I love baseball and politics...

by timed exposure on May 4, 2005 2:00 PM PDT

But usually not together. But this is rather amusing.

From PE.com:

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California2/CA_XGR_Angels_Name_184221CA.shtml

"Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat whose district includes Angel Stadium, said his bill was an attempt to promote truth in sports advertising. He likened the Angels' name change to a company selling orange juice that contains no oranges.

"The team actually plays more games in Oakland than they do in Los Angeles," he said. "It's more accurate to call them the Oakland Angels than the Los Angeles Angels."

* * *

Umberg's bill would require Angels' tickets to state that the team is based in Anaheim, not LA. AB 1041 would "Requires a professional sports franchise (franchise) that includes a geographic location in its name but does not play a plurality of its games in the location used in its name, to include on all tickets, advertisements, and promotional materials a notice indicating that the franchise does not regularly participate in sporting events in the location indicated by its name," according to the Committee analysis. (Read the bill and full analysis at http://www.assembly.ca.gov)

The Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media passed the bill 9-0. The bill now moves to the Assembly floor for approval.

Despite the obvious suckage of the Angels, I say Oakland should annex them. That would mean we could get Vlad! Corner OF, big hitter.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

hahaha...

ah, politics. They find their way into everything dont they? That is a funny bill tho!

by ZeroIndulgence on May 4, 2005 5:04 PM PDT reply actions

Yea,...

ah, politics. They find their way into everything dont they?

...why is that? I guess government knows best

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on May 4, 2005 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions

No, good, hardworking Americans do

because we all are really good at saving and investing for retirement on our own.

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 4, 2005 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't quite no how to take that.

I will say that it would be easier to save for one's own retirement without a 6.2% payroll deduction that one surrenders as well as the 6.2% that the employer surrenders that could have been paid out to the emloyee in compensation. 12.4 percent of your paycheck, gone.

If given the chance, I'd surrender every penny I've ever paid to Social Security for the chance to escape the 'luxury' of having my paycheck and my employer deducted from any longer.

Those that like the system can stay in it...and fund it.

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on May 4, 2005 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions

So you can honestly say

that if you were paid the extra 12.4%, you would save that 12.4% fo retirement?

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 4, 2005 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions

The argument isn't

where he, or any one person, would save the 12.4%, it's whether everyone would. Or if it matters if folks save it or not...

"We've come a long way, and I'm not talking about Virginia Slims, either." - Art Howe

by EastCoastA on May 4, 2005 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions

yeah, that was my followup in case he said yes

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 5, 2005 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions

let's just agree

that there should be a law where the government forces us to eat healthy and floss every day. otherwise, most of us probably wouldn't be able to do it....

by xbhaskarx on May 4, 2005 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions

There should be more laws

and are some, that make it more difficult for corporations to feed us the garbage most of us eat, without us knowing truly how bad it is for us. There also should be more effort to encourage healthy eating by young children in school, since this is when they develop the habits that will carry them for the rest of their lives.

Regardless of it's societal value, though, there would be far too much invasion of people's privacy to justify such laws.

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 5, 2005 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Kick backs

School boards get kick backs from those vending machine companies that sign contracts with them so that they can provide that garbage.

Bureaucracies are rarely concerned about things other than their own creature comforts and continued existence. Your anger may be being placed to unequaly at the sources involved.

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on May 5, 2005 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm well aware

I've studied the situation in some depth. When I get my education reform proposal to the floor of Congress, one of the more minor provisions will include banning both those vending machines and the kickbacks associated with them. I'll make up the funding elsewhere.

I'm not entirely sure where you are saying that my anger (I'm angry?) should or shouldn't be placed.

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 5, 2005 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

Answer this question, Devo:

does the federal government really save the surplus? The surplus being the money above the amount, which pays current beneficiaries. If an entity purchases bonds from itself and in turn takes that cash that was raised buying the bond from itself, did it really create an asset? I suppose! But it also created a liability too!

Short of raising taxes (an economy slower which kills employment...remember there's no such thing as a free lunch), printing money to cause purchasing power erosion (inflation), or cutting benefits, what can be done?

Oh, I know! How about not spending the $200 billion plus in surplus money and allow citizens to have an account OR purchase nonfederal debt with it - debt where the entity has a claim on someone else's assets.

I'm sure we could find $200 billion to save here [interesting link] somewhere.

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on May 5, 2005 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions

Does it? No

Should it? Yes.

If it did we wouldn't be having any discussions about the solvency of Social Security right now and few people would think twice about it.

Before Social Security, most Americans had to work until the day that they did - which came a lot sooner back then for many reasons, but including the fact that they had to do hard, physical work, long past when their bodies were capable of sustaining that. Is that a system we should return to?

Should we put the money in the stock market? That would work great for many people over the long run - just not those among us who wanted to retire or, worse yet, had recently retired when the bubble burst five years ago, when the last round of oil troubles occurred in the 70s, or somewhere around October of 1929 (not an exhaustive list). The idea is not to allow some retirees to buy a yacht - it's to allow all retirees to keep their house. To live out their last days in dignity, health, and happiness, whether they were wise enough as foolish young kids to save properly or not.

Our government is far from perfect - now more so than just about ever - but the worst thing we can do is to damage the programs that have proved most effective because of hiccups caused by larger government problems.

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 5, 2005 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Do you lean to the left? Nothing wrong w/ that!

But, why not write to your senators and representative and propose a solution since the Democrats look as though they'll do nothing that fixes the problem without creating other serious ones. I've done just that. I even had my letter to the editor published in the Feb. 15th Wall Street Journal on the subject. I've also written a Social Security parody (one that I sent to one of my former senators after he wrote an op/ed in my local paper; after sharing it with some FReepers) if you'd like to read it! If you really believe that the so-called trust fund money shouldn't be spent, that you fear that Republicans are going to change the system for the worse, you should be writing that letter or e-mail and offering your suggestions. But be warned, if you suggest raising any kind of tax to keep the federal spending where it is at, it will stunt economic growth and raise unemployment. That would even be harder on the lower rungs on the socioeconomic ladder.

Look over that directory of federal agencies, departments, commissions, etc. once again. Pretty damned big, isn't it? Certainly some stuff can be cut in there. You should see the line-by-line busget (which I don't happen to have the link for), you should see some of the money that's already spend on healthcare programs...it's over three hunder billion if I remember correctly.

http://www.cafehayek.com ~ a blog for classical liberals

by LowcountryJoe on May 5, 2005 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions

That's an amusing little parody

and I agree, there is waste in Washington. Are you from California? If so (or even if not, you seem pretty well read) you'll probably recall that the Governator wanted to drastically cut the number of state commissions. Many of them had silly sounding objectives or names. Remember what happened when he proposed it? People looked into the matter, studied it a bit, and realized - these commissions are actually pretty important. We kind of need them.

Like this one from that list you posted: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled; What the heck? Okay, that sounds like something in need of cutting. Except when you take a look, you realize that, somehow from that title, their primary responsibility is to administer the program that helps blind people find work.

Perhaps the National Invasive Species Council? Actually they play a pretty crucial role in protecting our crops and buildings.

If you want to find things that need cutting, you'd be better off looking here.

I'm all for cutting spending - let's start with some of this stuff.

I just needed something new here, since the season had started ...

by devo on May 5, 2005 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions