Who's your name again?

Yeah, no time for blogging. My life is currently absorbed in various wedding preparations and making sure that I get enough work done so that I don't get dragged back to the office in the middle of the "Electric Slide". See you on the otherside.

All-Star Break = serious work to do

So here we are at the unofficial midway point of the baseball season and my fantasy team sits at the bottom. I have since changed my team name from Logjammin to Turd Sandwich. This is because it has been shitty. I am currently something like 35 games behind. The one ray of sunshine is that the next 4 or 5 teams ahead of me aren't doing much better. A major rebound in the 2nd half can possibly cause me to sneak in the playoffs. All I would need for that to happen is that I will have to have a complete reversal in luck and everyone on my team will become healthy and dominate. Sounds likely, right?

So my team stands as follows:

C-I am currently rocking Geovany Soto at catcher. At first I was extremely bitter about cutting Napoli only to see him go on and start hitting but Soto has really worked out so far. He's not exactly dominating but he posts a solid average and a fantastic OBP while occasionally chipping in runs, RBIs, and HRs every now and then. He doesn't hurt the team and sometimes that's all you can ask from your catcher. ESPN ranks him 10th among catchers for the 2nd half but my rankings (which include OBP and Ks where ESPN doesn't) have him at 6.

1B- About a month ago I traded away Jon Lester to get Mark Teixiera and it is finally starting to pay dividends. After a painfully slow start he is now picking up his average and hitting dingers so I am pretty happy with that. I also recently dealt away Paul Konerko (my 1st half MVP) for Dan Uggla. This leaves me with Lance Berkman as a backup. His days of dominance appear to be over but he also seems to be picking up the pace having gone through a couple hot streaks and he is no longer useless. I may move him to one of the couple of teams that lack a viable 1B but trying to trade this year has been impossible. Teixeira 4th/5th. Berkman 21st/19th.

2B- Well, this has been my most difficult position to fill ever since Gordon Beckham decided he was going to be the bust of the year (had to finally cut his ass, as much as it hurt). For a time I filled the void with Orlando Hudson. Then it was Neil Walker. Finally it was Carlos Guillen. None of them were very good. So, finding myself with extra 1Bs I tried like crazy to find someone who would trade and finally the aforementioned Konerko-Uggle deal was completed. So now I have Dan Uggla. I've owned him in the past and he can be one of the most frustrating players to own. He can also single handedly carry a team on one of his hot streaks. He has a little extra appeal right as it appears that Colorado is talking to Florida about trading for him and all I can say is that a slugger like Uggla batting up there in them mountains could be awesome. I also currently have Brian Roberts and Asdrubal Cabrera stashed away waiting for them to come back from injury. If I can wait out the DL time then I might have myself with some excellent trade bait on my hands with the absolute lack of decent middle infield options available this year. We'll see how that goes. Uggla 6th/6th. Roberts 24th/45th. Cabrera -/53rd

3B- So ARod is showing some signs of life lately but he is still serving as a disappointment. His BABIP is low right now so I'd have to think that he will bounce back. Not like there's really anything I can do about it, right? ARod 3rd/10th

SS- Same as with ARod. Jeter 2nd/10th. Cabrera -/43rd

OF- This is perhaps my most frustrating position as all 3 of my main picks have not contributed much. Ellsbury still resides on the DL and is now arguing with Red Sox Management about the way his injury was handled. Span has decided that he loves the new ballpark in Minnesota so much that he's just going to suck on the road. Abreu is... not sure what's wrong with Abreu. Both Span and Abreu were starting to heat up a bit before the break so there's positive signs. Abreu also has a big career split in his pre/post all star numbers so I expect him to be a new man. Luckily I was able to strike gold by picking up Corey Hart and he has been reborn this year as a great slugger topping 20 dingers at the break. I've also picked up a very temporary hot streak from Andre Torres though I believe he will quickly fall back to earth soon. To round out the squad of underachievers I also grabbed a recently dropped Adam Lind who looks like he might be turning things around. All told I now have 6 OFs of which I'd only really like to have 4 at most. I figure that Torres is an easy drop once he cools off but then I will have to find a way to deal away another unless Lind continues to suck. If I could find a willing trade partner to take Berkman and an OF off my hands that would be fantastic. Hart 24th/14th. Abreu 18th/36th . Span 26th/35th . Torres 75th/15th . Ellsbury 43rd/114th . Lind 41st/112th .

SP- Well the state of this lineup has changed so many times this year that it's a little hard for me to assess.
Liriano was my stud for most of the year. In the last month, however, he has started getting lit up. I have full confidence that he will right the ship again but I won't start him again until he pitches well. 14th/77th
Haren seems to be settling down a bit after probably his worst 1st half ever. He's giving up less home runs and is still showing the great streakout and control ability that he is known for. If he gets traded to a contender it would be good for me. 17th/100th
Nolasco can be very frustrating to own. Much like his teammate Dan Uggle. For a while he was pitching well, then he struggled and couldn't strike anyone out, and now he is back to dominating. 26th/43th
Vazquez is finally giving me a reason to feel good about trading for him. It will take some time for his ERA to come down but it has been in a free fall for a couple months now. 36th/37th
Beckett is still injured but should be coming back in a week or two. 40th/111th
Floyd is pitching like a Cy Young candidate right now. He seems to go through this every year where he starts off completely useless and then is lights out for the rest of the year. Another trade I am starting to feel good about. 43rd/24th
Lilly has been awful the last couple starts. He was the beneficiary of some great luck in his first few starts to I have to believe that he was due for some regression. I'm sure he will straighten it out soon. He better. 45th/110th

As for my relievers... they've been ok. Bailey,Franklin, and Axford haven't been getting a ton of save oppurtunities but they tend to get it done when I need them to. There is the occasional bump in the road they're ok. I just need to keep my eyes open as the trade deadline approaches to see if I can snag some guys about to get the job.

So that's my team. My main issue is that I have been saddled with so many underachieving stars that I have no room to make moves to pick up the surprise guys like Scott Rolen, Trevor Cahill, Carl Pavano, etc.

If these turds can pick it up in the second half I will be a very happy guy. Hopefully it all works out.

Kilmeade shows us how it's done

I know I said no more politics but I just couldn't let this pass by...



(meh, having trouble getting this video embedded. Until I get it to work right, here's the gist-

Kilmeade: It took Obama only "hours" to appoint Petraeus, "so why is it taking months to plug the leaking oil?")

God... it's just so STUPID!

Just to remind you, this is the portion of FOX news that is considered "news" and not opinion.

In other excellent questions:

It only took Bush 6 years to damage the economy, divide the nation, launch multiple wars, and wreck political discourse... why hasn't Obama been able to fix all this yet?

It took decades of neglect by presidents and congresses of both parties for the country to fill up with illegal immigrants yet Obama has not managed to fix this situation? Why?

It only took a few moments for him to eat breakfast this morning, so why hasn't Social Security been fixed yet?

Obama had a successful meeting with Russian leaders this week, why hasn't he been able to end violence in Africa?

The questions are endless! We need Obama to stop pussyfooting around and solve these problems!

NewsBusters.org Esposing liberal media bias (agree with us or else!)

Last political post for some time, I promise.

So I recently signed up for the twitter feed belonging to NewsBusters since I so enjoy hearing/reading the viewpoints of people I don't necessarily agree with. Their motto seems sincere enough. Just as there is conservative media bias there is definitely liberal media bias and I am not naive enough to believe that only one side is guilty.

It took less than a week to find out that this site is full of crap and needs a completely different site to try and capture all of the bias that they are guilty of.

Almost every story I read is basically a hack job attempt at spin to make liberals look as bad as possible. It's exactly the type of site that a bunch of amateur bloggers would come up with where everyone can agree with each other without fear of having someone disagree with them.

As my previous post would indicate I like perusing the message boards and so I took the time one day to register so that I could join the discussion. Knowing how touchy these places can be I phrased a very articulate reply asking a reasonable question with a firm belief that it wasn't so inflammatory as to get my comment deleted.

It took less than a day for my account to be banned completely. I thought this weird and maybe I didn't verify my account properly so I tried again only to see that my email address had been banned from the site. From that point, with open eyes, I started reading the comment sections on a few pages only to see that is was chock full of lib-hating people in all their glory with nary a lefty comment to be seen. Ah ha.

So feeling oppressed launched a google query asking about getting banned from Newsbusters only to see that this is apparently how they operate. A site claiming to look for media bias rejects any and all two-sided discussions. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?

Ultimately it's not a big deal. These people have a club and there ain't no libs allowed. No biggy. I just thought it odd that a site attempting to be fair would be so close minded. I'll just have to find another enemy battleground to encroach on.

What's in a name?

Ever since I started paying attention to politics I've enjoyed checking in on various websites and reading the comments that readers leave behind. As abrasive and crazy as people can be in public it doesn't even come close to what is exhibited when these people get the protection of electronic anonymity.

It is in these forums where you will see every example of awful debate, immaturity, ignorance, and zero class. You might think that people who immerse themselves in politics might be somewhat interested in a good eye opening debate. In fact they usually just want to stay safe within the secure confines of like minded people. Occasionally they may lead a sortie consisting of straw man arguments, blanket statements, ad hominem attacks, and the ever present violation of Goodwin's law but they will then retreat swiftly and ignore and points made against them.

Perhaps my favorite element of this little world would have to be the user names of conservatives on these message boards. It's very rare to see a simple last name + year of birth combo or anything equally innocent. Instead you get declarations that instantly make them better Americans than you. Take this page for example. On this page you get the following:

Old Yankee
Tea Party Patriot
Preacher 's justice
Patriot
wakeuppeople
Don't tread on me!
real American
One_Nation_Under_God
Statesman/Patriot
mad vet
Concerned_American
american boy

These are actually kind of tame compared to other pages I've seen but the point remains the same. Is it wrong that I think this is hilarious? It's kind of like a preemptive strike. "Sure you can try to refute my logic of why Obama is purposely trying to destroy the country but you can't win because the word 'Patriot' is in my username." That's the only way I can interpret this stuff.

Is there a reason that conservatives spend a good portion of their time telling each other how American or how patriotic they are? Is this part of the mentality that leads them to believe they can instantly discard any opposing viewpoint simply because they think the other person is a "libtard"?

I consider myself a "real American". I consider myself patriotic. I am firm in my beliefs and yet I have no need to tell everyone just how American I am. Part of me wants to ignore the circle jerk that is conservative discussion but the other part can't help but think about dudes who tell everyone how much ass they get to cover for the fact that they aren't getting any.

So it's absolutely fine that these people need to dub themselves "SuperPatrioticMan" or "MoreAmericanThanU" but it really does not mean a god damn thing. It also means nothing when Sean Hannity names 2 bimbos and himself the "Great American Panel". There is no validity behind the name "Keep America Safe" when in actuality all you are doing, Liz, is performing revisionism on the past.

So what's in a name? Absolutely nothing... as long as you're capable of seeing past the book cover.

When keeping it real goes wrong

So there's this issue that really has not gotten much press lately (sarcasm for those who don't pick that up). Apparently a Rolling Stone news reporter was spending time with General McChrystal recently and kind of exposed the ugly side of military-civilian relations. The article reveals a number of statements/impressions given by McChrystal and his aides that are not exactly complimentary of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Afghanistan ambassador Karl Eikenberry, and a few others. As usual, hilarity ensues.

My take: McChrystal fucked up. Pure and simple. Should he be fired? I believe so. Or at least his resignation should be accepted to save him some face. The first rule in business is that no one is irreplaceable. In this political climate with the longest war in US history taking place a man in his position has no place to be having this sort of report be released to the public. That is inexcusable. The office of President of the United States of America demands a certain respect, regardless of who fills that position. Turd burglars like you and I can feel free to run our mouths about these guys as much as we want but a certain decorum is expected for those in important government/military positions.

That isn't to say that I think that McChrystal should be punished for his (alleged) views. What gets him in trouble is that, a) a reporter was given the access to these candid statements, and, b) his aides and staff were under the impression that they could be this candid with the reporter. I am certainly not as naive as to think that every member of the military would be infatuated with Obama or those who have never served. That's just delusional. Regardless, the fact that this did come to light and will now grace the pages of Rolling Stone, a magazine that regularly places a shirtless Shawn White on the cover, is an incredible lapse of judgement.

I've heard a number of conservative pundits run their mouths in the time since this story broke and not too many of them have recognized the serious breach of protocol and are instead acting as if they are the damaged party. It's exactly the way a child acts when guilty. That's besides the point. They just don't seem to get it. Just because they and their couple million listeners want the president impeached/executed for made-up offenses is not reason. There has to be some actual substance. So while they are spending their air time finding justification for McChrystal's misstep the man himself is answering to his boss and taking responsibility for it.

Consequence. Again these people have proven they have no idea what consequence is about.

So it is a shame that something like this was exposed to the public. I've often heard that civilians have no business being privy to what goes on in military life and that is something that I agree with 100%. We the people are too squeamish. Too easily offended.

So McChrystal made a mistake. He's a four star general who will now be forever associated with this and that is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Political junkies are now eagerly awaiting the news of whether or not a replacement will be needed for the Afghanistan campaign but largely the actual military implications of this event will be far outweighed by the politics as each side will now jockey to inform/misinform the public on what it all really means. It's already getting wore out by Rush. Mark Levin was bitching like crazy last night. It's just the current bullshit du jour right now. McChrystal kept it real... and it definitely went wrong.

MediaMatters: Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?

Just read this post over at MediaMatters and I couldn't agree more:

Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
June 23, 2010 8:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Eight-two percent.
That’s the number you need to keep in mind as you listen to the right-wing caterwauling about how poor, helpless BP has been tormented and demonized by the bullying, Constitution-hating Obama White House.
Eight-two percent.
According to the latest CNN poll, a huge, huge, huge majority of Americans supports the $20 billion escrow fund that BP agreed to create in order to help pay for the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.
And get this: According to the same CNN poll, a microscopic 5 percent of Americans think Obama has been “too tough” on BP. Just 5 percent.
But apparently those 5-percenters all host radio and TV shows, or blog online, because that radical claim that Obama’s to blame for creating the hated escrow fund (not to mention for causing the oil spill in the first place), has been exploding within the GOP Noise Machine as pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts rush to defend BP and denounce one of the most popular things Obama has ever done.
And, of course, helping lead the charge to guard BP from Obama’s wicked ways has been Fox News.
Fox News is programmed for Obama dead-enders, that much is clear. They’re the radical minority of political hyper-partisans who hold as a matter of faith that Obama is a Manchurian candidate. It’s not just that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t truly of this country, or culture, and that his policies are misguided and wrong for America. It runs much deeper. It’s that Obama ran for the Oval Office with the explicit plan to ruin America from within once he was elected. He ran for president in order to destroy this country by stripping it of its freedoms and liberties and transforming the United States into some sort of socialist or communist outpost.
That’s how far out on the ledge Fox News now operates. And FYI, if you view the world from that demented perspective, it probably does look like BP got jobbed. (Just like of course the Clinton White House sold nuclear secrets to China during the `90s; Democratic presidents are a treasonous bunch.)
As I said, the dead-enders represent a radical minority. And yet they have an entire right-wing media complex set up explicitly to whet their Obama-hating appetite. There is no thought put into the rhetoric anymore, or their partisan jousting. Instead, the content revolves around a very simple premise: If Obama did it, it’s wrong. Not just wrong. More like, if Obama did it, it’s evil and dangerous and ghastly and un-American.
So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.
But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?
According to Fox News it was.
And with that audacious claim, I’m wondering if Fox News isn’t pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP’s defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.
I don’t mean it’s the tipping point in terms of there being some sort of collective realization within Fox News that its signature form of partisan Obama hatred has jumped about 19 different sets of tracks and its incessant campaign of smears and lies makes a mockery out of the news business, as well as does real damage to democracy. (I’m pretty sure everyone at Fox News already knows that.)
I’m referring instead to a collective realization among people outside Fox News and the GOP Noise Machine that there’s something fundamentally wrong with a so-called news organization siding with BP after what the oil giant has done to the Gulf of Mexico and the reckless, cavalier way it has ruined the livelihoods of countless of residents.
That there’s something just plain wrong and illogical in being so robotically ant-Obama that the Fox News team would consciously side with today’s version of Public Enemy No. 1 and insist, with complete conviction, that it’s the president of the United States who’s to blame for the big oil disaster, and it’s the president of the United States who should be attacked, smeared, and ridiculed for getting BP to set aside $20 billion in damages.
The tipping point could come when everyday Americans, as well as mainstream reporters, observe the right-wing media’s radical embrace of BP (fueled by all-consuming Obama Derangement Syndrome), look at each other and utter various equivalents of, “WTF?”
Because not only is Fox News in effect defending BP, but it’s using the occasion of the $20 billion agreement to depict Obama as some sort of monster bent on destroying America. How? By holding BP financially responsible.
Again, you can almost hear the “WTF’s” as the realization of the Fox News attack campaign sinks in. Rupert Murdoch’s channel is siding with BP over the United States???
You better believe it. From Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano:
I think you could argue that the government is, in large measure, responsible for this mess.
The reason I’m (perhaps naïvely) suggesting there may soon be a collective A-ha moment about Fox News with regard to its defense of BP, whereas the channel’s outrageous programming in the past has not triggered that kind of response, is that this is different because it’s not about politics. That Fox News will relentlessly attack Obama and Democrats about every conceivable issue is, at this point, a given -- Fox News functions as the Opposition Party.
But the BP disaster, and the callous disregard for how it was handled by the oil company, is different. The environmental fiasco very much resembles an attack on the United States by a foreign entity. (An act of eco-terrorism, if you will.) And common sense tells us that that should never be a partisan issue. And common sense dictates that no sane person would side with BP, let alone condemn the government for securing $20 billion in private funds to pay for the disaster.
Or would they?
It’s difficult to put into words just how isolated and extreme the right-wing media’s embrace of BP has been over the last week. It’s mind-bending that a major political movement in this country, driven by its media “news” outlets, would rush out onto the battlefield of public debate in order to plant its flag alongside BP, even as the incompetent petroleum giant remains unable to turn off the underwater gusher that is destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
And yet turn on Fox News or tune into Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or a whole host of other BP apologists, and get a daily earful about how BP is being unfairly maligned and that Obama should be condemned for securing $20 billion in cleanup funds. (Keep in mind that no one associated with BP has ever suggested the White House bullied the company, or that BP was the victim of a “shakedown.” No one.)
And yes, I realize some conservative loud mouths claim that just because they’re attacking the White House over the $20 billion “shakedown,” that doesn’t mean they’re defending BP, or that they agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and think the oil giant deserves an apology. But gimme a break. That’s a distinction without a difference because even before the “shakedown” meme was launched late last week, the same right-wing outlets, including Fox News, were weeping hysterically at how the White House was trying to “demonize” little ol’ BP, and how its poor executives were going to be paraded before Congress for a nasty “show trial.” Meaning, the right wing’s desire to throw its body in front of BP and protect it from alleged government abuse has been a constant for weeks now, and extends far beyond the “shakedown” defense.
The fact is, forced to pick a villain in the BP disaster, Fox News chose America and set its sights on the White House, not the foreign oil giant; a giant that even industry players have tagged as being reckless and guilty of “gross negligence.”
Has Fox News finally reached the point of no return?