DLD 1/22/08 [Title]
by mikeA on Jan 22, 2008 11:52 AM PST
Email
PrintSo I found a good link from Colorado Fan over in Zonis's diary, and we need a DLD, so here it is; our man Farhan gushes about all the prospects.
Turns out Sweeney is awesome:
It's easy to forget that just a year ago this guy was ranked as the White Sox' top prospect and as one of the top prospects in all of baseball. His numbers went backwards this year, but he was fighting through wrist issues for a good part of the season. The knock on him is his power, but he played last year at just 22 and still has time to mature as a hitter. On top of that, he has actually shown good power vs. right-handed pitching -- .294/.361/.481 with 22 HR in 572 AB over the last 2 years in AAA.
Also surprisingly awesome: Greg Smith.
Greg Smith is a guy whose stuff and numbers don't jump out at you, but he knows how to pitch. Statistically, he looks a lot like Micah Owings did after 2006, and from a scouting perspective there are similarities as well - both guys have average stuff but pitch above it with their moxie and willingness to go right after hitters.
More awesomeness: Arnold Leon.
The easy choice here is Arnold Leon, who we recently signed out of Mexico. In the Mexican League this summer, he posted a sub-2 ERA as an 18-year old, an incredible feat at any age given the extreme hitter-friendly environment in that league. He continued to pitch well in Winter Ball, where our scouts saw him up to 94 and had high praise for his command and feel for pitching. He will probably start out the year in Stockton, but given his success in the Mexican League (which is generally viewed as being equivalent to a AA/AAA level), he could move quickly.
Read the whole thing! These interviews over at MVN with the #1 Z-man are always stellar.
214 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
ooooh, i liked AN Karaoke
We should do that again someday.....
by gigglingone on Jan 22, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I take it you're browsing through my
oeuvre for #3?
Oops.
Wait, is that what rec rooms are for?
/me plans extensions.
Aw, shucks
And let the record show that Righteous Grass was a weekend DLD. Don't let the calendar stop ya!
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 22, 2008 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Not being a man,
I simply follow the lead of others. Also, I think misuse of the "reply" feature will probably result in an electric shock on AN 3.0 so we should go nuts while we can.
go nuts?
Seems yours are already gone.
You mean, this isn't ...
by The Dogfather on Jan 22, 2008 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Nah,
I'm going to don my clown suit when the big moment arrives.
Okay. Just askin'.
by The Dogfather on Jan 22, 2008 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
Just ass kissin'?
Justine Bateman ass kissing.
This year's
Best Original Screenplay winner will be the worst script to ever win any award.
I'm voting for Juno
just so a former stripper named Diablo Cody can win (hey, if an American Idol reject can win a Supporting Actress Oscar, anyone can)
Na ah.
- The Savages is awesome.
- Lars and The Real Girl is awesome.
- Michael Clayton is awesome.
- Even people who loved Juno, like I did, will admit that the screenwriter, being as she's from a blog-writing background with no screenwriting training, has no idea about how to let the camera set a scene, or let the actors demonstrate things with emotion rather than words, or let the audience put two and two together without explaining to them what they're seeing.
It's a very very very unsubtle screenplay. Fun movie, good movie, but this is a category it has no chance of winning.
Oh, and on the topic of...
...worst film to [blank] an award ever, Norbit is now officially an Oscar nominated film.
Best Make-Up, when will you and Best Song stop kicking humanity in the balls?
#4 is what I meant, because
I think it will win. The rest were good. I hated the script for Juno. Hated.
I didn't hate the script.
"I'm getting a divorce" - Oh, just stop it already. All the scene needed was an extended lingering look, you noob.
He fails to note
one area in which Micah Owings is better than Greg Smith-- he's a better hitter than Crosby...
They don't like chains.
"Survivor" winner can't open yogurt store.
I like this quote:
"There's a place for everything," Garland said. "For example, I like Pottery Barn. I'm glad there's one in the Marina. But I wouldn't want one in North Beach. We don't want chains in North Beach."
As I was reading this, I got the image of Kirk Van Houten being fired from the cracker factory with his boss saying: "Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without."
he should open a store in Jennifer's basement
I do not understand this attitude
The "city" (I use the term very loosely) in which my college was located, Claremont, had an ordinance prohibiting certain kinds of chain stores (although not all, since apparently Starbucks was exempt somehow...).
As a result of this, I had to cadge a ride from friends every time I wanted to go to the **** supermarket. Can't have those big, bad chains taking away business from... what, the convenience store?
While I would agree that some small stores fulfill community functions (book shops, gaming localities), stap me if I can figure out how yet another ticky-tack antique shop and overpriced restaurant is an upgrade on a frigging Safeway.
It doesn't ... for Students ...
The permanent residents of Claremont, though, have cars and don't live in a place where walking to grocery store in downtown Claremont would be beneficial. There's a Ralphs less than two miles from the campus, in the next town over. There's also plenty of others within a very reasonable drive.
Claremont, the greater LA area and southern California, in general are not exactly friendly to those without cars.
Adding any sort of large buildinged businesses, like a grocery store would drastically change the nature of downtown Claremont.
That may not have bothered you or most of us students in Claremont -- but it would certainly bother most of the folks who make Claremont their home.
They wouldn't build a grocery store anywhere near the campus, anyway. There's no market for it. Students in Claremont don't do much grocery shopping since we all eat/ate at the dining halls. Everyone else in the area is fine driving a couple of miles.
If a supermarket wouldn't succeed in Claremont
anyway, what's the need for a law against it?
Don't shop there. If it really bugs you, boycott the whole chain. If it REALLY bugs you, picket the store. Whatever. There are options available. I don't like Wal-Mart, because they bust unions and treat their employees like crap. I wouldn't shop at one if it moved into my neighborhood. But outlawing it?
Passing arbitrary laws to feather your own commercial nests, which is what the Claremont Chamber of Commerce has done for years, is plain old corruption-- and it's the same corruption that's at the heart of most of these anti-chain NIMBY initiatives. If you want to fight a store, fight it from the ground up, not from the top down.
That's silly ...
why shouldn't a town be able to say that they want to preserve the character of their town and not let large businesses in (I wouldn't have let the Starbucks in, either ... but they didn't ask me). Saying laws shouldn't be passed on the issue is ultimately dooming virtually all of the grassroots movements you're advocating to failure.
If you can't pass a law against something, you'll be perpetually on the defensive and, this, doomed to failure ... it's like the whole terrorist thing, the good guys have to succeed every time, the bad guys only have to succeed once.
Devo is correct, sir.
The thing of it is, if you don't outlaw it, you might make an informed choice not to shop there, but people who don't pay attention (most people) will flock to it, and it really will be detrimental to the small stores that, in some cities/towns, are the lifeblood of the community.
The stories of communities that found themselves decimated by Wal*Mart opening in town, and driving all other stores out of business, are many in number.
Which is why Vancouver told Wal*Mart to take a running jump a few years back. Sadly, Richmond (which is where I live, just south of Vancouver) long had a 'if you wanna build it, we'll take it' policy, and now the place is just one long parking lot filled with big box stores.
That said, it seems kinda silly to just outlaw all chains. Is there a burgeoning local yogurt industry that will be imperiled if a chain-yogurt place opens up?
It's kind of like how Canada puts a huge tariff on toy imports, to protect the local toy industry. Thing is, there is no local toy industry...
The Walmart openned in the town
30 miles down the road from my Grandparents' town in southern Colorado decimated their commercial district.
North Beach wants to preserve the charm of old Italian restaurants, bars and stip clubs ...
Mmmm
Nothing like a good calzone followed by a few shots of the firewater, then staring at boobies.
by ChickenStanley on Jan 22, 2008 4:53 PM PST up reply actions
It's what Tommy Lasorda calls a perfect evening
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 22, 2008 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
specifically, devo-on-devo action
In the interests of not turning this into
a political discussion, I'm going to let the issue rest.
I'm on thin ice here as it is
I'm not taking any chance on getting tossed from the site for some random discussion about local politics. Sorry. Feel free to take it up with "the committee" if you want to hear an actual response.
That's very mature of you.
Considering that political discussions here turn nasty very quickly, and there is a particular bent that seems to raise the ire of posters here, and that for some reason I don't understand some posters don't like you much (I do), that's a very good decision - a much better decision than other, longer-tenured ANers might make.
you're just jealous b/c you have a short ...
... tenure
Put your tenuricles
I think incumbents fight using all their tools.
And speaking of Safeway, they're the ones who originally put Mom-n-Pop grocery stores out of bidness (see Von's Grocery case). Interesting that they're now looking over their shoulders at Walmart's advance on their market.
I'm also (yeah, finally) about halfway through Omnivore's Dilemma, and preparing to take a vow to consume only (local) nuts, berries and bark.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 8:43 AM PST up reply actions
Who are you going to bark at?
Monkeyball and FSU, prob'ly. ;-)
You, too, if you keep poking me with all these threadsticks.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
{clears throat, adjusts granny glasses}
"At whom are you going to bark?"
Yeah. Woof.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
You aisn't the one...
Plenty o' barkin' n snarlin' n yappin' below..
. ... puppy-breath.
by The Dogfather on Jan 24, 2008 7:59 AM PST up reply actions
Aren't you supposed to also
cover yourself in body paint, go to the forest and kill a wild boar, or have you not gotten to that part?
My opinion is that the U.S. and Europe largely discontinue agriculture.
Just finished "big organic" section.
I'm into ahem "grass."
It is a helluva book, and I am plotting how I'll eat lower on the food chain, and closer.
So, are there any wild boAr_s in Tilden Park?
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
That is indeed the solution to the dilemma
perhaps minus the "closer" part.
Dunno -- Im gonna start checking out farmer mkts.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
mkt's a farmer?
No idea, but there's a char. limit on the top li
dammi
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
you prefer your food delivered by committee?
I'm growing baleen and eating krill
I grow tomatoes, strawberries, broccoli...
Considering krill for the spring.
the economist on organic / Fairtrade / local food
http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...
i'll go along with norman borlaug since he has probably saved more lives than anyone else in history...
So far as I know...
No one has ever saved any lives...
uhh, i'm not sure what you mean
prevented deaths?
yeah
and that article is for subscribers, which I sometimes am when they offer me four free issues, but not right now.
i'll email it to you
but here's the borlaug part:
But not everyone agrees that organic farming is better for the environment. Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug, the father of the "green revolution", winner of the Nobel peace prize and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is "ridiculous" because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.
also, this article might not be subsciber-only...
So what should the ethically minded consumer do? Things that are less fun than shopping, alas. Real change will require action by governments, in the form of a global carbon tax; reform of the world trade system; and the abolition of agricultural tariffs and subsidies, notably Europe's monstrous common agricultural policy, which coddles rich farmers and prices those in the poor world out of the European market. Proper free trade would be by far the best way to help poor farmers. Taxing carbon would price the cost of emissions into the price of goods, and retailers would then have an incentive to source locally if it saved energy. But these changes will come about only through difficult, international, political deals that the world's governments have so far failed to do.
The best thing about the spread of the ethical-food movement is that it offers grounds for hope. It sends a signal that there is an enormous appetite for change and widespread frustration that governments are not doing enough to preserve the environment, reform world trade or encourage development. Which suggests that, if politicians put these options on the political menu, people might support them.
Two thoughts.
1--lots of things come back to population load. Someday, (the economist) Malthus will be vindicated.
2--on a micro level, identifying "organic" with "healthy" doesn't work -- as the FDA has rendered that connection meaningless in service to those it purports to regulate. So, it does come down to "acting locally" to buy healthier stuff (usually associated with "less processed" or lower on the food chain) and reducing the energy consumption associated with one's own diet (local and, up to a point, "organic").
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
- It's not clear at all that local or organic=less energy consumption. Case by case, and there's no way to tell when you're in the store or at the farmer's market. Not supporting the farm subsidy gravy train/supporting poor farmers in the third world is a larger concern when it's not clear what you're doing engergy-wise. Reducing one's energy consumption is of course good, but I'm a bit confused as to why many people think in those terms with food much more than any other product. Less processed is good.
And of course no one should eat recently tortured animals...
+1 to mikeA's response
I think it's "preponderant."
"Organic," even Big Organic, seems to involve more tilling, but less petroleum-derived fertilizing and pesticiding, both as to manufacture, transport and spreading. I suspect that over time and many meals, the energy balance would favor organic. And I think the issue can be easier for Californians because there's such an abundance of locally grown stuff.
As to animals, amen. I'm told that about 95% of those we commonly consider to be "animals" are "farm animals," whose lives are typically unhealthy and short, esp. if they're industrial farm animals.
I've rationalized some meat by noting that the fishing lures that work well seem to always look like the baby fish of the species. If you'll eat your young, then all bets are off.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
so then what about
That may be true
over much time, many meals, etc., but not by much and that suggests that it's not that big of a factor to weigh in comparison to others.
On the last point, I stayed with my brother's crazyish friend in Seattle a few years ago, and she recently wrote this blog entry on that topic.
Personally, I've concluded
that the only way to eat ANYTHING and be philosophically consistent about it is species chauvinism.
I mean, if you think humanity has done weird things to animals-- cultivated wheat has triple (quadruple?) the original number of chromosomes of the wild plant. Talk about genetic engineering. What right did we have to do that?
Sorry, boxed chickens and trapped cattle. I think you're tasty. So I'm going to eat you.
There is an energy-efficiency argument for eating plants rather than animals, but personally I'd rather control the human population, so that EVERYONE can eat what they want, than force people into what amounts to an evolutionarily (and culinarily) unnatural diet.
Here is a way to be consistent:
Don't eat stuff that has been tortured. Eat other stuff. Some cows, pigs, etc. are treated fine. Go for those.
Human population suppression may involve a bit of fumbling and the loss of a few seconds, but the benefits are well worth it, so we agree there.
...and a start.
Not perfect, but directionally better than most:
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 1:19 PM PST up reply actions
Ok
Here's the problem-- by my definition of torture, cultivated plants are tortured all the time. Does this mean I have to go for wild acorns?
And if not, why does it only apply to life forms with nerve tissue? Isn't that just another arbitrarily drawn line?
Yes.
But you could change your definition. You might even limit your concern to the phyllum cordata.^
^ been waiting since seventh grade to use that term in a sentence.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 1:45 PM PST up reply actions
nerve tissue or the like
is not arbitrary at all. conscious experience is the relevant factor.
so I can go ahead and eat Terry Schiavo?
OK, you've lost me
We don't think animals have conscious experience. We're not even sure WE have conscious experience. No one has yet figured out what consciousness is or proven that it actually even exists. It's a scientific mystery.
Perhaps we'll understand it at some point, but right now it's basically an unusable concept.
In any event, fish and chickens aren't even mammals (nor are chickens closely related to the parrot family, where there is good evidence of understanding of language). Cows are unbelievably stupid. So are sheep. Pigs are virtually the only domestic animal for which there's even the vaguest evidence of intelligent behavior.
There's a reason for this. Humans have bred zombielike domestic animals for convenience purposes, just as they've bred genetically monstrous (but self-reproducing) crops.
Of course we have conscious experience
It's not clear what it is, or how to describe it, just interactions of neurons etc. if you like, but it exists in some form or another. Pain exists however you want to define it, and almost surely exists in mammals, and probably in chickens. There's a continuum certainly, and chickens are on the low end, fish still lower, and invertebrates probably not on it at all, but you have a lot of work to do if you want to deny the salience of pain or that animals don't feel it in a relevant way (what an evolutionary leap that would have been!). Those who deny consciousness such as Dennett does would not disagree with anything I said. Baby puppies do not exhibit intelligent behavior, but we don't torture them...
Baby Puppies
Baby puppies do not exhibit intelligent behavior, but we don't torture them...
Michael Vick does.
by methodrampage on Jan 24, 2008 8:59 AM PST up reply actions
I'll go with Bentham here.
"The question is not 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'"
The quest for philosophical purity may also be misplaced -- especially if it results in doing "nothing," when "something" is clearly appropriate.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 4:38 PM PST up reply actions
OK
I guess I just don't see the infliction of suffering on animals (writ large) as a problem. Animals suffer all the time. I'm guessing fish don't exactly enjoy getting plucked abruptly from the water by an osprey, then suffocating to death. Boa constrictors essentially torture their prey to death.
Nature is full of examples of gratuitous cruelty. I'm not suggesting we stoop to that level, but cruelty for the purposes of obtaining food isn't gratuitous. And unlike torturing baby puppies, farming cattle isn't a leading indicator of someone being a psychopath.
Let me put it this way. I love my cat, and I would be furious if someone killed and ate him. I'm not furious about people killing and eating cats during the siege of Leningrad. Why? Well, a. I feel like I have a relationship with my cat, even if it's a largely irrational/imaginary one, and b. there are better food sources around here.
This isn't Leningrad, unless you're a cow.
I think that unnecessary cruelty against food animals is rampant in the US, and has been socially acceptable to-date mostly because it's remote and widely unknown. The food industry has been incredibly skillful at maintaining that distance -- to the point where you'd think steaks grow in shrink-wrap. They've also co-opted the regs and the enforcement mechanisms of government.
But the treatment of food animals has substantially deteriorated over the past fifty years, mostly because of the industrialization of farming in general, and of beef, hog and chicken production in particular.
(Aside: A friend of mine brought the "Happy Cows" deceptive advertising case against the Milk Board (I think). In some contrast to their idyllic commercials, he told me that most bovines in CA never so much as see a blade of grass. He lost, not on the merits, which the judge conceded in his opinion, but because the Milk Board is quasi-governmental, such that the truth-in-ads rules don't apply to it.)
Perhaps in some parallel with the Industrial Revolution, free market conditions deteriorate until law is brought to bear to enforce certain minimum treatment decencies, whether it's child labor laws or the right to collectively bargain -- or maybe the right not have your cowskin pulled off in a sheet while you're still alive? Those former provisions took a very long time to establish in the face of the power of massed capital -- and those victims were human and could advocate. Your average steer or veal calf can do neither during its brutal, almost mercifully brief existence.
You posit an extreme case, whose conditions don't apply to the routine of eating in this country, as if to say -- if it doesn't matter there, then why here? I think it matters precisely because the conditions are so vastly different -- it goes to the definition of the crucial term "unnecessary."
I also do not believe that gratuitous cruelty is all that rampant in nature (it's too much effort) -- but even if it is, a big point of civilization is to raise those minimum treatment standards above the law of the jungle. No less a civil libertarian than Gandhi said he gauged the moral development of a culture on the treatment of its weakest, most dependent members -- its animals. I think arguments against cruelty make sense on two bases -- the inherent worth of any sentient life, and on Gandhi's "moral development" scale. We can certainly afford to set the bar higher than it is.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
I should add (believe it or not, there's more) ..
... that there is a role for market-based pressure to be brought to bear (as various NGOs have done with the Asian sweatshops and some other outsourcings). Indeed, that's what campaigns like the "Certified Humane" label are all about. And that's why the current level of secrecy/non-access is crucial to producers -- the last thing they want to face is an aroused customer base, and prevention costs a lot less than cure.
In fact, I suspect that most folks don't want to know about it -- which I understand completely. When I started volunteering in this general field (albeit with companion animals), I didn't want to go to the "shelter," either -- partly because I knew what I'd find.
by The Dogfather on Jan 24, 2008 7:49 AM PST up reply actions
I guess we just have different priorities
I would infinitely rather people remained ignorant of this and became conscious of, say, the tens of millions of people who die every year of diarrhea and fouled water supplies-- especially since, unlike the live skinning of some cows, that problem is a major contributing cause to human overpopulation, as people overreproduce as insurance against inevitable infant mortality.
Human life is worth a lot more to me than cow life. I'm never going to have a conversation with a cow. Cows are not going to develop new technologies. They exist to be killed and eaten (and/or milked).
And as big as the difference is there, it's even bigger when it comes to cow death. This fascination with the notion of "humane killing" is really repugnant to me, and not just on the animal level. Death is inherently inhumane. The question of whether a prisoner "suffers" more with a guillotine or a lethal injection is about a million times less important to me than whether he ought to die in the first place, a question which (very often) doesn't ever really get asked at all.
Either/or is a false choice.
by The Dogfather on Jan 24, 2008 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
Sure
but the notion of a tradeoff isn't. People's money, time, attention span, compassion, news time, etc. are all finite. I've seen way too many congressional reform drives get bogged down in minutia to think that it's not at least a partially zero-sum process.
Add in the "compassion fatigue" effect, and it looks even worse.
Ya know, it's like the carpet cleaning guy ...
... who (now stay with me, here) recently came after me pretty aggressively on the issue of valuing people vs. animals (despite the fact that I wouldn't have needed his services were it not for various misdeeds my animals). I told him I feel like this:
Everybody can do something worthwhile in the world. Advocating for animals happens to be my something. I guess it's okay with me if that's not your thing, even enough to pay attention to the issues. But it's a lot more okay with me if you have something about which you do care enough to actually do something about it.
Now, I'm not asking whether you do, or assuming that you don't, I'm just hoping that you do.
by The Dogfather on Jan 24, 2008 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
Don't get crazy.
Not everybody can do something worthwhile in the world. Some of us just post on AN.
malthusians
i already had that discussion with mikeA's brother, so i'll just copy and paste the funny gif...
from the paul r. ehrlich wikipedia page:
"The fallacy of attempting to use Erlich's scenarios as predictions centers around his use of static projection for his statistics. He took relatively short-term trends, or narrow ranges of factors, and projected them into the future as if there were not a nearly infinite set of other factors which may change, and counter-forces which actively react against the trends he presented. A satirical example of this fallacy occurred in 2006, when it was noted that safety razors were following a curve of blade count increases; for 70 years, they had a single blade, then for 15 years they had two, then three for only one year, then four and five blades in the same year; By using the same kind of static projection as the Population Bomb, it could be predicted that safety razors would have an infinite number of blades by 2015"
And here I am still using a three blade razor
like a sucker ...
I can't wait to get my infinite blade razor in seven years ...
Don't take the FDA as being an authority
The FDA isn't saying Organic isn't better for you. They're just saying they're not saying it is better for you.
My own personal experience says organic has MAJOR benefits. Like, change-of-life major.
And that's not even going into the dramatic difference in taste, shelf life...
Seriously, grow some tomatoes this summer with nothing but soil, water and sun, and put the first one that you pick on a shelf in the kitchen. See how long it lasts. It'll still be good to eat after six weeks, and it'll taste better than any tomato you can buy at a store - even those produced by 'big organic'.
high yield vs. sustainable
Borlaug's argument seems a bit facile to me. There's no question that the use of fertilizers, cross-breeding, and even direct genetic manipulation has dramatically increased yields, and thus helped prevent famine. Most would agree that's the right thing to do in places where having enough (affordable) food to feed everything is a major problem.
In the US right now, though, that isn't the real issue. Although there is still some malnutrition here, it's mostly the result of severe economic deprivation, not a lack of available food. Meanwhile, we've become the first society in history with an epidemic of obesity among the lower classes. Isn't it possible that in those circumstances encouraging lower-yield organic farming is justified?
On the second point, I'm more in agreement, for essentially the same reason. Large subsidies to agribusiness may have made sense in the past (though probably the Economist would not have agreed) to ensure a sufficient supply of staple crops, but in today's developed countries they're essentially corporate welfare.
subsidies and obesity
The simplest solution to that would be to stop subsidizing Big Sugar.
One factoid I recall was that the number ...
... of over-nourished people in the world (read: us) for the first time recently exceeded the number of malnourished people.
Like a billion, each. Yikes.
Hold the garlic fries.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
the US
what if everyone in the US was fed through low-yield organic farming, could US ag land support that?
the economist would not have agreed that agribusiness subsidies made sense in the past, it was founded as part of the anti-corn law movement.
Why
does this have to be an all-or-nothing proposition? My point is that, while converting all of our agriculture to organic might end up being worse for the environment for the reasons mentioned, the real issue here is the marginal impact of a small number of organic farms vs. the same crops grown conventionally. For that calculation, the total amount of arable land or our ability to feed the entire population are pretty much beside the point.
Additionally, the calculation is certainly going to be very different for different types of crops.
why
but the people/groups advocating organic food want it to be adopted on a mass scale and even to replace conventional farming altogether, don't they?
also, as a vegan who shops at the local co-op (but does not go out of the way to buy or avoid organic/fairtrade/local stuff), i'll just reiterate that (aside from the policy stuff mentioned by the economist) the best way to reduce energy-use for food is to eat lower on the food chain.
Everything's connected, ain't it?
Economic content to follow.
Pretty clear that the green revolution has eased suffering, and probably increased the human population load on the planet. Q is whether LT effects of industrial/monoculture farming will have a day of reckoning in terms of soil depletion, animal(incl. human)/plant diseases, energy consumption/climate change, etc. etc.
Now, "in the long run we're all dead" (which was said by an economist, not a politician), but the current system may very well not be "sustainable" (in the economic sense of the term).
If true, then what? Of course, the economist might answer: "assume an abundance of food..."
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
In other news, I got a book review ...
... published in this month's BARK mag. Can't link it, as they'd prefer you buy the issue so they can recoup some of the king's ransom they paid me for it (okay, somewhere south of minimum wage, but who's counting?).
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
are there any wild borlaugs in Tilden Park?
I went local organic two years ago.
I'd inquire about other salutary effects ...
... but after the King thread, your credibility on that topic is subject to speculation.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 1:12 PM PST up reply actions
FWIW
and no one should take my take on what's CGV-able as anything more than my opinion, but the general past practice seems to have been that discussions of economic theory were OK, discussions of partisan politics were not, and the "brings politics onto AN" CGV line lies somewhere in the big gray area in between.
Which is a bit silly, given that economics are more integral to the socio-political fabric of life than just about anything else. But that seems to be the way it's played in the past.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 23, 2008 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
I don't doubt you're correct
and I think there was a 99% chance that my response would have been unobjectionable. It really doesn't matter to me. 100 posts of that nature, however edifying (or not) to the general community, aren't worth a ban from the site.
As long as I have two "strikes" on my "record," I'm in Simon Says mode. If the CGs tell me that I can only post in my underwear, then I guess I won't be posting during the working day.
Don't be such a wet blanket
by methodrampage on Jan 23, 2008 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not known as a friend of Dogfather
When strikes are so freely thrown around, especially coming from anonymous reports from people who disagree with your attitude (and they are), the knowledge that you've got a couple and are one step from bye-bye puts a big fat kybosh on your free expression.
I post rarely nowadays for that same reason.
Not sure how I figure into this one ...
... but as a Moderator emeritus on fark.com, I was always inclined to try to cajole and warn before banninating for any length of time.
Different system, and this site is a great deal more intimate and focused, but I find the discourse around here a lot more civil and cerebral than I did there. There's more ego here, but maybe that comes with the other two qualities.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
WHOOOOP! WHOOOOP! WHOOOP!
{flashing red light}
Yes, that's the bullshit alarm, triggered by this:
For an extended period of time, we were fielding a playoff-caliber team, and often times one or two major league signings were potentially the difference between making the playoffs or not. We can look at all the studies showing the higher return on investment from amateur spending than major league free agents, but when you are in a position where one major league free agent signing can be pivotal in making the playoffs, those calculations have to be evaluated in a different context. Hindsight is 20/20, but after getting to the ALCS in 2006, it was reasonable to believe that the additions of Piazza, Stewart, and Embree would keep us in the hunt in 2007.
Your sig line closes that thought quite nicely
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 22, 2008 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
To be fair...
It's not like the return on the kind of money they had to spend was going to be better if they had brought in someone else as an FA.
If only we'd been thinking more clearly, maybe we could have ridden Gil Meche to the Series!
not my point
The A's have, in the last 5 years, made several strategic spending blunders that negatively impacted their on-field production and their overall budget. None of those blunders were FA signings. (OK, you could argue Piazza was.)
Overall, though, this points to a contradiction: either FA signings impact other non-ML-level budget items (Zaidi), or they don't (Beane). One of 'em's lying.
Beane said that FA signings
don't affect non-MLB-level budget items?
If so, then yes, someone's lying, unless they've changed their budget protocol in the meantime.
AN Day last year
Someone (IIRC, salb918) asked Beane a budget-related question, about potentially saving money on line item X and rolling that into draft bonuses/minor-league FA signings/scouting/Latin American development/etc.
Beane answered quite clearly that (and this goes to a point of dispute you and I had a couple weeks ago) they set a budget at the beginning of the year, and that they don't "cross the streams" in terms of rolling shortfalls from one line item into another.
But, yes, certainly, to your last point, they could indeed have changed the protocol since then.
Well, it may just have been an allocation issue
If Beane says at the beginning of the year, "OK, the MLB club needs $70 million to compete, and we only have $75M, so we're cutting the Venezuela budget this season", then that would be an instance of the free agent budget affecting other budgets. And I don't think it would contradict the notion of not crossing budget streams mid-season.
I think it's a small picture/big picture issue. The strategy may be wrongheaded (I don't really see any advantages to "not crossing streams"-- money is money, right?) but I don't see anything that necessarily implies dissembling.
On not crossing streams..
If we get our draftees and they take smaller money than thought, great. why then turn around and spend it on FAs you don't need?
I get the idea. But I also assume there's a discretionary fund somewhere in that budget that allows the team to get someone if they need to, late in the season with the playoffs on the line, and that such a fund exists regardless of savings elsewhere.
'tweren't I
Someone more intelligent and less self-promoting. Unless I'm not remembering correctly.
It was the baby.
He sounded kinda muffled, but it was a good question.
or maybe zaidi is just a stat guy
and not involved in the budget side of things?
Oh,
you guys assumed it was our Crosby. I don't think anyone cares about our Crosby.
by sf drift king on Jan 22, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions
Obviously not our Crosby
since the headline for the actual story says "League MVP Crosby".
by Englishmajor on Jan 22, 2008 3:05 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe Peter Gammons wrote the headline
by BlameChannel53 on Jan 22, 2008 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
It's either a joke or allen not paying attention
Or possibly you are a Penguins fan... can't rule that out offhand.
I assume you know that's the NHL.
and he will miss the all-star game and not opening day.
He will be ready for opening day...
of baseball season, I just don't think he will be making the Oakland A's roster.
It's funny
because that could be said about Bobby also.
by Helloooo 1st on Jan 22, 2008 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
Is it wrong that a little piece of me...
...was holding in a 'hooray!'
Which piece?
The piece of me that wants to see...
I heard holding in hoorays can give you cancer
Alternate joke: Isn't "Who-Rays" the new name of the Tampa franchise?
Octavio Dotel
signed with the White Sox
2 years, $11 MILLION!
wow, that's a lot for a set-up man with recent injury history. But maybe he will have a big year.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...
AN gets mention by Peter Gammons
Unfortunately, time keeps most of us from getting to those sites specific to teams. It's amazing how many club officials read USS Mariner (Seattle), Fire Brand of the American League (Boston), Ducksnorts (San Diego), Athletics Nation (Oakland), Viva El Birdos (St. Louis), Lone Star Ball (Texas), River Ave. Blues (Yankees), MetsBlog.com, FishStripes (Florida), Dodger Thoughts, Bronx Banter (great writing), The LoHud Yankees Blog, Reds Reporter (Cincinnati), Bleed Cubbie Blue, Brew Crew Ball (Milwaukee) and more.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...
Bulletin: buncha robins* outside my window today!
Can spring be far behind?
- of the ornithological persuasion; I'm not in Yountville.^
^ This is also a certified non-steroidal asterisk.
CNN is reporting that Heath Ledger is dead
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 22, 2008 2:02 PM PST reply actions
A few details...
that's insane
I wonder if it's similar situation to Joe Kennedy (heart problem).
Had he finished his Joker scenes for the new Batman flick yet?
I won't believe this until I see a link
but I was just told by a coworker, who was not kidding, that they read he was found in Mary-Kate Olsen's apartment, with Oxycontin.
The apartment is *owned* by her.
Other link...
to an article that doesn't contradict itself.
ditto... LOL
FWIW
According to the newspaper, the apartment was inhabited by actor Mary-Kate Olsen.
Don't know if that's accurate.
That particular article also says...
does Mary-Kate own a chainsaw?
As long as we're misreading things...
I first read "heed" as something else.
I bet Barry doesn't hold in *his* hoorays
he does
Oh, wait -- that's an "h," not a "w."
he does
Oh, wait -- that's a second "e", not an "a".
by green star oakland on Jan 22, 2008 3:28 PM PST up reply actions
First Brad Renfro...
..now Heath Ledger.
Ya think Young Hollywood maybe needs to sit down and take a deep breath?
methinks they have
... of what is the question/problem.
the pic on drudge looks like Prince William
and i first thought it was him, but then realized I didn't hear massive screaming and crying. Realization that it was just the joker (clowns really do cry inside) was a relief.
that comment wouuld make more sense if I admitted
that I'm in London...
Spurs beat Arsenal 5-1
for their first win against their arch-rivals since 1999.
by green star oakland on Jan 22, 2008 2:07 PM PST reply actions
eh, you're just still sore about UNC losing
Boo!
Actually, I expected the Heels to lose before January was out. They'd been playing pretty poorly of late, by their standards, and horribly on defense. Probably should have lost at Clemson and at Ga Tech as well.
Hopefully they'll now be shocked into seriousness by the fact that they A) lost to a markedly inferior Maryland team, at home in the Dean Dome; and B) are now ranked behind an inferior Duke team, those bastards.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 22, 2008 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
On this date ...
Where did the talent in the Top 30 come from.
BA lists before and after the trades.
COLLEGE
Athletics, 18
Tigers, Cardinals (tie), 17
Padres, Blue Jays (tie), 16No surprises here. Though, with Oakland’s trades of Dan Haren, Nick Swisher and Mark Kotsay, one could argue that nine of the players acquired in those deals could reasonably be considered Top 30-worthy, to put it very conservatively. Adding Carlos Gonzalez, Brett Anderson, Aaron Cunningham, Chris Carter, Greg Smith, Gio Gonzalez, Fautino de los Santos, Ryan Sweeney and Joey Devine to the A’s 30 would bump their Trade total from two to a most-in-baseball 10—but reduce their College ranks to just nine, a distinctly middle-of-the-pack total.
Note that we’re not giving Oakland credit for one of their incumbent trade acquisitions. Righthander Graham Godfrey, who came over from Toronto in the Marco Scutaro trade, inevitably would lose his spot in the 30.
The Pirates have 3 minor league FA's
in their top 30.
Ouch.
No, the article was a reprint from 1940
The rest of the story is about plucky orphans, a crazy dame with gams up to here, and a gangster named Plugs Molloy.
Okay, this is the second time this week
From an AP article about Tom Brady's foot and Eli Manning's inferiority to his brother:
Eli may not have the cache of his older brother...
Cachet. The word is cachet. Cache is a place to hide or store things. Unless they're saying that Peyton has a place to hide or store things and doesn't let his brother use it.
/aneurysm
Peyton Manning has buku cache
Peyton is part marsupial...he's got a pouch.
Jason Giambi
doesn't have his stash of his younger brother.
Or maybe he does.
neither has the stache of Jeff Kent
A's 2008 promotional schedule?
I'm waiting for the A's to release the 2008 bobbleheads and other promotions. Anyone have an inside scoop? I'd have to think they will go retro a bit this year. Only current players who I can see getting one are Blanton and Cust...maybe Buck. Cust would be the coolest :).
I called the ticket office yesterday,
and they said they're trying to have at least a partial promo schedule ready on paper by Saturday so it can be picked up at Fan Fest. If it is ready, I'll get one and post it in a diary.
Bobbleheads
Blanton, maybe, but it might be risky. He could be traded. If there is a Blanton one, it will be a TBD date.
Players who likley will get their bobbleheads are probably going to be Travis Buck, Mark Ellis and Jack Cust.
BobbleMaEl two years in a row?
RE: Bobbleheads
Would it even be possible to make a Barry Bonds bobblehead? His head is already cartoonishly freaky in size. Or would they have to make a booblebody for his which his giant head would support?
by methodrampage on Jan 23, 2008 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
Ellis would be a surprise
I guess they did Chavez twice but it was many years in between. If Ellis won the gold glove I could see it though.
I hope they do a Rickey at least, they are overdue for some old school guys. Dave Henderson, Steinbach would be popular and deserving players too. It would be controversial and never happen anytime soon but wouldn't have a beef with a Canseco or McGwire either.
I'm sure for Rickey and Mac ...
they'll hold off until their HOF induction years (assuming the latter happens) ...
I could definitely go for a Steinbach ... give my Stew bobble head someone to throw to ...
Good point
For old old school guys, what other players would be solid choices? Fingers is a good one, would go with my Brewers Fingers. Bando? Campy? Jimmie Fox? ;)
Beane is another fun suggestion. Him as a player bobble opposed to wearing "front office" clothing would be choice.
If we're openning the door to Philly players ...
We could do a season with:
Foxx, Grove, Cochran and Collins
If they were going to do a Beane bobble head, it would probably be for season ticket holders, ala King and Stew ...
With action 'stache!
I want a Beane bobblehead
But, yes, Cust would be cool.
Hey: how about a Clay Wood bobblehead?
How about vendor bobbleheads?
There's Scary "Who Else?!" Guy, and Hyperactive Coffee Kid, and Ben & Jerry's Moseying Dude...
I've really gotta learn people's names...
"Baaaaaaaaagganutts"
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions
That one has to be a talking bobble.
I've been waiting for him to add "Gotcher nutsack here!" to his repertoire.
I loves me that coffee kid.
I think somebody told him to tone it down, unfortunately, or maybe he stopped drinking so much of it, but he brought personality and fun to his job.
Hope Mikey didn't trade him.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Rest of the vendors don't share your love
The kids wearing blue who sell the coffee and the Ben-n-Jerry's products are not employees of the Coli concessionaire, the way the more familiar peanut/hotdog/slushee vendors are. Those guys wear the yellow shirts. The youngsters are employees of Juma Ventures, an interesting for-profit enterprise which hires at-risk youth for service-sector jobs. The kids get work opportunities which otherwise might be hard to come by. Juma gets profits, because they can pay the kids youth training wages, below the normal industry scale.
The yellow-shirted vendors despise the Juma kids, because they see them as taking their jobs. Which is basically true, though there's obviously an argument to be made that it's a reasonable or even desireable trade-off. I don't make that argument, though.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 23, 2008 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
Any idea which of the products have the best ...
... margins for the vendors? Which do the most volume? How they determine how many vendors/product? I'm guessing nobody's ever very happy -- like the wait-staff in a semi-busy restaurant.
Also, some of those kids seem to be repeaters -- like "Biff," the preppy-lookin' guy who sells Ben and Jerry's. Isn't there a time limit on "training" for sub-min wage purposes (okay, so maybe I should look it up)?
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
at-risk cycle
- Engages in behaviors that facilitate interaction with state agencies likely to append "at-risk" label
- Gets placed with Juma for low-wage job
- Repeats step 1; loses job while availing self of state-provided living facilities
- Exits state-provided living facilities
- Repeats step 2
- Repeats step 3
CA min wage, from Dept of Indust Relns site:
"There is an exception for learners, regardless of age, who may be paid not less than 85% of the minimum wage rounded to the nearest nickel during their first 160 hours of employment in occupations in which they have no previous similar or related experience."
Elaboration down for maintenance, so this is quick-n-dirty.
CA min wage now $8.00, so learner wage can be $6.80/hour. They probably work 4 hours/game, so 160 won't get through a whole home season. They may, however, be on some other commission-based arrangement.
by The Dogfather on Jan 23, 2008 5:41 PM PST up reply actions
my guesses
probable: blanton (spring), buck, cust, fingers
less likely: duke, barton, beane, bonds
Fun idea...
Would be to have busts. In a sick way I'd like a Van Poppel, Dressendorfer, Karsay, Neel or Wasdin bobble.
Throwback bobbles should be...
Bando, Rudi, Campy, Blue Moon Odom.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
