MattZ

Not those three games either. (although if you want to blame anyone for game 6 in 86 you should be blaming Bob Stanley)

I have never witnessed a game in any team sport where any one player cost his team the game.

These are Yankee fans we are talking about, people.

Sure, there's the risk of a fence sitter being subliminally swayed, but I'd argue there's also the possibility that people will become more informed about this issue as a result of all the controversey.

I kicked over my TV last night when Joe Morgan explained that Josh Hamilton's HRs went further than everyone else's because he connects with the ball on the sweet spot of the bat. And that everyone else was hitting their home runs off the end of the bat or were out in front. God I hate Joe Morgan.

I am not looking to turn this thread into a "small ball" vs "wait for 3 run HR" thread, but nothing makes me happier than a guy who just puts the bat on the ball the other way against the shift. Even if he is giving up the chance at a HR. Yes, I am including you Carlos Delgado. And let's be honest bobbob -- the AL woops the NL because it's got better players.

I lean more to cryptique on this topic. I don't know, but when the game in the NBA became about dunking, it lost a lot of it's appeal to me. Same with baseball. Baseball continues to become more and more about the home run. I dont fault either sport -- for the casual fan, the dunk and the home run are the most exciting and easily identifiable. But when dunks begin to replace good passing, smart sets, team play, etc., I think it takes away from the game. And the hulabaloo around dunks and crowds incentivizes players to practice their windmill dunks instead of their free throws. And then

Yeah, Jules, great point. And that's why I think it won't end up retaining any negative image (great point, Beltmann). It's impossible to post the pic anywhere without THE NEW YORKER in large print blazoned across the top. That sort of negates any negativity that might be associated. At least, in my mind. (Full Disclosure: I am a religious New Yorker and New York Review of Books reader so maybe I am biased.)

Yeah an informed consumer is vital to an efficient market, which is what capitalism is based on. Supply and demand coming together, etc. Uninformed consumers make the markets less efficient, and screw up capitalism. Unless your point is that the "haves" of capitalism can more easily profit off of the "havenots" of capitalism if those "havenots" are uninformed. But capitalism isn't the enemy.

Sure, but today's generation is the product of the boomers that did, right? So maybe they've/we've been raised with a mindset that subsconsciously is less willing to believe that we can change anything.

I love this article on Billy Joel fandom from Jody Rosen at Slate... Well worth a read for those of us with a guilty soft spot for him. http://www.slate.com/id/2131184/

Sometimes I think that the apathy today relates to the fact that people tried to change things in the 60s and largely failed. And now people are resigned to the fact that there's just not much that can be done to change things. And then I think that there were some pretty powerful changes in the 60s. The Civil Rights Act, for one, really did change things for people. So I have no answers. Just questions.

You've been wearing the same boxers for more than a year?

Fuck yeah

The idea being that folks on the fence or independents might not want to vote for Obama because they fear that he's in the pocket of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? So, let's hatch a scheme to show the world that Obama is his own man.

I'd love it if it were theater (brilliant!), but I have to think that anyone who wouldn't vote for Obama because of a perceived alliance with the Jacksons/Sharptons of the world is not someone that would vote for Obama either way.

CT echoes much of what I said yesterday, but I'd also like to highlight that it's not just limited to mortgages. You hear stories about (mostly) senior citizens getting duped out of savings all the time with scams, and very smart and very dumb people are the victims of ponzi schemes all the time too. No matter how you slice it, or what you call it, there are ways to unfairly take money from unsuspecting victims. Yes, all those victims need to take responsibility for their actions, but I don't have any problem with lumping "mortgage brokers" into the same category of other law breakers if th

Completely agree. I just think there's blame to go around.

Who are you impersonating now?

I think we agree on more than we disagree. Honestly. But I do think you are making the issue a bit too simplistic. You may not be a financial genius, but you are an intelligent guy. Intelligent enough to know that there's something funky about these ARMs. Funky enough to investigate or stay away from. Not all people are intelligent enough to know that -- or to know that the person sitting across the table selling them something really doesn't have their best interests in mind. Even though they say they do. There were plenty of predatory practices that mortgage companies engaged in by

I think we're saying the same thing, actually. I am disappointed with Obama's vote, but I will still vote for him. Gladly. I don't expect Obama to be a carbon copy of my beliefs. I am just here arguining about the bill -- not whether Obama is the right guy to vote for. (although I realize that others may be making a different point).

I see your point and I understand, and frankly, agree with much of it. But I just don't see the issues as mutually exclusive. I am worried about my grocery and gas bill and the FISA bill. To be completely honest, in that order.

My 15 yr reunion was a few weeks back. I couldn't go because I had plans at home to rearrange my sock drawer. I saw some pics though. Wow. I am sure I had more fun.

It doesn't put me off obama or make me call him bush II. But it does disappoint me greatly. As Jorge said, the telecom companies should have their day in court. They can argue that they did what the executive branch told them as a defense. If that sways a jury, they should get off. Otherwise, they should face the consequences of their actions. Just like you and/or me if we broke the law. You often call for people to take responsibility for their actions. Shouldn't the same be expected of the telecom companies? And wouldn't immunizing them set the precedent that they don't have to?