span style="font-weight: bold;">28.6</span> SOG/60. The difference may seem minor but the impact is huge when stretched over his entire career. Osgood's teams have saved him approximately <span style="font-weight: bold;">1,622</span> shots on goal over the course of his career vs. the league average environment.<br /><br />*(For the math-obsessed: Osgood has faced 17,770 shots in 40,683 minutes = 26.2 SOG/60. In those same minutes, the goalie in the league average environment of 28.6 SOG/60 would face approximately 19,392 shots = 1,622 more shots.)<br /><br />Assuming his save percentage remained steady at .906%, this means he would stop about <span style="font-weight: bold;">1,470</span> of those extra shots - tacking another <span style="font-weight: bold;">152</span> goals onto his career record. So, his sterling 2.47 career GAA would balloon to <span style="font-weight: bold;">2.70</span> - which is exactly league average over that span (1993-2009). All things being equal, shouldn't we expect more than league average from a Hall of Fame goalie?<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br />CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING</span><br />Osgood's <a href="http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_against_avg_adjusted_career.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">adjusted GAA</span></a> (2.77) ranks 38th in NHL history - behind such notables as Andy Moog, Rick Wamsley, and Pete Peeters. Again, does this sound like a Hall of Famer?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CONCLUSION</span><br />Chris Osgood owes the bulk of his Hall of Fame argument to the support of his Motor City teammates. The talent difference between him and keepers like Tom Barrasso, Rogie Vachon and Mike Vernon is whisker thin, but it is Osgood who is likely to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, not them. To some that makes him undeserving. But as William Munny famously remarked, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it."<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-72129003217885844472009-05-28T23:59:00.002-04:002009-05-29T00:03:35.764-04:00What Does History Tell Us About the Pens-Wings Rematch?<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-family:trebuchet ms;" >Not a whole hell of a lot, but I spent like an hour researching this, so might as well share:</span> <div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />The Pittsburgh Penguins and Detroit Red Wings face off in a rematch of last year's Stanley Cup Final. The questions you didn't ask, but I answered, are:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">HOW DID PREVIOUS REMATCHES TURN OUT?</span><br />The 2009 Cup Final marks the 13th rematch (consecutive seasons only) in NHL history. In the previous 12, the teams split 5 times, one team took both series 7 times:<br /><br />-Splits: 1921-22 Ottawa/Toronto; 1923-24 Ottawa/Montreal; 1932-33 Toronto/New York; 1955-56 Montreal/Detroit; 1983-84 New York Islanders/Edmonton.<br /><br />-Sweeps: 1948-49 Toronto over Detroit; 1954-55 Detroit over Montreal; 1957-58 Montreal over Boston; 1959-60 Montreal over Toronto; 1963-64 Toronto over Detroit; 1968-69 Montreal over St. Louis; 1977-78 Montreal over Boston.<br /><br />SLIGHT ADVANTAGE: Detroit.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FOR DETROIT: HOW DO DEFENDING CHAMPIONS FARE WHEN MAKING THE CUP FINALS THE NEXT SEASON?</span><br />Very well, naturally. The 2009 Wings are the 39th Cup winner to return to the Finals - the previous 38 are 25-13 (.658%). These teams are defending champions with good reason.<br /><br />ADVANTAGE: Detroit.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FOR PITTSBURGH: HOW MANY TEAMS HAVE LOST THE STANLEY CUP FINALS ONE SEASON AND WON IT THE NEXT?</span><br />Twelve officially, with one huge asterisk: this happened much more often in the league's early years. Fewer teams = more opportunities to win. Here's the complete list:<br /><br />1919 Montreal Canadiens<br />1922 Toronto St. Patricks<br />1923 Ottawa Senators<br />1924 Montreal Canadiens<br />1927 Ottawa Senators<br />1933 New York Rangers<br />1943 Detroit Red Wings<br />1950 Detroit Red Wings<br />1953 Montreal Canadiens<br />1956 Montreal Canadiens<br />1968 Montreal Canadiens<br />1984 Edmonton Oilers<br /><br />That's a grim trend if you're a Pens fan. In the Expansion Era (1968 on), only two teams have lost the Cup Final one year and won the next, and the last time it happened Chris Chelios was a rookie (no, really).<br /><br />GOOD FEELING GONE: Pittsburgh.<br /><br />The data isn't quite conclusive but the Pens have a bit of history working against them. Of course, I'm rooting for them, especially since this Thrasher fan would love to see Marian Hossa's "can't-beat-'em-join-'em" bandwagoning backfire so hilariously. And with apologies to the economically depressed and Lions-saddled people of Detroit, few things would make me happier than seeing legions of insufferable, trash-talking Wings fans STFU for a change.<br /><br />Go Pens!<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-19702011255674486332009-02-08T23:01:00.001-05:002009-02-08T23:02:26.941-05:00What Michael Phelps Should Say<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">It's really a shame that <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3883923"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Michael Phelps has apologized</span></a> and groveled for "forgiveness" after being photographed hitting a bong. I understand why, but a golden opportunity was missed, yet again.<br /><br />Just once, I'd like to see someone in Phelps' position defiantly state: "You know what? No. I won't apologize. Drug prohibition, and the way it is prosecuted, is unjust and inhumane. Its goals have nothing to do with public safety or morality; it's all about enriching the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_complex"><span style="font-weight: bold;">prison-industrial</span></a> <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199812/prisons"><span style="font-weight: bold;">complex</span></a>, empowering increasingly <a href="http://www.theagitator.com/category/paramilitary-police-raids/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">militarized and hyper-aggressive police forces</span></a>, and protecting <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Big Pharma</span></a> from safe, natural, and cheap competition. The drug warriors should be the ones apologizing to US."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">But what kind of message does this send to THE CHILDREN?!?</span><br /><br />"1. FUCK the children. Not literally, of course, that's disgusting. But it's not their world, it's ours. That's why we're the <span style="font-style: italic;">grown-ups</span>. We get to do things that are totally inappropriate for kids, like drink, screw, and stay up past 10 PM. Isn't that why we put up with the horrors of puberty, adolescence, and high school? To reap the rewards later? Or was it all just to work in corporate cubicles, pay taxes, and take on a mortgage?<br /><br />"2. The most important thing to teach children is the capacity to think critically for themselves. I've thought about the reasons for marijuana prohibition and found them wanting. Actually, no - 'utter bullshit' would be more fitting. And since I also believe that self-ownership is inviolable, and that there are higher virtues than passive obedience to unjust laws (which are often but the tyrant's will), I have nothing to apologize or be forgiven for.<br /><br />"Ultimately, the message it sends to children is that they are endowed by their Creator with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How they choose to exercise those rights, so long as they don't hurt anyone else, is up to THEM."<br /><br />Seems like a message a 'free country' could get behind, right? But no, of course I'm being naive. No celebrity will put millions on the line in order to defend such silly, antiquated notions as freedom, self-ownership, and independent thought. Too bad.<br /><br />Read more:<br /><ul><li>"Why Condemn Phelps, When We Ought to Condemn the Laws That Brand Him a Criminal" [<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/armentano-p/armentano-p40.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">LRC.com</span></a>]</li><li>"Phelps Takes a Hit" [<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR2009020302645.html?hpid=opinionsbox1"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Washington Post</span></a>]</li><li>"Michael Phelps And His Bong - We've All Gone To Pot" [<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/29057306?__source=RSS*blog*&par=RSS"><span style="font-weight: bold;">CNBC.com</span></a>]</li><li>"Michael Phelps' Marijuana Use Puts Focus on Debate Over the Drug" [<a href="http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-sports-marijuana8-2009feb08,0,1583371.story"><span style="font-weight: bold;">LA Times</span></a>]</li></ul>And finally, "Really?!? With Seth Meyers of SNL":<br /><br /><object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/ImUM5f4oSi-x2pp18eRU8w"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/ImUM5f4oSi-x2pp18eRU8w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object><br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-77750196009807836402009-01-27T23:57:00.002-05:002009-01-28T19:51:01.267-05:00Bibby Did a Bad, Bad Thing<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfKPuUSzKjEY1K1s76OKt7lLfrgNJkeECLe5XCdmc92LYvg6p28dTd6AiQav1o7A_VgGtVziOqqpg2V3IVhw70LN-YGr70VEyUfmXBGmPZzlA17ISzhchC-g8kkeHqdL_yzXL7FQ/s1600-h/0809_HWK_WEB_SiteHeader_MB.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 62px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfKPuUSzKjEY1K1s76OKt7lLfrgNJkeECLe5XCdmc92LYvg6p28dTd6AiQav1o7A_VgGtVziOqqpg2V3IVhw70LN-YGr70VEyUfmXBGmPZzlA17ISzhchC-g8kkeHqdL_yzXL7FQ/s400/0809_HWK_WEB_SiteHeader_MB.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5296511623291495650" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.nba.com/games/20090126/ATLMIA/gameinfo.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Heat 95, Hawks 79</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">.</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br />Pee-yoo, what a stinker. The effort was certainly ugly from a team standpoint: 27 first half points, 7 total team assists, and 19 turnovers. Eww. But on a night when so much went wrong for the team, point guard <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bibbymi01.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike Bibby</span></a> deserves special mention.<br /><br />As stat guy for the Hawks and Thrashers, I often dig up interesting nuggets that (for obvious reasons) we could never publish on the video board. Obviously, we're trying to pump up the team and its fans, so only positive graphics get keyed. This is as it should be. But it's worth mentioning - even if we can't in a more visible forum - that <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pgl.cgi?player=bibbymi01&year=2009"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike Bibby</span></a> had the <span style="font-style: italic;">single worst game</span> of his 11-year NBA career last night.<br /><br />Going by John Hollinger's "Game Score" stat, which aggregates a player's single game box score into one tidy metric, Bibby's line of 2 points on 1-6 FG, 0-3 FT, 0 assists and 5 turnovers in 32 minutes equals a Game Score of <span style="font-weight: bold;">-5.5</span>.<br /><br />(For those interested in <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">how Game Score is calculated</span></a>, the formula is PTS + 0.4 * FG - 0.7 * FGA - 0.4*(FTA - FT) + 0.7 * ORB + 0.3 * DRB + STL + 0.7 * AST + 0.7 * BLK - 0.4 * PF - TOV. )<br /><br />How bad is a Game Score of -5.5? Put it this way: the infamous gag job by the Knicks' <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pgl.cgi?player=starkjo01&year=1994"><span style="font-weight: bold;">John Starks</span></a> in Game 7 of the '94 Finals (8 points, 2-18 FG, 0-11 3FG (!), 2 reb, 2 assts) works out to <span style="font-weight: bold;">-3.4</span>. Ouch.<br /><br />So yeah, Bibby had a rough outing. 767 games over 11 terrific seasons, and there's a single number that objectively states, "yup, that was pretty much your worst day at the office <span style="font-style: italic;">ever</span>".<br /><br />And...now you know.<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-49025685149698710052009-01-11T23:11:00.000-05:002009-01-11T23:17:46.115-05:00New Flavor Suggestions for Ben & Jerry's<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Clever Redditors + puns + ice cream = HILARITY:</span><br /><br /><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/7ourc/write_this_joke_ben_jerry_create_yes_pecan_ice/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Write this joke: Ben & Jerry's create "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama. For George W. they created__________." </span></a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />"Cluster Fudge," "Iraqi Road" and "Heckuva Job Brownie" are genius. But my favorite - by far - is "Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfucker...Swirl." Mmm, that sounds <span style="font-style: italic;">tasty</span>.</span>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-83361612270293110072008-11-26T23:11:00.002-05:002008-11-27T11:43:48.848-05:00Even As A Steely Dan Fan, I Can Appreciate This<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />The Onion <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/donald_fagen_defends_steely_dan_to"><span style="font-weight: bold;">pokes fun</span></a> at Donald Fagen and the notoriously esoteric Steely Dan.<br /><br /></span>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-71951969218895491002008-11-11T23:11:00.004-05:002008-11-11T23:40:03.541-05:00Not Even Veterans Day Is Sacred Around Here<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBwceysqEDyqVcdQWzZHAIaoVASKpuvv6NkOj2Gtnx4JKk_YxNWzczfEQiw8Av-N3VUqL-yrEKWCaWrHOYtlvpXvO6a2BmHffqxfcxpL0ufor4OUXXU2iMexUjx8AhEEtACTGUhA/s1600-h/storm.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 278px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBwceysqEDyqVcdQWzZHAIaoVASKpuvv6NkOj2Gtnx4JKk_YxNWzczfEQiw8Av-N3VUqL-yrEKWCaWrHOYtlvpXvO6a2BmHffqxfcxpL0ufor4OUXXU2iMexUjx8AhEEtACTGUhA/s400/storm.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5267621204275420274" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Since I'm feeling more misanthropic than usual today - and let's face it, that's the only reason anyone ever visits this blog - I'm taking the time to actually dissent on today's lovefest for the military and its servicemen and women. Yes, I'm actually going to find fault with </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_Day"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Veteran's Day</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">. Who's with me?!?</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />[<span style="font-style: italic;">Rubs hands with glee, twists imaginary handlebar mustache</span>]<br /><br />Veteran's Day used to be called "<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023945.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Armistice Day</span></a>," which was conceived as a "a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace." But this notion was swept aside in the midst of Cold War hysteria, and in the last 50 years or so the day has evolved into a quasi-religious celebration of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism#US_militarism"><span style="font-weight: bold;">militarism</span></a>.<br /><br />It's no surprise that the Donkeyfister-in-Chief <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDpFBtQ0ETOo&refer=home"><span style="font-weight: bold;">paid tribute to war veterans</span></a> by stating that it is "a moral obligation" (!) to support them and their families - which is another way of saying that we must support the executive dictator and whatever aggression he may provoke.<br /><br />But what is unsettling is that even civil society now parrots the state's command to worship and sanctify the soldier. Don't believe me? From the <a href="http://thrashers.portspaces.com/post/blueland/honor_your_veterans.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Atlanta Thrashers</span></a> and the <a href="http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=391731"><span style="font-weight: bold;">rest of the NHL</span></a> to my own employer, everyone's on board with the program. Our CEO issued this e-mail message today:<br /><br /><blockquote>A Special Veterans Day message from [CEO]<br />11/11/2008<br /><br />Ninety years ago today, guns fell silent in Europe and World War I fighting came to an end as an armistice between the Allied Nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.<br /><br />President Wilson proclaimed Nov. 11 as the first commemoration of Armistice Day (now called Veterans Day) in 1919 with the following words, "To us in America, the reflections of this day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service...".<br /><br />Today, we salute the men and women who have served and currently serve in our armed forces. I hope that you will join me in thanking them, especially veterans we are lucky enough to also call co-workers and the 46 [company] employees currently in active military service, for their contribution and their sacrifice.<br /><br />As we honor and give our appreciation to those who have served or are serving in our armed forces, let's continue our commitment to excellence - on the job and in our communities.<br /><br />Thank you for all that you do for [company], and please stay safe. </blockquote></div><p style="line-height: 11.25pt; text-align: justify;font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style=";font-size:78%;color:black;" ><span style="font-size:8;"></span></span></p><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">This is utterly crazy - but thankfully some brilliant voices are being raised in protest.<br /><br />Check out <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023944.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this blog,</span></a> posted by Lew Rockwell from an e-mail by Phil Hensley:<br /><blockquote>On a day like today it is important to be thankful for all the freedoms we enjoy in this country:<br /><br />In America, we enjoy the freedom of giving half our income to the government through various forms of taxes. We have the freedom to participate in a Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. We have the freedom to vote for the president. Unlike the voters of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who only had one choice for president, we have two choices! We have the freedom to choose between Republican-led big government programs and Democrat-led big government programs. We have the freedom to use government-controlled money, which loses value every year. We have the freedom to subsidize the poltically-connected agricultural, automotive, and banking industries. We have the freedom of sending children through the compusory government-run education system, and then pay for job training for those that get through 12 years of schooling and still don't know how to do anything. We have the freedom to own guns, provided that said gun is approved by the government and we pass the government-mandated background check. If we get the appropriate permits and stand in then proper free-speech zone, we have the freedom to protest.<br /><br />Thanks to all the veterans that defended these freedoms and kept them from being taken away!</blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"></p><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">I first encountered William Jennings Bryan's "<a href="http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bryan.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Paralyzing Influence of Imperialism</span></a>" in the indispensable volume "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/We-Who-Dared-Say-War/dp/1568583850/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226438385&sr=1-1"><span style="font-weight: bold;">We Who Dared to Say No to War</span></a>." WJB delivered these remarks at the Democratic National Convention in 1900. His words are equally relevant today:<br /></div><div style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></div><blockquote style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><div style="text-align: justify;">A large standing army is not only a pecuniary burden to the people and, if accompanied by compulsory service, a constant source of irritation but it is even a menace to a republican form of government. The army is the personification of force, and militarism will inevitably change the ideals of the people and turn the thoughts of our young men from the arts of peace to the science of war. The government which relies for its defense upon its citizens is more likely to be just than one which has at call a large body of professional soldiers.<br /><br />A small standing army and a well-equipped and well-disciplined state militia are sufficient at ordinary times, and in an emergency the nation should in the future as in the past place its dependence upon the volunteers who come from all occupations at their country's call and return to productive labor when their services are no longer required - men who fight when the country needs fighters and work when the country needs workers. . . .<br /></div></blockquote><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">(See also "</span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4089"><span style="font-weight: bold;">An Open Letter to My Fellow Veterans</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">" by Camillo "Mac" Bica.</span>)<br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The late Bill Hicks offers the perfect anti-tribute to soldiers:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np6_b-72H3E&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></object></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 17px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-031440403223381563 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np6_b-72H3E&hl=en&fs=1"></a><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 17px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-031440403223381563 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np6_b-72H3E&hl=en&fs=1"></a><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np6_b-72H3E&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Np6_b-72H3E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">And finally, perhaps "Flight of the Conchords" say it best:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 17px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-031440403223381563 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/hFjrbmj0CUc&hl=en&fs=1"></a><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 17px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-031440403223381563 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/hFjrbmj0CUc&hl=en&fs=1"></a><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hFjrbmj0CUc&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hFjrbmj0CUc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br /></span><blockquote><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If every soldier in the wo-orld</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />Put down his weapon and picked up a woman</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />What a peaceful world this world would be-eee...</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />Redheads not warheads</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />Blondes not bombs</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />We're talkin' about brunettes not fighter jets</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />Oooh Oooh it's got to be Sweet 16's not M-16's</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />When will the governments realize it's got to be funky sexy ladies?</span><br /></blockquote><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">So, yeah. Don't support the troops. Don't support institutionalized slaughter. Think for yourself. Happy Armistice Day.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> Peace.<br /><br /></span><p style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></p>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-81736513624502689582008-11-06T00:12:00.001-05:002008-11-06T00:40:13.230-05:00Meet the New Boss. Same As the Old Boss.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">So, Barack Obama - the candidate whose watchwords on the campaign trail were Hope! and Change! - won. In the Orwellian parlance of modern statecraft, this of course means that Obama:</span><br /><br /></div><ul style="text-align: justify;"><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't end the occupation of Iraq and bring the troops home immediately.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't endorse a foreign policy of nonintervention.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't shut down Guantanamo Bay and end the practice of indefinite detentions without trial.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't encourage Congress - a Democratic majority - to repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't close the 120 American military bases scattered about the world.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't abolish the Federal Reserve or repudiate the institution of central banking.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Won't end the pointless, immoral and destructive War on Drugs.</span></li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Yep. Breathe it in, America. Hope. Change. </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Democracy</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">.</span><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-37580074547237347102008-09-29T23:11:00.001-04:002008-09-29T23:16:08.091-04:00Welfare for Wall Street Denied!<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Victory may be temporary, but the House finally did something right by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a43ZWiD8eMn0&refer=home"><span style="font-weight: bold;">rejecting the awful bailout proposal</span></a> backed by President Bush. Hooray for common sense!<br /><br />The government counts on the average citizen not understanding the particulars of these stupid deals, but it's not that complicated. The article really clarifies what this is all about:<br /><br /><blockquote>The legislation would have given Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson broad authority to buy troubled assets from financial companies to help ease a lending crunch triggered by the decline of the housing market.</blockquote><br />The assets are "troubled" because they're worthless! Why should taxpayer money be used to buy up worthless debt? The government should not be in the business of propping up and subsidizing failure - that's a surefire way to guarantee more of it. Any why ease a "lending crunch?" Lending is the same thing as credit, which of course is someone else's debt. Since when is debt considered a good thing? This nation needs to learn how to save money and live within its means.<br /><br />Here's another consideration. This $700 BILLION proposed for Wall Street's bailout: where do you think this money comes from? The government doesn't produce anything, so it has to raise the cash somehow. Well, the thieves have three options: steal it from taxpayers, borrow it from foreign banks, or - the option they nearly always choose - print up new currency via the Federal Reserve. It doesn't take an economist to see these options are really, really shitty. This financial mess was spurred, in fact, by printing money and flooding the markets with cheap credit. But this is what creates the bubble, that illusion of prosperity. Congress should repudiate the "bailout" once and for all, which will just postpone the inevitable day of reckoning. They can try to pass a bailout package but they cannot repeal the laws of economics.<br /><br />For a solid understanding of these issues - which are not so esoteric as the establishment would have you believe - the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/recession-reader.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">LRC Recession Reader</span></a> is indispensable reading. Check it out, and let's savor the bailout's defeat!<br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-36468709769442336322008-09-28T23:58:00.003-04:002008-09-29T22:16:58.847-04:00GA Governor Ensures Gas Shortage to Continue<div style="text-align: justify;"><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/75737"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mark Anderson</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> does a wonderful job explaining how Georgia's moronic anti-gouging regulations - stubbornly enforced by cracker asshole Governor Perdue - are a major cause of the ridiculous </span><a style="font-weight: bold; font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_energy_crisis">1970's-esque gas shortages</a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> that are plaguing Atlanta motorists.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I quite agree. And I know this will be outrageously pretentious, but I called it on </span><a style="font-weight: bold; font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://jasonballot.blogspot.com/2005/09/perdue-works-to-stem-price-gouging.html">this very blog, three years ago</a><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:trebuchet ms;" >:</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Sonny Perdue's grandstanding will only harm Georgia consumers in the long run. It's hard to believe that gas retailers are "gouging" consumers when people lose their minds and willingly pay high prices. Caveat emptor and all. Just yesterday at work, several people <span style="font-style: italic;">literally ran out of the building</span> to go fill up their tanks. By falling for rumors about dry pumps and skyrocketing gas prices, people helped to ensure that these dire predictions came true. The smart thing to do was stick with normal fueling habits, maybe conserve a little, and just wait it out.<br /><br />Personally, I don't understand what's "moral" about punishing voluntary exchange. Ask yourself which is worse: having to pay $4.00+ per gallon for gas, or not being able to buy any at all? This is no false choice: Perdue's punitive measures will reward poor consumption habits and cause shortages in the future. This is political opportunism masquerading as consumer protection. And that's <span style="font-style: italic;">way</span> more immoral to me than so-called gouging. [9/1/05]<br /></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"><div style="text-align: justify;">That was pretty spot-on, no? Especially since it's painfully clear that Sonny Perdue knows fuck-all about basic economics, and learned NOTHING from the episodes of 2005. If that ruddy-faced goober would just step aside and let the market correct the problem, we might all be able to get gas, instead of jamming Atlanta's busy streets and wasting hours in line.<br /><br />Next time can we please listen to the <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023146.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">economists</span></a> instead of the politicians? PLEASE?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">***UPDATE 9/29/08***</span><br />Check out Aaron Bilger's incredibly lucid <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bilger2.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">article</span></a> about this on LRC today. Well worth a read.<br /></div><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-25903122646694734662008-09-23T22:56:00.001-04:002008-09-23T22:59:45.428-04:00"That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong."<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">The passage below, from Philip Roth's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Pastoral-Philip-Roth/dp/0375701427/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222223869&sr=8-1"><span style="font-weight: bold;">American Pastoral</span></a>," is too beautiful not to share:<br /><br /><blockquote>You fight your superficiality, your shallowness, so as to try to come at people without unreal expectations, without an overload of bias or hope or arrogance, as untanklike as you can be, sans cannon and machine guns and steel plating half a foot thick; you come at them unmenacingly on your own ten toes instead of tearing up the turf with your caterpillar treads, take them on with an open mind, as equals, man to man, as we used to say, and yet you never fail to get them wrong. You might as well have the <span style="font-style: italic;">brain</span> of a tank. You get them wrong before you meet them, while you're anticipating meeting them; you get them wrong while you're with them; and then you go home to tell somebody else about the meeting and you get them all wrong again. Since the same generally goes for them with you, the whole thing is really a dazzling illusion empty of all perception, an astonishing farce of misperception. And yet what are we to do about this terribly significant business of <span style="font-style: italic;">other people,</span> which gets bled of the significance we think it has and takes on instead a significance that is ludicrous, so ill-equipped are we all to envision one another's interior workings and invisible aims? Is everyone to go off and lock the door and sit secluded like the lonely writers do, in a soundproof cell, summoning people out of words and then proposing that these word people are closer to the real thing than the real people that we mangle with our ignorance every day? The fact remains that getting people right is not what living is all about anyway. It's getting them wrong that is living, getting them wrong and wrong and wrong and then, on careful reconsideration, getting them wrong again. That's how we know we're alive: we're wrong. Maybe the best thing would be to forget being right or wrong about people and just go along for the ride. But if you can do that - well, lucky you. (p. 35)</blockquote><br />I love that. Isn't it beautiful? And so mind-bendingly true?<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-22755916226773074352008-09-23T22:01:00.000-04:002008-09-23T22:01:57.200-04:00Paulson and Bernanke: FAIL<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguP3-VI6FZnWqTVOZmqU2yfy-7KUMk658dLESyOIq7e1Nac7D2w0zr1UQOiIXbwPnjTI1E3J_xZWEOxUPD2aeL7mCcoCIHTuWROv1sS_k-pK_Wx4CDJHclLkvYZF37rAUlzZw9QA/s1600-h/Paulson+Bernanke+FAIL.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguP3-VI6FZnWqTVOZmqU2yfy-7KUMk658dLESyOIq7e1Nac7D2w0zr1UQOiIXbwPnjTI1E3J_xZWEOxUPD2aeL7mCcoCIHTuWROv1sS_k-pK_Wx4CDJHclLkvYZF37rAUlzZw9QA/s400/Paulson+Bernanke+FAIL.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5249399206289712594" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Heroic!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">h/t to </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/731lt/fail/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">reddit</span></a>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-58489972147742810922008-07-19T23:04:00.001-04:002008-07-19T23:06:35.358-04:00Media Keeps Flunking Economics, Rothbard Spins in His Grave<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="inside-copy"><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-07-15-how-bad_N.htm"><span style="font-weight: bold;">This article</span></a> is a textbook example of how the media misrepresents economic issues - whether in this case from ignorance or bias, I don't know. Author David J. Lynch's Keynesian assumptions simmer beneath the surface of the whole article, so I'm leaning toward the latter.<br /><br />Consider the conclusion. Because Lynch writes this without irony or criticism, we must conclude he silently approves of the implications:<br /><br /><blockquote>One thing is clear: Government involvement in the financial system is expanding in ways that even the most fervent socialist could only have imagined one year ago. This week's federal proposal to help mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including opening the door to future government ownership stakes in the firms, is an "earthshaking event," Rogoff says.<br /><br />And not an isolated one. It comes after the Federal Reserve has stretched its legal mandate and found creative ways to grease the financial system's levers. In March, the Fed midwived the sale of investment bank Bear Stearns to rival JPMorgan Chase in a bid to head off broader problems.<br /><br />An era marked by regulators' light touch is at an end. "The system got carried away with financial innovation or financial engineering," El-Erian says. "Regulators didn't recognize how quickly things were moving. Now they're catching up."</blockquote><br />"Regulators' light touch"? Really?<br /><br />Our present economic turmoil is all down to the Fed's habit of cutting interest rates to unsustainable levels and inflating the money supply with reckless abandon! There is a clear cause and effect relationship between the government's manipulation of money and credit, and the booms and busts that ensue.<br /><br />The Austrian theory of the business cycle was put forth years ago, and its message is as urgent as ever. If you're curious about the real reasons for our economic mess, please see the following:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard183.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure</span></a> by Murray N. Rothbard</li><li><a href="http://mises.org/money.asp"><span style="font-weight: bold;">What Has Government Done to Our Money?</span></a> by Murray N. Rothbard</li><li><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/grand-theft-society.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Grand Theft Society</span></a> by Llewellyn H. Rockwell</li><li><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory163.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Get Out of The Way</span></a> by Anthony Gregory</li><li><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson220.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fannie, Freddie, and a Primer in Finance</span></a> by William L. Anderson</li></ul><br />Here's what bothers me about Lynch's article. <span style="font-style: italic;">USA Today</span> is as mainstream as it gets. Articles like this are written every day, yet inevitably a false choice is presented: <span style="font-style: italic;">this</span> much regulation, or <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> much. The underlying assumptions of Keynesian planning are never questioned. It is time to question them.<br /><br />Forgive the length (as well as any copyright issues), but I'll close by quoting from the "Money" chapter of Congressman Ron Paul's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216522117&sr=8-1"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Revolution: A Manifesto.</span></a>" These passages are worth quoting in full:<br /><br /><blockquote>Central economic planning has been as discredited as any idea can possibly be. But even though we point to our devotion to the free market, at the same time we centrally plan our monetary system, the very heart of the economy. Americans must reject the notion that one man, whether Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, or any other chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, can know what the proper money supply and interest rates ought to be. Only the market can determine that. Americans must learn this lesson if we want to avoid continuous and deeper recessions and to get the economy growing in a healthy and sustainable fashion. [p. 147]</blockquote><br />[...]<br /><br /><blockquote>For over a hundred years, the money issue has been absent from our political process. No political campaign has focused on it or even said much of anything about it. For most people, in fact, the Fed is a complete mystery, its operations incomprehensible. That seems to be just the way the Fed likes it. We are supposed to be bored by it. We are supposed to treat it as a given, like the air we breathe. We are supposed to have confidence in it - surely the experts who run our monetary system for us (and who of course have a vested interest in perpetuating the system we now have) couldn't be giving us bad advice! But point to it as the source of our eroding standard of living, the ravages of the boom-bust business cycle, and the financial bubbles that have ruined countless Americans? That is simply not to be found anywhere along the spectrum of allowable opinion in America. [p. 154]</blockquote><br />[...]<br /><br /><blockquote>Tinkering here and there is not the solution, but as I've said, it is the only proposal Americans are permitted to hear. It is long past time that we begin asking fundamental questions rather than trivial ones, that we educate the people rather than distract or confuse them. Simply trying to patch up monetary problems after they've occurred, whether it is the NASDAQ bubble or the housing bubble, neglects to treat the root of the problem and must therefore fail. We cannot solve the problems of inflation with more inflation. We need to ask: <span style="font-style: italic;">How did we get here?</span> What causes these bubbles? Financial bubbles simply happen, the political establishment tells us; these bubbles are an unfortunate but inevitable side effect of a market economy. This is nonsense. But it is convenient nonsense for some people, and that's why it gets repeated so often. It gives the perpetrators of the financial debacle that now confronts us a chance to get off the hook. We shouldn't let them. [p. 156]</blockquote><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-45678798409580240272008-06-22T22:56:00.003-04:002008-06-22T23:02:36.108-04:00Dissenting on the Tim Russert Elegy-Fest<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Like many, I was surprised to learn that NBC's Tim Russert had died on Friday, 6/13. He seemed a decent enough man but I did not share in the media's outpouring of grief. Russert was an establishment mouthpiece through and through. No doubt he'll be missed by his loved ones and many admirers, but don't forget how he protected the powerful and acted the Smithers to the establishment's Burns.<br /><br /></span></div><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.thesmashmix.com/wp-content/SmashMix037Smithers.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px;" src="http://www.thesmashmix.com/wp-content/SmashMix037Smithers.gif" alt="" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:trebuchet ms;" >Dick Cheney and Tim Russert on the set of "Meet the Press"</span><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />Herewith, a roundup of the best critiques of Russert and the cozy media/state union he represented:</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer175.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Messenger is the Message</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> by <span style="font-weight: bold;">Butler Shaffer</span></span><br /><span style=";font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:100%;" >"<span style="font-style: italic;">The message machine owners – subdivided into various radio/television networks and print media who, nonetheless have a shared interest in the message content – hire the "journalists," commentators, and others, to write and deliver the agreed-upon script. It is into this class of people that Tim Russert – along with other members of the fraternity who now lament his passing – was accepted by the owners. He was safe for their purposes, not the sort of person to ask unsettling questions. One major media source referred to him as 'a towering figure in American journalism.' If such words were intended to acknowledge only that Russert was held in high regard by fellow disseminators of what is to the interest of the establishment to have the public believe, it is probably correct. If we are asked to believe, however, that he represented the kind of critical, journalistic inquiry that troubled the minds of the powerful, I strongly disagree.</span></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"</span><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13006"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Enough Already!</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> by <span style="font-weight: bold;">Justin Raimondo</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">It wasn't just his sycophancy in the presence of power that motivates my little exercise in Russert revisionism – it's what was clearly his vehement hostility to anyone who challenged the status quo in any way and sought to provide an antidote to the Dick Cheneys of this world.</span>"</span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.laweekly.com/news/dissonance/a-sinners-view-of-tim-russerts-passing/19115/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">A Sinner's View of Tim Russert's Passing</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> by <span style="font-weight: bold;">Marc Cooper</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">Indeed, without unfailingly pulling that last punch, Russert knew very well that he would risk excommunication from the Inner Sanctum of the Beltway. A harder landing for his guests could dry up that most cherished of press commodities: access and kinship with the powerful. That’s how Russert began his career, as a shrewd, smart political operative — a role he never really outgrew. Till the end, his temperament, his disposition and ambition positioned him to be a much, much better source than an actual reporter. When I go, I also want oodles of uncritical praise — but not from the subjects of my reporting.</span>"</span><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><br /></span></span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021525.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Fuhrerprincip</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> by <span style="font-weight: bold;">Lew Rockwell</span></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">Cable TV has been obsessed with [Russert] since his death. Time Magazine, we are reminded again and again, named him one of the 100 most powerful people in America, that is, one of the people most powerfully serving and advancing the state and the power elite. Of course, cable figures also lionize him because it enhances, or so they think, their own bloated sense of self-importance.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">We are also told that Russert asked tough questions of politicians. What a joke. He acted like their butler or valet--with one exception. When Russert interviewed Ron Paul, he was incredibly hostile, made lying insinuations, gave Ron almost no time to answer, and, in general, acted like a member of the Capitol Hill-neocon thugbund.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">"<span style="font-style: italic;">Perhaps Russert, in confronting a genuine man of peace, felt guilty for his Bushian propaganda for war on Iraq, and the blood on his hands. The perpetually embedded journalist's body language was crabbed, and he never looked Ron in the eye.</span>"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">(h/t to <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">LRC</span></a> for all links)<br /></span></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-83353755848147365212008-06-20T00:19:00.003-04:002008-06-20T00:24:21.231-04:00Great News! Hey, Wait a Second...<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Hey everybody! Did you hear the news?<br /><br />Atlanta Hawks head coach Mike Woodson resigned!<br /><br />...<br /><br />Wait, what's that?<br /><br />Oh.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nba.com/hawks/news/Hawks_Resign_Woodson_061308.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike Woodson Re-Signs.</span></a><br /><br />Fucking hyphen.<br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-10400920906467159782008-06-20T00:14:00.002-04:002008-06-22T23:17:16.057-04:00One Way Colin Cowherd Could Make the World a Better Place<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">I had the singular displeasure of tuning in to ESPN Radio's <a href="http://www.firejoemorgan.com/search?q=colin+cowherd"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Colin Cowherd</span></a> the other day. It took a mere three minutes of unbridled idiocy to get me scrambling for the volume control. After a few moments of silence I realized I was <span style="font-style: italic;">still</span> absentmindedly twisting the knob leftward, sparking this insight:<br /><br /><a href="http://deadspin.com/search/colin%20cowherd/"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></a>By turning down my radio's volume, I was expressing the hope that the knob was somehow imbued with the magical power of imposing negative silence on <a href="http://deadspin.com/search/colin%20cowherd/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Schrutebag</span></a>. Not only did I hope he could emit no sound whatsoever, but with each twist of my volume control I wished his every attempt at speech would emit <span style="font-style: italic;">negative</span> decibel levels - so that by opening his mouth he would actually muffle and absorb <span style="font-style: italic;">other</span> irritating sounds - thereby making the world a quieter, gentler and, yes,<span style="font-style: italic;"> saner</span> place.<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-6845044376133700332008-05-06T01:11:00.001-04:002008-05-06T01:21:25.516-04:00Boston Be Not Proud<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Shit, has it been that long? It has.<br /><br />Frankly, I've been caught in the vise grip of ennui for awhile, and it took a playoff run by the Atlanta Hawks (the Hawks!) to inspire me. I've witnessed nearly every Hawks home game since the start of 2006-07, and had anyone told me they'd push the mighty Celtics to Game 7 - before bowing out in the most ignominious cock-punching imaginable - I'd have wondered who dosed my cheese grits.<br /><br />Of course, the Celtics were better. Their stars were more experienced. Their coaching was better. Their bench was deeper. Their defense was stouter. Their offense used such daring weapons as "high screens", "picks and rolls," "penetrations and kick-outs for open jumpers," and so on. Of course they eventually won, and won huge, as well they should have. When you look at the particulars of the series, the burning question is: how did the Hawks (the Hawks!) manage to win three games???<br /><br />Yes, the young Hawks fed off the emotions of the home crowd, and much has been made of it. But what we witnessed in Atlanta represented so much more. <span style="font-style: italic;"></span>This Hawks team represented the culmination of hope. We saw in this Hawks team a reason to care again: that youth, determination and, yes, faith could be rewarded. Over the years we patiently endured listless efforts, <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ATL/2005.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">mounting losses</span></a>, <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">missed opportunities</span></a>, and countless barbs. But what the Hawks improbably did in Games 3, 4, and 6 inspired all that cliched crap that makes us love sports: along the way they gave us redemption, genuine surprise, and unbridled joy.<br /><br />Those of us who have been around all along understand. During Game 1 of the Thrashers playoffs last year, I watched as the Philips crowd shamefully booed the Hawks players shown on the video board. The players seemed embarrassed but endured it quietly. I was angry. How anyone could boo <span style="font-style: italic;">those</span> guys - who busted their rears, cared so much, and showed slow yet steady improvement - was a mystery. Corny as it sounds, watching this team turn the boos into raucous cheers makes me feel almost like a proud parent. Our little Hawklings are all growns up!<br /><br />Of all the images I'll take from this series, perhaps the most indelible came near the bitter end: Rajon Rondo raced downcourt for a fastbreak layup only to get the WWE treatment from Marvin Williams (!). Now, I don't condone Marvin's actions, but I do think it came off far dirtier than Marvin intended. However, what Marvin did symbolized everything the Hawks had to do to reach Game 7 - not just in this postseason, but in every game since the 13-69 season of 2004-05. That outburst of angry pride from the team's most gentle, laid back player sent a clear message: this Hawks team was no longer content to be a pushover or laughingstock. The Hawks needed to get tougher, and they did.<br /><br />A quick word to the Celtics: eff you. Eff you right in the goddamn ear. What a bunch of spoiled, preening children. The snarling, throat-slashing, chest-thumping, and gang symbol histrionics - give me a fucking break. Their behavior is unbecoming of a franchise with such a storied history, and the lofty expectations to make more of it. Remember, Boston's "Big Three" played for teams that went a combined 87-159 in 2006-07. Then these nouveau riche douchebags win 66 games together and they act like lotto winners at a country club. How anyone could mistake their obnoxious self-congratulation for an authentic expression of intensity is beyond me.<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-63606531380156624172008-02-16T19:00:00.001-05:002008-02-16T19:07:22.847-05:00"Law Is Often But the Tyrant's Will"<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi52YNegIkQmZNRofhrdNdRAiJj2ttLRglDnW2fau_3odc_R1PSIdR8Ci-KIVeKs2awIKeCR0yiZn4T6qj0CfrUy94MJbJ6XeM_4smsF_vjyPYYTAkDJaQ0Ii97Meeb9wmumRY3TA/s1600-h/BushFlagFinger.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi52YNegIkQmZNRofhrdNdRAiJj2ttLRglDnW2fau_3odc_R1PSIdR8Ci-KIVeKs2awIKeCR0yiZn4T6qj0CfrUy94MJbJ6XeM_4smsF_vjyPYYTAkDJaQ0Ii97Meeb9wmumRY3TA/s400/BushFlagFinger.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5167726349276906626" border="0" /></a>Consider Thomas Jefferson's <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff136362.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">famous definition of individual liberty</span></a>...<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><span style="font-style: italic;" class="huge"><blockquote>Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.</blockquote></span><br />...while reading about President Bush's intention to <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080214/pl_afp/usbushcongressintelligenceveto"><span style="font-weight: bold;">veto the Senate ban</span></a> on waterboarding [bold emphasis mine]:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Earlier, White House spokeswoman </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1203032591_3">Dana Perino</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> said the president would veto the measure because "the United States needs the ability to interrogate effectively, </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">within the law</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, captured </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1203032591_4">Al-Qaeda</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> terrorists."</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Democratic </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1203032591_5">New York</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-style: italic;" class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1203032591_6">Senator Charles Schumer</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> said that if Bush "vetoes intelligence authorization, he will be voting in favor of waterboarding."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Asked by a reporter if Bush, who leaves office in 2009, would be labeled as the first US president who favored torture, Perino rejected the assertion and dismissed Schumer's argument as "simplistic."</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">"Across the board people will see, over time, that this was a president who put in place tools to protect the country against terrorists," Perino said.</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-style: italic;">"The president does not favor torture. The president favors making sure we do all these programs </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">within the law</span><span style="font-style: italic;">," she said, adding that "all the interrogations that have taken place in this country have been done <span style="font-weight: bold;">in a legal way</span>."</span><br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;">Perino said the United States does not currently use waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique denounced by rights groups as torture, even though the CIA has admitted using the technique in the past.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">She reiterated the administration's assertion last week that it would not rule out the use of such techniques in the future.</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">"As we said last week as well, we are not going to talk about </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">what may or may not be lawful in the future</span><span style="font-style: italic;">."</span> </blockquote><br />Perhaps unwittingly, Perino gives away the administration's playbook: if the act is illegal, immoral or otherwise unacceptable, presto! Simply change the law - or the legal definition of "torture" - and go about your dirty business.<br /><br />Jefferson warned of the dangers of equating the law with justice or fairness; indeed, most laws are incompatible with, and outright hostile to, individual liberty. So it's little surprise that Perino's argument, essentially, is: that which is legal may be done with impunity. And who decides what is legal? The executive dictator, his handpicked jurists, and a supine legislature, of course.<br /><br />Thus the administration deploys <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism"><span style="font-weight: bold;">legal positivism</span></a> to justify torture and oppression. But it's legal and for your own protection, citizen.<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-2869180149546709232008-01-28T23:11:00.000-05:002008-01-28T23:25:14.901-05:00Notes from NHL All-Star Weekend 2008<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Full disclosure: I work part-time for the Atlanta Hawks & Thrashers. On game nights I'm up in the Philips Arena control room, working under the umbrella of video production.<br /><br />Initially I'd been told I probably wouldn't be needed for the 56th NHL All-Star Game, so I made plans to attend the game instead. But less than two weeks ago I learned the NHL wanted an in-house stat guy after all. So what happened? Between Friday afternoon and Sunday night, I spent roughly 32 of 54 hours at Philips Arena preparing for the festivities - and, believe me, my hours were far from the longest among our crew. Our director endured a stretch of three days and only one meal. Despite the frantic conditions, I experienced one of the most memorable weekends of my life.<br /><br />Herewith, some of the goofier behind-the-scenes highlights, in bullet-point format:<br /><br /><ul><li>At Friday afternoon's rehearsal, our audio engineer said, "Guys, Milano sighting." Alyssa Milano, co-host of Saturday's Rockin' Skate event, emerged from one of the tunnels for a mic check. A few guys in the control room bolted to the window for a peek; it was the kind of scramble you might expect from someone yelling "Cops!" at a high school party. As it turned out, I was too late. She came out, said "Hello" into the mic, and left. That was it. One guy managed to catch a glimpse of her back, and proclaimed it to look "pretty good."</li></ul><br /><ul><li>For Saturday morning's Rockin' Skate event - headlined by Disney Channel favorites the Jonas Brothers - the second commercial to run on the video board was the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmFBOVZ6BLM"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Bud Light "Dude" spot</span></a>. Now, this is a funny spot, but it killed me for two reasons:</li></ul><br />1) <span style="font-style: italic;">It was 8:10 in the morning</span>. Which isn't too early for a beer if you're forced to sit through the Jonas Brothers, I suppose.<br /><br />2) The Thrashers won't let anyone under 21 ride the Molson Zamboni between periods, but we can show beer commercials to a crowd of predominantly prepubescent teens. Wait, what?<br /><br /><ul><li>Saturday afternoon, as we headed down to eat, a bunch of the NHL team mascots tromped among us through the hall. It was like walking into a SportsCenter commercial. One of my colleagues turned to me and said simply, "This is the surreal life, right here." It was hard to argue.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>Up in the control room we run a goal pool for every Thrashers home game. The deal is everyone puts in a dollar, you pick the name of one Thrasher player out of a hat, and you win the pot if your guy scores the team's last goal. Last night we ran a special edition: the cost was $5 per player, per conference - $10 to play both conferences - with a best-case payout of $180. I ended up with Shawn Horcoff from Edmonton and Eric Staal from Carolina. Staal was on the bubble until Marc Savard's late game winner, assisted by (who else?) Eric Staal himself. As game MVP, Staal won a new Dodge Journey. As unlucky schmuck knocked off the bubble, I won nothing.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>One of my favorite parts of the job is being able to see great camera shots that never make it up on the board. For example, during last night's "Sport Shorts," we caught a glimpse of an enthralled Eastern Conference bench laughing and wincing at the video. They were like a bunch of kids, and we were as entertained by them as they were by the video.</li></ul><br /><ul><li>Last night I was exiting Philips Arena with my father-in-law, a Pittsburgh Penguins season ticket holder. He wore a Pens hat and Mario Lemieux jersey - pretty hard to miss if you're associated with the team. Naturally, who comes striding toward us but Penguins defenseman Kris Letang, who played in Saturday's YoungStars game. He shot us a look that said, "Shit, please don't stop me to talk" and kept right on going, prompting this exchange:</li></ul><br />Father-in-law: "That was Kris Letang!"<br />Me: "I can't believe he didn't acknowledge you, what with all the Pens gear."<br />Father-in-law: "Aw, he's a dick anyway."<br /><br />Take <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span>, Kris Letang!<br /><br />All in all, the weekend was sublime. To have attended an All-Star weekend is exhilarating enough, but I'm extremely proud to have participated in such an extraordinary production. Hopefully I'll get to do it again someday.<br /><br />(Oh, and hopefully these revelations won't get me in trouble.)<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-28760206635446122802008-01-18T21:56:00.000-05:002008-01-18T21:57:46.130-05:00Economists Ignore Their Economic Training to Support Edwards<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The implications of </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/01/18/News/Economists.Back.Edwards.For.Prez-3158342.shtml"><span style="font-weight: bold;">this article</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> are really quite astonishing:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Although John Edwards' campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination may be stalling, a group of economists is trying to get it running again.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">William Darity, professor of public policy studies, African and African-American studies and economics, joined 33 other economists from various institutions in endorsing a statement that calls the former North Carolina senator the candidate who "has best demonstrated the capacity and the policies to be the next president of the United States."</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />The group, known as Economists for Edwards, was recruited by James Galbraith, professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Galbraith said he started the group after an article in The New York Times claimed, "[Edwards'] populist bent helps explain why only one high-profile economist... has joined the campaign."</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />"The important thing was to establish that... I'm not the only guy out there with an economics Ph.D. who [supports Edwards]," he added.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />He said the economists who endorsed the statement shared "a willingness to think large on policy questions."</span></blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:trebuchet ms;" ></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The real clincher comes at the end:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">John Herlin, a second-year graduate student in economics, said economic issues are often just one of many factors economists consider when choosing a candidate to support.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />"If economists were going to support a presidential candidate based purely on what is taught in economics courses, we would probably all support Ron Paul," he said.</span></blockquote><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">What an astounding (and refreshingly candid) revelation this is! Trained professionals of all kind no doubt consider many factors when choosing a candidate, but here you have economists supporting a candidate <span style="font-style: italic;">whose economics are quite clearly terrible.</span> It's like the atheist supporting an evangelical like Mike Huckabee. What level of cognitive dissonance is required for such a decision?</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">To understand just how odd it is for credentialed economists to support a socialist like John Edwards, see what <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/people-dont-get-it.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lew Rockwell</span></a> wrote recently about the importance of economic education as it relates to liberty:</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;font-size:100%;" ><blockquote></blockquote></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">The socialist and the advocate of free markets observe the same facts. But the person with economic knowledge understands their significance and implications. For example, only Ron Paul, of all American public officials, really understands economics. This is why we must never underestimate the central role of teaching about economics. Facts will always be with us. Wisdom, however, must be taught. Achieving a culture-wide understanding of liberty and its implications has never been more important.</span><br /></blockquote><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">William Garrity and James Galbraith are to economics what the 'intelligent design' crowd is to science. These court economists pervert and betray the discipline by cheering the statist Edwards. Supporting a candidate's politics is fine - but it's crossing the line to provide intellectual cover for economic policies <span style="font-style: italic;">you know</span> to be destructive.</span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"></span></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-75628676902137029182007-12-16T23:58:00.000-05:002007-12-17T00:15:27.834-05:00Random Thoughts on the Mitchell Report<div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">So, the <a href="http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mitchell Report</span></a> on steroid use in baseball was released last week, and you know what? I don't really give a shit. Seems to me that enough righteous indignation has been wasted on the so-called menace of steroids. I won't even link to the worst offenders; everyone knows how to use Google.<br /><br />My own thoughts are pretty well summed up by <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017745.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Lew Rockwell</span></a>:</div><p style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"></p><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"><blockquote>Murray Rothbard used to say that anyone officially beloved is evil. George Mitchell is certainly in that category. An ex-prosecutor and errand boy for the establishment, ex-Senator Mitchell made heavy use of the state in his rotten report.<br /><br />Since I know that much of the federal propaganda against other illegal substances is a lie, I do not assume they are telling the truth about steroids. If adult players want to take "performing-enhancing substances," that is their business, and none of the government's.<br /><br />It can also be baseball's business, but then it is up to MLB to enforce its rules.<br /><br />In fact, MLB pretty much ignored steroids, which was probably the correct move, until the Christian President made them part of his totalitarian Drug War. I'll never forget Sanctimonious George condemning the immorality of steroids as he was murdering hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.</blockquote>Agreed. People get so emotional over the issue of steroids, yet in every discussion I have about this (including one last night), I get the same non-arguments and flimsy contentions. Just to address a few:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">1. "Steroids are illegal."</span><br />So? That's a statement of fact, to be sure, but not an argument. I'd like to know the following:<br /><br />a) Why should it be up to MLB to serve as proxy for the state's rotten war on drugs?<br />b) Which other criminal offenses should MLB feel the need to police?<br /><br />The problem with the legality argument is that it's circular, in my mind. The prohibitionist crowd has yet to make a convincing argument for banning any substance, let alone steroids, so citing illegality is arguing from a weakened position. First establish that steroids <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> be illegal, then argue that it logically follows that MLB should prohibit them. Otherwise, you're arguing a tautology: steroids are bad because they're illegal. And steroids are illegal because they're bad.<br /><br />LSD is also illegal but researchers are exploring its potential to treat a variety of mental disorders. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it <span style="font-style: italic;">ipso </span><span style="font-style: italic;">facto</span> without medicinal, therapeutic or other value.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">2. "Steroid-enhanced performances distort baseball's unique statistical record."</span><br />This is perhaps the most fatuous of all the anti-steroid complaints. I've <a href="http://jasonballot.blogspot.com/2005/08/robinson-schilling-erase-stats-after.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">addressed this issue before</span></a> but it is worth revisiting. Statistics are numerical representations of the historical record, but they are supposed to serve us, not the other way around. As <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2571"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Joe Sheehan has said</span></a>: "baseball statistics are not numbers generated for their own sake." Yet too many baseball fans treat them as such. Are we to be slaves to the numbers, or will we endeavor to understand their meaning?<br /><br />To wit: Roger Maris hit more homers in a season than Babe Ruth ever did - but nobody in his right mind argues that Maris was the better hitter. In the last 20 years, Pat Hentgen and Mark Davis each won Cy Young Awards, yet Curt Schilling and Roy Oswalt haven't. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/spahnwa01.shtml"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Warren Spahn's</span></a> career high in strikeouts was 191 - a figure surpassed by <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/langsma01.shtml"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mark Langston</span></a> <span style="font-style: italic;">seven times!</span> Does anyone believe that Mark Langston was more dominant than Warren Spahn?<br /><br />The point is that <span style="font-style: italic;">context is everything</span>. You have to understand which value judgments the statistical record is making (if any), and when it's just a collection of numbers that make no statement at all.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">3. Ballplayers are role models! What kind of message do they send to kids by taking steroids???</span><br />Another pointless debate. On a side note, why are athletes held to a higher standard with these kinds of issues? Few people wring their hands when musicians or actors get busted for drugs, yet are they not "role models" to the band geeks and drama weenies of the world?<br /><br />Anyway, it doesn't matter. This culture's odd conceit that prohibition is the best way to protect children from certain substances causes far more problems than it solves. All that is achieved with prohibition is to create the illusion that some substances are "good" and some are "bad" - and that appetites can therefore be controlled through force alone. The reality is that there are pros and cons with ingesting all kinds of things but prohibition prevents us from confronting these issues honestly. It's no different with steroids. So what kind of message do we send to kids by refusing to acknowledge shades of gray?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">4. It's cheating!</span><br />Fair enough, and so long as MLB rules say so, I'm not arguing that steroid use is anything otherwise. I just can't bring myself to care that much. To me, this is little different from corking bats, scuffing balls, or stealing signals; it's a private matter to be adjudicated by MLB and its players. Congressional hearings, Mitchell Reports, asterisks...it's all so much bullshit. Cheating ballplayers should be fined and/or suspended, and then everybody move on. Spare me the goddamn moral outrage.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">5. Players taking steroids jeopardize everyone by taking jobs from those unwilling to ingest the stuff.</span><br />This is the only serious argument that carries any real weight. Truly, it matters on the margins only, where superstars looking for an edge or fringe/utility players seeking a roster spot can benefit. Nonetheless, a "clean" player could get squeezed out by a steroid user of otherwise comparable talents. Doesn't seem fair to ask a player to risk his health in order to win playing time, so I'll cede that one.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CONCLUSION</span><br />In the past few years, we've seen alleged steroid users Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens post historical seasons at advanced ages. Here's what I'd like to know: assuming steroids to be the catalyst for these performances, why discourage this? As fans, shouldn't we want more and healthier seasons, and greater performances, from elite athletes?<br /><br />IF steroids are as powerful as advertised, and IF the health risks can be managed or minimized under a doctor's supervision, and IF the overall benefits can be demonstrated to outweigh the negatives...why not explore the possibilities?<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-34152638084395694302007-11-27T23:32:00.000-05:002007-11-27T23:40:29.176-05:00Fenway Park Crowd Restores My Faith In Humanity<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Choose any verb to describe hatred - loathe, despise, detest, abhor, whatever; enhance the sentiment with the modifiers "absolutely" and/or "fucking" preceding - and it still won't adequately convey how I feel about the singing of the national anthem before sporting events. I really hate it.<br /><br />From reich wing radio to those obnoxious, omnipresent magnetic ribbons, there is enough nationalistic, pseudo-patriotic crap marring every aspect of daily existence; we don't need to pay homage to the almighty state before a frocking </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:trebuchet ms;" >ballgame</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">ANYWAY. All that said, this video of Fenway Park's "Disability Awareness Day" crowd helping an autistic man through the "Star Spangled Banner" still gave me goosebumps:</span><br /></div><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-06786497508165668 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/NhcZRFcjbhw&rel=1"></a><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-06786497508165668 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/NhcZRFcjbhw&rel=1"></a><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NhcZRFcjbhw&rel=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NhcZRFcjbhw&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></embed></object></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">[h/t to </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://reddit.com/info/61g2z/comments/"><span style="font-weight: bold;">reddit</span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">.]<br /><br /></span>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-36701165758529477072007-11-13T01:11:00.000-05:002007-11-13T01:12:45.971-05:00Is Eric Lindros Hall-Worthy?<div face="trebuchet ms" style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Loge/6810/cover.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 200px;" src="http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Loge/6810/cover.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Frequently concussed hockey star <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3100744"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Eric Lindros called it quits</span></a> Thursday after 13 NHL seasons. With the <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?&brand=null&videoId=3099332&n8pe6c=2"><span style="font-weight: bold;">pundits</span></a> and <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=burnside_scott&id=3100447"><span style="font-weight: bold;">scribes</span></a> busy appraising Lindros's career, the popular question has been: is Lindros a Hall of Famer?<br /><br /><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=brophy1108"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></a><a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=brophy1108"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike Brophy</span></a> of The Hockey News, for one, is utterly convinced that Lindros belongs. He writes:<br /><br /></div><blockquote style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I have listened to the criticism Lindros has faced over the years -- that he was too influenced by meddling parents and that he never won the Stanley Cup -- but when I think of Lindros as a player, I think of a powerful game-breaker who was unquestionably one of the most dominant individuals to ever skate in the NHL. I think of a bodychecker who caused opponents to toss and turn all night before they had to play against him, of his lightning-quick release on the best snap shot the game has ever seen, of how he played for Team Canada in the 1991 Canada Cup as a teenager, of his 1994-95 MVP season when he scored 29 goals and 70 points in 46 games.<p>It was injuries, and nothing more, that hampered what could have been a storybook career. When he was healthy, Lindros was one of the best to ever play hockey. That, and that alone, should be the determining factor when it comes time to consider him for the honor of being inducted into the Hall of Fame. I'm not about to start naming names, but suffice it to say there have been players inducted into the Hall with lesser credentials.</p><p>I don't have a vote because I am not on the Hall of Fame selection committee. But if I did, I would not only vote yes, I would debate to the end of the earth with anybody who opposed his inclusion.</p><p>It is an argument I do not believe I could lose.</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;"></p><div style="text-align: justify; font-family: trebuchet ms;">This, in a nutshell, is the problem with modern sportswriting: questionable conclusions based on flimsy, anecdotal, non sequitur arguments.<br /><br />Well, Mikey, I think this is an argument you <span style="font-style: italic;">could</span> lose. Your watchword should be "doubt." I don't know that Lindros should or should not be in the Hall of Fame, but let's at least examine his credentials and the arguments constructed around them:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE PRO ARGUMENTS:</span><br />1. Lindros averaged 1.14 points per game over 760 NHL games - 17th in NHL history.<br />2. Major awards: one Hart Trophy (MVP), one Lester B. Pearson Trophy ("Most Outstanding Player"); one First Team NHL All-Star selection (1995); one Second Team NHL All-Star selection (1996).<br />3. Achievements/Milestones:<br />a. 4 seasons with 40+ goals<br />b. 7 seasons with 30+ goals<br />c. One 100-point season<br />d. Tied for the league lead in scoring (1995 - lost Art Ross trophy to Jaromir Jagr, who won by virtue of more goals).<br /><br />Unfortunately for Lindros, some of his achievements also work against him, due to raised expectations:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE CON ARGUMENTS:</span><br />1. Zero 50-goal seasons.<br />2. Scored 100 points in a season only once.<br />3. Never led the league in goals.<br />4. Never lead the league in assists.<br />5. Selected to only one First All-Star team and only one Second All-Star team.<br />6. Won only two major trophies.<br />7. Finished in the Top 10 in scoring just 3 times.<br />8. His career totals - 372 goals, 493 assists, 865 points - are pedestrian; 92nd all-time in goals, not in Top 100 in assists, 99th all-time in points.<br />9. After leading the Flyers to the Stanley Cup Finals in 1997, Lindros played in just 10 more playoff games the rest of his career.<br />10. He never won a Stanley Cup.<br /><br />Lindros supporters often cite Cam Neely since the two had similarly great, albeit injury-plagued, careers. The argument goes that if Neely's worthy of the Hall, Lindros should be, too. There is some merit to that but the argument's weak.<br /><br />Neely was terrific at his peak but he's a marginal Hall of Famer. Three 50-goal seasons, four Second All-Star Team selections, a Bill Masterton Trophy in 1994, and a torrid stretch of 176 goals in 216 games (around 65 per 80 games) put him in. That's it, though.<br /><br />Neely had zero 100-point seasons. He never led the league in goals. He was never a First Team All-Star. Among the Top 100 goal scorers in NHL history, Neely doesn't even rank in the Top 10 in goals per game:<br /><br />1. Mike Bossy, .762<br />2. Mario Lemieux, .754<br />3. Pavel Bure, .623<br />4. Wayne Gretzky, .601<br />5. Brett Hull, .584<br />6. Bobby Hull, .574<br />7. Tim Kerr, .565<br />8. Rick Martin, .561<br />9. Phil Esposito, .559<br />10. Maurice Richard, .556<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">11. Cam Neely</span>, <span style="font-weight: bold;">.544</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Lindros supporters: is Cam Neely really the guy whose coattails you want to ride in on?<br /><br />The question remains: is Eric Lindros a Hall of Famer? I don't know. It's unfair to penalize him for unrealized potential, especially since injuries held him back more than anything else. The thing about hockey, though, is that value is driven almost as much by perception as it is by numbers. In the end, this might work in Lindros's favor.<br /><br />The problem, however, is that Lindros will never be perceived in the same light as the best of his contemporaries: Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Yzerman, Hull, Jagr, Shanahan, Robitaille, Bourque, Sakic, Forsberg, Stevens, Lidstrom, and so on.<br /><br />When you think of the greatest players of the last 20 years, is Eric Lindros one of them?<br /><br /></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14169144.post-47628717323440034812007-11-08T20:19:00.000-05:002007-11-12T22:57:55.334-05:00KEVIN DRUM, DINGLEBERRY<div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Kdrum1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px 10px 10px 0px; float: left; width: 200px;" alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b7/Kdrum1.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">***UPDATE BELOW***</span><br /><br />That handsome devil to the left is something named Kevin Drum. He <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_11/012452.php"><span style="font-weight: bold;">blogged</span></a> about Ron Paul's record-breaking fundraising day (11/5), and boy, is he ever mad!</span><br /></div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">RON PAUL, FRUITCAKE....Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it,</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Everyone = Kevin Drum, apparently.</span></div><br /><div align="justify"> </div><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it.</span></strong><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SOFSS80"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Some</span></a> <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6746.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">better</span></a> <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">than</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Drum"><span style="font-weight: bold;">others</span></a>.</span><br /><strong></strong><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing.</span></strong><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">If you cannot engage the ideas: smear, dismiss, repeat. Classic.</span></div><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise.</span></strong></div><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Smear. Dismiss. Repeat. Substance? Optional. </span><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.</span></strong></div><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Oops. I forgot "rationalize."</span><br /><br /><div align="justify"><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust.</span></strong></div><br /><strong><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?</span></strong><br /><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">You first, Kevin.</span></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Seriously, what a twat. Drum's screed uses up 253 words, yet says...absolutely nothing. What is his point? That Ron Paul's a "fruitcake?" Why? That Dr. Paul has no chance of becoming president? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1948"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why</span></a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura"><span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span></a>? That it's somehow "unserious" to put any credence into coordinated grassroots efforts? Why? Drum doesn't provide support for a single thing he writes.</span><br /></div><br /><div align="justify"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Kevin Drum: your blog post, and the "ideas" expressed therein, are so transcendentally terrible that I hereby award you an inaugural "Coxie", named for Dr. Perry Cox from "Scrubs."<br /><br />Take it away, Per:<br /><br /></span></div><br /><div align="justify"> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-027219822471467836 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WrjwaqZfjIY&rel=1"></a><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Click here to block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-027219822471467836 visible ontop" href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WrjwaqZfjIY&rel=1"></a><object height="355" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WrjwaqZfjIY&rel=1"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WrjwaqZfjIY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></embed></object></span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-family: trebuchet ms;">***UPDATE***</span><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">11/12/2007: Glenn Greenwald has </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html"><span style="font-weight: bold;">blogged about the smears against Ron Paul</span></a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> - far more eloquently and gentlemanly than yours truly, natch - and cited Drum's crappy blog. Go read it.</span><br /></div><br /></div></div></div>J Ballothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04744685206784758595noreply@blogger.com3