boonville blog, by jeff egnaczyk - you are listening to me talk

You Say You Want a Revolution

I’ve seen this 1787 quote from Thomas Jefferson a lot over the years from those dissatisfied with the political landscape of the time:

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

“Rebellion” doesn’t necessarily have to mean “violent revolution”. It could mean opposing those in power, or fighting against orthodoxy, or even civil disobedience. Those things are healthy actions in a democracy. With Jefferson though, given his other writings, “rebellion” probably meant violence:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

The latter quote is also prevalent. I’m going to be blunt about this. If you, as an American in 2012, quote this with any degree of sincerity, you’re callous and immature. There was a time in America when these two statements may have been reasonable. During the time of the American Revolution Americans were not given adequate control of their country by the British. At times in our history blacks were slaves or second class citizens suffering from state sanctioned violence. Native Americans and Mormons were pushed across the country. There are probably countless other examples of groups of people being oppressed by any level of government in America. “Violent revolution” was understandable in 1776. It would have been understandable had there been a major slave revolt before 1861. It probably would have been in many other cases of oppression as well (which is why the nonviolence of Martin Luther King was so worthy of praise).

This is not the case anymore. There are certainly still injustices in America, but America now affords you the opportunity to affect change. Notice I did not say it would be easy. In fact, given the role money plays in politics it is certainly not easy. But neither is violent revolution. Thomas Jefferson lived in a very different world than you or I. Talk of violent revolution made sense then. Really all it does now is help someone who feels angry and powerless, feel like they can do something. That’s the immaturity part of it. Just because this country is not following your preferred path does not make it acceptable to start throwing “revolution” around.

The callous part of it is the idea that it would be a good thing to have a revolution every generation, as Jefferson spoke of. Sending young men and women out to fight and die every twenty years is incredibly destructive and wasteful, especially given it would happen in your own country. Every time I hear of a soldier dying in Iraq I think about what our country has lost in terms of human potential. It disrupts our communities and families. It wastes a person willing to die for his country. War may be necessary sometimes, but it is a terrible thing. And that’s just when we’re fighting it thousands of miles away. Ask Iraqis and Afghanis and Sudanese and Congolese what it’s done to their country. What have these countries lost in terms of economic growth or infrastructure or a sense of security or child development in years of war?

I’m not saying anything profound. In fact, the problem I’m addressing is not all that serious because, as I said earlier, this talk is mostly posturing. At its worst it does incite violence, but mostly it is an attempt to intimidate people in debate. I’m just kind of sick of seeing people popping off in Facebook status updates about “revolution”. It’s lazy and ignorant.

Comments, (0)

CISPA, Boom, Bah

The big news last week was the House of Representatives passing the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), while the Obama administration threatened a veto. If the veto threat holds up it would be another big victory for digital freedom. With bills like SOPA/PIPA and ACTA as well as opposition to net neutrality, the fight for digital freedom is becoming harder and harder. Four years ago I based my votes in large part on where candidates stood on health care. I think in the near future the most important fight may be against the loss of rights online.

Now CISPA was actually much worse up until recently. Before it defined a cyber threat as:

(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

As Tech Dirt points out, the second part of the definition has been narrowed to:

(B) efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network, including efforts to gain such unauthorized access to steal or misappropriate private or government information

I’m actually slightly heartened by that. As it was before, part (B) would have obviously been used to fight copyright violations rather than national security. Now it looks like the bill’s supporters have been forced to remove this backdoor and focus on attacks on networks, which more closely resemble “cyber threats”.

Still, I have my doubts. As Tim Berners-Lee notes, the bill overrides all previous privacy laws and immunizes corporations from lawsuits resulting from sharing. Lee has a better idea:

But rather than trying to identify which specific privacy laws hamper cyber-security efforts and reforming them, Rep. Rogers took the easy way out. His legislation provides that companies are authorized to share "cyber threat information" with other private companies or the government "notwithstanding any other provision of law." That appears to mean that if a company decides that your private emails, your browsing history, your health care records, or any other information would be helpful in dealing with a "cyber threat," the company can ignore laws that would otherwise limit its disclosure. The legislation also immunizes firms who share "cyber threat information" from customer lawsuits.

Earlier this week, the bill's sponsors circulated a revised version of the bill, but it suffers from most of the same problems that plagued the original version. The new version does feature a more precise definition of "cybersecurity," which focuses on unauthorized network access. But it doesn't provide any meaningful limits on what kids of materials can be regarded as "cybersecurity"-related, nor does it provide for any judicial oversight to ensure the definition is adhered to.

The "notwithstanding" approach to cybersecurity is fundamentally flawed because it's almost impossible to predict which parts of US law might be effectively changed by the new law, or to prevent unintended consequences from unduly broad sharing. It would be far better for Congress to figure out which specific privacy laws (if any) prevent effective network security responses and explicitly reform those provisions.

Much like the Patriot Act, instead of identifying the specific reasons a crime was able to be committed, this law tries to cover everything. “See something, do everything” is what I like to call it. It’s a cover your ass mentality at best. At worst it's a sneaky way to give law enforcement more power than it needs. Speaking of the Patriot Act, that law is basically why I don’t trust this law.

As you can see with the this graph of sneak-and-peek warrants, some of the Patriot Act's major provisions aren’t being used correctly and/or weren’t needed at all.



The same goes for National Security Letters:



The major problem is the lack of judicial oversight and the deterioration of due process. Law enforcement is getting more power, which is bad enough in and of itself. Worse though is that agencies like the FBI are having to show less and less probable cause, a major reason the American system of justice is, even with all of its problems, one of the most fair and effective in the world. And as you can see with the national security letters, it’s important for law enforcement to show cause, because otherwise they’re just snooping on people for no pertinent reason other than to monitor them. Close to 200,000 NSLs with only one terrorism conviction indicates that a lot of NSLs were not needed. But now that information has been collected and there are no provisions that law enforcement divest itself of it.

You can bet this will continue with CISPA. Corporations aren’t required to share information with the government, but it will be pretty easy for law enforcement agencies to compel them to with threats of investigations into anti-trust, labor law, or environmental violations. It probably won’t take that much given the history. Tim Berners Lee reminds us of the warrantless wiretapping that telcoms helped the government with, and were retroactively immunized against:

A better analogy is the 2008 FISA Amendment Act, which granted major telecommunications incumbents retroactive immunity for their participation in warrantless wiretapping and eliminated judicial oversight for a broad category of government surveillance. CISPA is likely to further erode the already weak legal restraints on government surveillance of Americans, and there's no meaningful judicial oversight of information shared under the "cyber threat" program.

This is a scary time for freedom in America. More and more of our lives will be lived online this century, but at the same time more and more restrictions are being placed on our rights while we act in the digital world. A lot of people like to bring up “the Founders” when arguing about new legislation (I don’t), so I would ask those same people, what would “the Founders” say about the erosion of the 4th Amendment in the digital world? I see no reason why those protections shouldn’t exist there.

Comments, (0)

How Do We Stop Our Insane War on Drugs?

I was feeling positive the other day. That's not out of the realm of possibility when it comes to my thoughts on politics. I like to call myself a cynical optimist - cynical about individuals in the short term, optimistic about the general progress of civilization. Thinking about the progress that has been made in gay rights in the past decade, I thought of how much progress would be made in other areas in the next decade. To me the burgeoning opposition to our nation's insane war on drugs could be the next decade's great progressive achievement.

When I say the drug war is “insane” I mean it literally. Often people use words like “insane” or “idiotic” or “moron” to shut down debate. If it’s idiotic then how could I possibly argue against it, or even engage in meaningful debate about it. When I say “insane” though, I mean it fits with the definition of insanity. Now, by “definition” I mean the popularized definition that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

I read Daniel Okrent’s wonderful Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition last year and was just floored at how many parallels there were to our current war on drugs. Even without further research it’s common knowledge in America that “prohibition was a failure”. And yet, we haven’t learned any lessons from it. Prohibitionists thought alcohol was ruining people’s lives so fought to ban it. Drug warriors think drugs are too dangerous to legalize, so they stay illegal. Americans almost universally ignored prohibition then and a large part of the population today ignores the rules that govern the war on drugs. Prohibition lead to a massive increase in crime, and now the war on drugs represents a large part of the violence we see in cities across the country. To fight the corresponding increase in crime Americans massively increased the power of government in both cases. Worse, both cases exported crime and violence outside our borders - prohibition to Canada, the war on drugs to Latin America.

While I’m optimistic that change will be coming soon to the war on drugs, it’s hard to see when that change might come about. There was a flaw in my optimism that stopped me cold. There is a major difference between the issues of gay rights and drug legalization. It boils down to who benefits from the war on drugs. There is no money in opposing gay marriage. In fact, it’s probably more lucrative for religious zealots if gay marriage continues to advance. That way they can keep preaching about the deterioration of morals and the downfall of America. (Have fun with that.) The war on drugs is a different animal. More behavior classified as crime means more cops. So there’s one interest. Banning gay marriage doesn't require a bureaucracy. More importantly, with the increasing militarization of police forces you have an entire industry built around supplying them. That industry will lobby for the continuation of its existence. There are not only political beliefs keeping the war alive. The more powerful force of money is involved.

Comments, (2)

Brookline's Climate Action Plan

The Town of Brookline has a climate action plan meant to combat climate change at a local level. I don't know how many cities and towns do this, but I'm guessing Brookline is on the more progressive side. The wiki lists major areas of action such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, urban form and mobility, consumption and solid waste, food and agriculture, and community coordination, along with actions for future consideration. Each area has between one and a dozen more specific actions.

A common tactic for enforcing these actions is through the town's existing zoning laws, either as requirements or incentives. Unfortunately nothing is mentioned about one of the most powerful aspects of zoning - controlling density. In this case, nothing is said about increasing density in the town (it's possible you could say this one unfinished article advocates for increased density). Density is what makes cities more energy efficient than suburban and rural areas. And while Brookline calls itself a town and organizes its government as a town, it certainly exhibits many of the geographical and demographic qualities of a city. I live in Coolidge Corner, which is clearly an urban environment. All of Beacon Street from St. Mary's Street to Cleveland Circle is urban. Brookline Village is. So is everything that borders Boston on the north side and everything that borders the Longwood Medical area. There's more, but that's really the extent of my everyday life, so that's all I'll cite.

When people talk about green roofs and bike routes and public transit, they're talking about things that are only feasible in dense areas. Brookline is served by three lines of above ground subway - the C and D lines are in Brookline, but the B line is close enough to serve residents as well - and a number of bus lines. This doesn't happen without density. The greater distances between homes and work and commerce are, the less people use bikes as part of their everyday lives.

If Brookline is estimating 25% of its emissions come from transportation making mass transit and bicycle travel easier is a good place to start. Another 26% is estimated to come from electricity while 44% comes from heating in the cold New England winter. I submit that the those two numbers could be reduced with more density. One large building could better regulate heat usage and improve energy efficiency than many dispersed dwellings.

More density is not without its drawbacks. More people in closer space will increase pressure on roads and parks. There will need to be an increase in services if the population rises, though those services would probably be more efficiently delivered. And more housing stock will depress housing values. These are debates we in Brookline should have. But just because there are drawbacks - and even if those drawbacks preclude the town from adopting zoning laws that allow for higher density - does not mean they should be excluded from the conversation.

Comments, (3)

Look What Romney Said About Stay at Home Moms

Would you look at what Mitt Romney said about stay-at-home moms:

“While I was governor,” Romney said, “85 percent of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’”

Not only do they not “work”, but there is no dignity in their non-work. I anxiously await the fire hose of crocodile tears from conservatives across the country.

This is all news because some Democratic strategist whose name I know you don’t even remember said Mitt Romney’s wife “never worked a day in her life”. Never mind that Democratic strategist whose name I know you don’t even remember was basically saying that Ann Romney’s life is not indicative of most women (it clearly isn’t) and that she therefore doesn’t understand what is important to most women. It doesn’t matter. It was a stupid statement from Democratic strategist whose name I know you don’t even remember. Taking care of a child is work. Period. Implications otherwise are just ignorant.

I’ll admit, I took this one a little more personally than the usual horse race political story. Watching Republicans disingenuously take up the mantle of working moms was nauseating. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. I’ve seen first hand that she does work that is mentally and physically challenging. It’s something I think a lot of people don’t realize until they see it first hand. I certainly didn’t get it at first. Watching her work being used for cheap political gain irked me.

The reason this new support of stay-at-home moms from fiscal conservatives doesn’t ring true is because their actions show they don’t believe in the value or difficulty of the work. As Romney’s remarks show, they don’t believe it counts as real work. I will tell you right now that taking care of a young child is one of the best ways you can spend your time. Developing a child is one of the most important tasks people engage in in a society. I’m not exaggerating. Genetics are part of how a person develops, but environment plays a giant role. You can literally turn your kid into a saint or a sociopath and everything in between. I don’t think people like Romney believe this work is that important.

Given the recent debate over the federal tax code, I doubt many fiscal conservatives think much of stay-at-home moms. Those moms don’t make any money (though it saves a lot), which more and more seems to be how we judge a person’s worth in this society. With no income they pay no federal income tax (which is now apparently the only tax we talk about), so they’re basically stealing from the rich, if you believe the rhetoric.

The other part of the phony outrage is the sudden conviction that being a stay at home mom is hard. If staying at home to take care of your child is so hard you would think the Republican Party would support some policies that make it easier - especially given that the party is made up of a lot of social conservatives who prefer mothers not to work. But no, their governing philosophy prioritizes laissez faire market regulation over the societal gain from more childcare. Ask a fiscal conservative if he or she supports the Family and Medical Leave Act (which during the Clinton administration was opposed 3 to 1 amongst House Republicans, and by over 50% of Senate Republicans). Do they think - and this is not part of FMLA - women should get paid during their time off? Should men get more time off from businesses (also not part of FMLA)? Should businesses be able to fire a woman who goes on maternity leave? What about guaranteed child health care? A social safety net to guard against child poverty? They may support these policies in public. FMLA and not being able to fire a pregnant woman are popular policies. But I submit that these go against their governing philosophy.

Update: I'm going to give Romney a little more credit. In the quote paragraph he says:

No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.

So he has proposed a policy that acknowledges the importance of child care. I doubt this holds true for most fiscal conservatives, but for Romney - at least until he changes his mind - this flies in the face of my assertion that he cares more about low taxes than child care. The funny thing is that he doesn't deem it worthy unless someone is getting paid for it.

Comments, (0)

Let's Go Yankees

Some time in the past decade as a Yankee fan I learned to enjoy the journey, not just the destination. Reaching the World Series in 6 out of 8 years will spoil you as a fan. I think the ALCS collapse in 2004 started it. Then three straight comeback seasons in 2005, 2006, and 2007 made me realize that the playoffs weren't a given and that the 162 games before them are a magnificent story in themselves.

I wasn't angry watching Alex Rodriguez strike out to end the season last October. The Yankees lost a winnable game five at home in a series they should have won. I was disappointed, but oddly fine with it. They were better than Detroit but obviously worse than Texas. A break here and there and they could have seen themselves in a very winnable World Series match-up with St. Louis. More likely though, I think they would have lost the ALCS 4-2, going down 2-0 and then 3-1 in ugly games.

Is it ridiculous to say a team with a $200 million payroll over achieved? I get that feeling based on how the Yankees' starting rotation shook out. CC Sabathia was the ace. Nobody had to worry about that. Just as expected, he had his third straight season as one of the best pitchers in the league. AJ Burnett was coming off a terrible season. Everybody worried about him. He had his third straight injury free season, but unfortunately it was also his second straight as one of the worst starters in the league. Phil Hughes was coming off his breakout 18 win season. He was supposed to take it to the next level. Instead he stumbled early with a mysterious arm injury and never recovered. And after those three everything was a mystery. Hughes and Burnett were supposed to be the fourth and fifth starters behind Sabathia, free agent acquisition Cliff Lee, and Yankee legend Andy Pettitte. But Lee signed in Philadelphia and Pettitte retired. As a result, three pitchers were up for the last two spots - scrap heap signings Freddy Garcia and Bartolo Colon, and prospect Ivan Nova. Garcia and Nova won spots while Colon went to the bullpen. Garcia shined, throwing all sorts of junk to American League hitters. Nova broke out, turning into the team's second best starter by the time the playoffs started. When Hughes went down Colon kept throwing bullets in the starting rotation, pitching some of the best games by the staff all year before fading down the stretch. Watching the team's pitching plans go awry in the off-season only to have two scrap heap pickups and a not-highly touted prospect carry the team made the season very enjoyable.

The bullpen continues to be a great strength in the Joe Girardi era. Coming into the season the Yankees looked stacked. David Robertson and Joba Chamberlain would return as home grown standouts. Rivera would continue to be the greatest reliever of all time. Rafael Soriano was signed to a ridiculously bad contract to Pitch the Eighth (3 years, $35 million, with an opt-out after the first year). Pedro Feliciano, coming off 3 consecutive seasons leading the NL in appearances, was signed to take over for Damaso Marte as the lefty killer for 2 years and $8 million. And that was on top of second lefty specialist Boone Logan. It was great on paper. Rivera dominated. Robertson had a breakout season, turning into one of the best relievers of the year. Boone Logan got lefties out. But Joba had to get Tommy John surgery. Feliciano, predictably, needed rotator cuff surgery and will never pitch for the Yankees. Soriano struggled and then went to the DL, making his case for the Yankee Reliever Signed to a Multi-Year Contract Hall of Shame with Kyle Farnsworth, Damaso Marte, and Steve Karsay. Things looked bad, but the Yankees snagged Cory Wade from the Tampa Bay Rays after they didn’t promote him the Major League team. He put up a 2.04 ERA in 40 appearances with a mix of off-speed stuff. Luis Ayala won the last roster spot, got hurt, and then came back to throw up a sub-2.00 ERA most of the year. It was mostly garbage time, but he threw 56 innings. Hector Noesi showed promise coming up from the minors and soaking up innings. The bullpen was flat out great. And that’s with appearances from the likes of Lance Pendleton, Aaron Laffey, Brian Gordon, Buddy Carlyle, Amauri Sanit, Raul Valdes, and on again off again Yankees Jeff Marquez and Sergio Mitre. Scott Proctor even returned, probably as a result of his lawsuit against the Yankees for letting Joe Torre destroy his career. He even lost the game against the Tampa Bay Rays that eliminated the Red Sox after their epic September collapse. Prospects George Kontos, Dellin Betances, Andrew Brackman, Kevin Whelan, and Steve Garrison made appearances as well. That's 28 pitchers and the bullpen and starting rotation weren't a problem.

The lineup was interesting as well. The Yankees, already organizationally deep behind the plate, signed Russell Martin to catch. This meant Jorge Posada was done catching as a Yankee and Jesus Montero would not start the year in the Majors. Fransisco Cervelli would continue to be an overly enthusiastic, perfectly adequate backup catcher. He fought injuries at the start of the year, causing Gustavo Molina (who isn't related to the Catching Molinas) to get a hit in six plate appearances. Then at the end of the year concussions caused the Yankees to shut Cervelli down in favor of prospect Austine Romine. The biggest story behind the plate was the decline of a Yankee great in Posada. You could tell he was struggling with it. As a fan it was painful to watch. It all came to a head when he asked to sit after being dropped in the order. For a while he didn't play. When Montero was brought up after rosters expanded, Posada lost his job. People were waiting for Montero all year and he did not disappoint. I think he was kept down because the organization knew they had nowhere to put Posada and didn't want to cut him. Montero slash-lined .328/.406/.590 with four home runs. When the playoffs came around Girardi started Posada against the Tigers' right handed staff. Given the opportunity over the hot hitting prospect Montero, Posada came back from the dead. He went 6-14 with 4 walks and a triple, nearly pushing the team to the next round. It was beautiful, maybe because we all knew it was over. Talking to the press after the loss it was clear he knew this was the end of his career with the Yankees.

Alongside the demise of Posada was the demise of Derek Jeter. This season he was to reach 3,000 hits. Early on though he struggled and given his below average 2010 it looked like the Yankees had given a 3 year, $45 million contract to a washed up player. A funny thing happened though. Jeter went to the disabled list. He came back against Cleveland and went 0-4. This was the low point of his season. He had bottomed out with a .639 OPS. From the next game to the end of the season he stormed back, hitting .336/.389/.454. One of those games saw him homer off Tampa's David Price for his 3,000th hit. The last half of the 2011 season may extend Jeter's career a little. With him passing 3,000 hits he is also starting to pass some of the greats in the game.

Mark Teixeira had another down season. He hit 39 home runs, but changes in his swing caused his average to drop to .248. This dragged down his on-base percentage to .341, his worst since his rookie year. Tex has clearly increased the upper cut of his swing to try to hit more home runs in Yankee Stadium.

Alex Rodriguez hit well early on but could not stay healthy. His 116 OPS+ would probably have been much better had he not been recovering from injuries for a good part of the year. The rate stats were good but he only played 99 games. This forced Eduardo Nunez and Eric Chavez to get more time at 3rd. Nunez wasn't terrible in just over 300 at-bats. As a utility infielder who also played short, his 84 OPS+ and 22 stolen bases (to only 6 caught) was perfectly adequate. Chavez, once one of the best third basemen in the league before injuries, hit well and played solid defense early. Given his injury history it wasn't a surprise when he went down. He returned, but he never retrieved any of his lost power. No-hit, all glove farm hand Ramiro Pena saw time in the infield, as did prospect Brandon Laird.

Robinson Cano put up his third consecutive great season. He wasn't as good as 2010 but he still slugged over .500 from the second base position. His walk rate declined. While many people lauded his defensive ability - probably because he turns a quicker double play than anyone in the league and goes to his right well - I felt he got beat a lot to his left. He is fast emerging as the Yankees' best hitter and premiere player.

The outfield was outstanding. Nick Swisher had his third consecutive solid year, hitting .260/.374/.449. Brett Gardner was streaky at the plate but established himself as one of the best outfield defenders in the league. After a slow start he also stole 49 bases. Curtis Granderson built off his great 2010 second half to have one of the best offensive seasons of 2011. He hit 41 home runs and carried the Yankee offense while A-Rod, Teixeira, and Jeter struggled. Andruw Jones put up a .247/.356/.495 as the fourth outfielder and DH against lefties. Chris Dickerson and Greg Golson - both guys I like - played limited roles as well, hitting sporadically but providing defense and speed when needed.

All of that added up to an AL East title and 97 wins.



The off-season was full of potential pitching and hitting acquisitions. The Yankees weren’t going to go after Albert Pujols (left St. Louis for Anaheim) or Prince Fielder (left Milwaukee for Detroit) but it was fun to think about it. The biggest part of the market was pitching though. The Yankees stayed out of the big free-agent sweepstakes for the most part. The Angels got CJ Wilson. The Rangers outbid the league with their posting fee for Yu Darvish. Mark Buehrle went to the Miami (no longer Florida) Marlins and their new stadium. Gio Gonzalez was traded from Oakland to Washington, who now have a pretty solid rotation, having signed Edwin Jackson and having resigned Chien-Ming Wang. Joe Saunders got a year from Arizona. Mat Latos was traded to Cincinnati. Adam Wainwright stayed in St. Louis. Ryan Dempster went to the cubs. The White Sox locked up John Danks. Bruce Chen and Chris Capuano and Aaron Harang and Erik Bedard and on and on. For the money, none of these options were to the Yankees' liking. They resigned Freddy Garcia, extended CC Sabathia, and thanked Bartolo Colon for his work and watched him go to Anaheim.

Then it all happened. I saw the headline: Montero traded. "Oh god no, what have they done", I thought. It turns out they traded him for Mariner starter (please be Felix) Michael Pineda (damn, not Felix). It was an intriguing trade of two young standout players that you don't see every day. In the trade they also lost Hector Noesi (who was probably competing for a job starting on the Major League team) but got Mariner prospect Jose Campos back. I didn't hate the move. On the same day they signed Japanese pitcher Hideki Kuroda from the Dodgers. All of the sudden the Yankees had 7 starters. Sabathia, Nova, Pineda, and Kuroda were the logical first four. Garcia, Hughes, and Burnett would battle it out for the last spot. Burnett was wisely traded and Hughes was given the inside track. Then Pineda went to the disabled list, making the whole competition moot. Sabathia, Kuroda, Hughes, Nova, Garcia. Then comes news that Andy Pettitte is making a comeback. It would have been nice to see him do it last year but it's certainly an interesting move. So now later in the season the Yankees have 7 possible starters, not even including major league ready options like DJ Mitchell, Adam Warren, and David Phelps, or even hot prospects Manny Banuelos and Dellin Betances.

It turns out Phelps will go to the bullpen as a long man with the injuries and the losses of Noesi, Ayala, and Colon. The rest of the pen is again solid. Rivera might be pitching his last season. Soriano looks to regain his reputation as a top-tier reliever. Robertson looks to repeat as one of the game's best. Joba is done for the year with an ankle injury sustained playing with his son. Boone Logan continues as the lefty specialist, with backup plan Clay Rapada, who beat out injured rule 5 draft pick Cesar Cabral. Cory Wade looks to repeat as well.

The lineup looks about exactly the same. Posada retired. Montero was traded. Raul Ibanez was brought in to DH. Ibanez is 40 so the Yankees have some other options stowed away in the minors with Jack Cust and Russell Branyan. Eric Chavez was curiously brought back to play third. The Yankees signed Bill Hall to a minor league deal which is why I was confused when they signed Chavez to a major league deal. He's older, more injury prone, and can't play as many positions. I guess they liked him in the clubhouse last year. They also liked Andruw Jones and rightly brought him back as well to platoon in left and DH. Nunez will play the role of utility infielder again, probably picking up at-bats as the aging Jeter and Rodriguez get more days off. If Jeter can build off his second half last year he will start moving up the all-time hits list very quickly. I spent way too much time in the off-season thinking about how far up the list he could get. Alex Rodriguez may be the key to the Yankees offense. If he can stay healthy and play 130 games the offense will be tough to stop. Teixeira needs to regain the form that compelled the Yankees to give him an 8 year deal in the first place. Cano will hopefully continue his production in his prime years. Gardner should as well. Swisher is in a contract year. Another good performance from him will leave the Yankees with a tough decision to make at the end of the year. Granderson will likely fall off from last season's MVP level production, but hopefully continues to be an elite hitter. Martin will resume duties behind the plate while Cervelli is momentarily demoted to AAA in a roster crunch. Chris Stewart will take his place after being acquired for George Kontos.

The team looks good. No reason they can’t win it all this year. The rotation is deep. The bullpen, always volatile returns a good nucleus. The lineup is aging in some spots but if the veterans can hold on they’ll supplement a core of players in their prime years.

Comments, (1)

Why Trayvon Martin's Death is Different

I've read a lot of people asking why there is so much outrage over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Let's ignore the racists who have come out of the woods for this. Sadly I've seen some of that potent vile stuff rear it's ugly face even on my Facebook news feed. I don't want to talk about that. I'm talking about the people who ask why other deaths don't bring national media attention. I find the question perplexing because the answer is so obvious. Forget the racial bias of that question too. Forget that you'll never hear that complaint about missing white woman syndrome. It's much simpler than that. In all of these other horrible awful deaths that Trayvon Martin's is outshining, law enforcement has a suspect, has arrested someone, has convicted someone, or is looking for someone. And you can be sure that when law enforcement across the country finds the person they are looking for they'll run them through the system faster than you can say "you have the right to remain silent." In Trayvon Martin's case, everyone in the world knows who killed him. They have a motive, a murder weapon, and a confession. They even had the guy, George Zimmerman, in custody. And the cops let that guy go. That's why it's outrageous. There could be more to the case. Tried or not, convicted or not, there's a slim chance Zimmerman could be innocent. But don't tell me the fact that he wasn't charged shouldn't raise eyebrows. If Trayvon Martin had "stood his ground" do you think he would have been charged?

For the sake of argument I've been ignoring the racial aspect of the case. But there is obviously a racial aspect to the case. Without it Trayvon would probably be buried without any attention, like he was part of some no knock raid gone wrong. Juan Williams saw this framing of the case and asked why the black community doesn't march for all the black on black violence. Juan Williams is a personal favorite of mine. I used to see him back in the day when I would watch Fox News. He was always the token liberal who would never defend his position against a barage of right-wing opinions. He was a punching bag like Alan Colmes, but not smart enough to get out (and get a couple of parting shots in) like Colmes did. I'm so glad that he's kind of switched sides. I love watching conservatives hold him up as some sort of free thinker. He is, and always has been, awful. Anyway, Ta-Nehisi Coates easily debunks Williams' claim, showing that black on black violence is a concern. Hell, it looks like people have put so much effort into stopping it that they made a movie about it. Williams and people making similar arguments would know that if they took a minute to think and look.

Comments, (0)

Thoughts on Mike Daisey

Mike Daisey could have been this generation's Upton Sinclair if he had just been honest about what he was producing. The Jungle was not a true story, but fictionalized events that did happen, centered around the character of Jurgis (poor, poor Jurgis). Unfortunately Daisey wasn't honest. It's unfortunate, not because it taints his work or lessens our enjoyment of it, but because it will set back the real work of improving labor conditions in China. Everything Mike Daisey described as happening did actually happen. Some events happened as he described them. Others, based on actual reports from times when he was or was not in China in factories he was or was not at, were personalized for dramatic effect. As fiction that is powerful. Portrayed as truth it is even more so. But, of course, it was “truthy”, not truth, which is in no way good enough for journalism. None of this changes the fact that these events happened and that conditions can be very terrible in China. Now the facts about these conditions will come under a cloud of suspicion. That’s terrible because, while America has almost completely eradicated these conditions, we’ve simply outsourced them to other countries. China is the setting for this generation’s The Jungle.

Daisey also screwed This American Life. Ira Glass owned up to his mistakes, saying that once the show couldn’t get in touch with Daisey’s translator they should have killed the piece even if the big stuff checked out. I’m sure it won’t matter to detractors of This American Life and public media in general, but that’s how you own up to a mistake. Glass puts out at most one show a week - and in practice much less than that. To devote an entire episode to a retraction, given the percentage of annual content that represents, is unheard of. Fans and detractors alike should take note. I found the original episode to be deeply compelling. Interestingly enough, the ”Retraction” episode was just as riveting. They just know how to tell a story.

Some other points:

The reference to Upton Sinclair was made on some blog I read but can't remember, but I'm making the claim that Daisey could be compared to him had he been more honest.

At the end of the original This American Life, Ira Glass points out that economists (including the likes of Paul Krugman) generally agree that sweatshops, broadly defined, are a good thing for countries in the long run. That still doesn’t mean workers shouldn’t attempt to improve their conditions. They don’t live “in the long run”. They experience those conditions now.

One thing that was kind of annoying about the original, even before it blew up in Daisey’s face, was that he focused so much of it on Apple. I have a few Apple products because they are just damn good, but I’m Windows and Android user and have no reason to go to the mattresses for the company. That said, Foxconn and any of the manufacturers in China, do this for every company that sells electronic goods all over the world. It was unfair to pin the working conditions on Apple, even if it was the best place to generate action. From what I’ve read Apple is actually one of the better companies at policing working conditions.

Comments, (0)

The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate

Let's get this out of the way right now. It doesn't matter if the individual mandate is constitutional, only that there are five right-wing justices on the Supreme Court and only four on the left. Anyone who is around my age saw the court lose any pretense of non-partisanship in Bush v. Gore. Anyone who's a little older probably saw it in some other case. Anyone who's a little younger is seeing it right now all over the federal judiciary. The idea that the courts were once this bastion of objectivity is probably as true as the idea that professional baseball players didn't use performance enhancing drugs before the 1990s. I'll outsource my cynicism to John Cole:

I’m really completely uninterested in the actual arguments being made in the ACA case before SCOTUS. It just doesn’t matter what the law is, as these guys have proven time and again that they’ll do whatever they want. I also find it amusing that people think Roberts cares about the impressions created by a divided court. He doesn’t. None of them do. There is no doubt in my mind that Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will do whatever they think will help conservatism the most, precedents and outcomes of their actions be damned.

For my cynical, non-voting friends, this is why you should vote in federal elections. This is also why Obama not getting his appointments through the Senate is a big deal.

The question of whether the law is constitutional is moot, but logically interesting. The argument against the law is that Congress doesn't have the power to tell you have to buy something. Opponents are fond of asking when the federal government has ever required you to buy something. But Congress does have the power to regulate commerce. I don't think anyone would argue that overall the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an attempt to regulate commerce. The individual mandate is simply a mechanism for regulating the insurance industry. Opponents are viewing the mandate in a vacuum, proponents as part of a larger law. Given that, in order to call the mandate unconstitutional I think there needs to be language in the constitution that explicitly forbids it. If the law had a provision establishing a state religion that would obviously be unconstitutional. I don't see a similar problem with the individual mandate, so I think it's constitutional. But, like I said, I think the law will get struck down in an epic act of judicial activism (which is now OK).

The saddest part of the debate is that "Obamacare" was the Republican solution to health care reform from 1994 until 2008. That the individual mandate went from an idea that the entire political establishment would have agreed was an improvement over the status quo to an unconstitutional takeover of health care in 10 years is a little hard to believe.

Comments, (2)

D'Antoni Out

I was never thrilled with the hiring of Mike D'Antoni, so I'm not too broken up that he has resigned. I will say though, the Knicks' failures over the past year (and throughout D'Antoni's tenure) are not entirely his fault. D'Antoni's teams' deficiencies on defense have always been slightly overrated. In Phoenix his teams usually ranked in the second third in defensive efficiency. The Knicks have been in the top third this year, but try to find anyone giving him credit for that.

Of all the players Donnie Walsh and Knicks' management have brought in for D'Antoni, the most glaring omission is a player to play the position the coach made his name on: a point guard. The Tyson Chandler signing was a good one because the Knicks lacked toughness and size inside. You can give Tyson a lot of the credit for the Knicks' improved defense. The problem with the signing though was that the money they spent meant the Knicks weren't going to get a marquee point guard. They began the season with Toney Douglas starting at point, waiting and hoping for Baron Davis to come back from injury before Jeremy Lin took the world by storm. If you were going to hire D'Antoni, why wouldn't you build his team? Part of me worries that the Knicks having been making the same mistakes they did under Isiah Thomas - acquiring guys for their stats, not how they fit into the roster.

What has hurt D'Antoni the most has been roster turnover. Everyone on the planet knew the team he started with was going to get blown up for the Lebron James sweepstakes. They didn't get Lebron but they still went ahead with the Amar'e Stoudemire signing and the Carmello Anthony trade. This is what I wrote after the Melo trade:

We've seen a lot of turnover in the past few years on this team. Take a look at this list: Chris Duhon, Jamal Crawford, Al Harrington, Zach Randolph, Mardy Collins, Cuttino Mobley, Tim Thomas, Jerome James, Anthony Roberson, Larry Hughes, Malik Rose, Chris Wilcox, Stephon Marbury, Nate Robinson, Darko Milicic, Quentin Richardson, Brian Cardinal, Eddie House, Marcus Landry, J. R. Giddens, Tracy McGrady, Sergio Rodriguez, Jordan Hill, Jared Jeffries, Eddy Curry, and David Lee. Now you can add Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Raymond Felton, and Timofey Mozgov as part of the Carmello Anthony deal. Right now Toney Douglas is the longest serving Knick at just under two years. Bill Walker just surpassed one year. I know that's part of the plan and it's the price we pay for digging out of the previous regime, but it still makes it tough to latch onto a team.

Watching the Knicks lose to the Celtics on March 4th I thought to myself, this team is actually better than the Celtics. The problem is the Celtics core has played together for 5 seasons. Success on the court requires team cohesion on offense and defense. Players need to know other players' strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies. That's to say nothing about team chemistry, which this team apparently lacks. The roster as composed right now is very strong. Melo and STAT are elite scorers. Chandler and Shumpert are very good defenders. Davis and Lin, despite too many turnovers, have been solid creators at the point. JR Smith provides offense off the bench. Steve Novak has been deadly from beyond the arc. Landry Fields and Jarred Jeffries* have been the glue guys a great team needs. Flawed players like Mike Bibby, Toney Douglas, Jerome James, and Bill Walker can't crack the lineup anymore.

The problem is this team doesn't know how to play together yet. If D'Antoni were a great coach maybe he could have got them and their egos to mesh. He's not apparently, but it's not fair to place that all on him. He has not had a year of the same team to coach yet. I don't know of any NBA coach that has suceeded under those circumstances.

I for one am praying the nemesis of my childhood Knicks teams, Phil Jackson, has some juice left. Come on, Phil, you used to play for the Knicks. And you owe us for all those times you broke our hearts.

*Yes, Knicks fans - and especially Knicks fans at the Garden - Jarred Jeffries. The guy will defend anyone and do anything. You used to respect that kind of heart and hustle. I think maybe the lower level of MSG needs to be cleansed of everyone not wearing a Knicks jersey for a few games.

Comments, (1)