If Whitlock is right, then it took about six weeks to get really unhappy with the Pioli/Haley partnership. If Brian Waters, as probably the #2 or #3 leader of this team, paid for a flight out of his own money to come to Kansas City and meet with the coaching staff, and be shown the respect (or lack of) that he was by Pioli/Haley, then there may be dark days ahead.
According to "sources with knowledge of the situation," Pioli snubbed his team's strongest vocal leader and perennial Pro Bowler. In New England, Brian Waters is probably Teddy Bruschi. If Gonzalez is the Tom Brady of this team then Waters is probably the Bruschi. Would Pioli have snubbed Bruschi in New England?
Haley on the other hand, reportedly talked to Waters in a "hallway conversation" and told him that the players here are nothing and that anyone off the street can win two games. According to Arizona Cardinals' players at the Pro Bowl, Haley is apparently a complete prick. Did anyone inform him that a bunch of morons off the street could have walked into New England and put up 7 points in the snow?
This is not a good sign for the future. Now, I will go forward and say that if a trade does happen, and a couple of decent draft picks come from it, then great. I'm on board. But I would have been on board without management being arrogant. I didn't need Peterson to be an ass to get me on board for three high picks for Jared Allen, and I don't need Pioli/Haley being asses to get me on board for two picks for Waters.
I should consider the source. Whitlock is the drama-queen Paris Hilton of Kansas City's sports media elite, and they will both leave you irritated all day afterwards. This could be a complete farce. This could very well be a small disrespecting and Waters merely "considering" a change of scenery.
But it sure doesn't sound good. Whitlock, thanks for the crabs for the day. Now I'm going to be irritated until I hear some good news about the Chiefs.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Parable of the Broken Window
The most interesting thing about the Congressional Address by President Obama is the authority with which he believes that the government can solve our problems better than we can. Basically, the economy is broken, and they can spend money to fix it. There is a great fallacy that the Keynesian model violates outlined in the Parable of the Broken Window.
The destruction of property and/or an economy are never good. Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) once coined the phrase "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The idea that one can fix the problems of a nation through intervention are never valid. Had a recession not happened, had a building not been bombed, or a window broken, what would those resources have went to that were used to fix them? Possibly to open a bigger store, buy current technology, build roads, etc.
Our government speaks of the need, now, to invest in an outdated infrastructure system. This is, infact, productive if you believe the government has the role of building such infrastructure for the nation. However, had the government not paid farmers not to farm, could those needs have been met long ago? Had the government not paid to bomb AND rebuild nations around the world, could we have afforded productive road expenditures? Had the government not subsidized low-income urban housing, would currently urban dwellers have found low cost rural housing on their own and made a life among themselves? And those subsidies gone to roads? Had the government not subsidized elderly and impoverished health care (historically the most expensive), could we have that great infrastructure that we're so desperately behind on?
There are outdated things in this nation that need work, and no one is complaining about the portions of bailouts that go to roads. To the contrary, I think many are happy. However, when those productive expenditures are the vast minority among the "stimulus" measures, and given the non-stimulative spending that has been pursued in the past, can anyone question why I don't trust the government to not consider the costs of the broken window now?
Nations don't spend their way out of problems, they produce their way out of them. This nation needs to learn this quick, because spending can buy lower unemployment in the short term, but productive employment is what ends a crisis. If this administration is giving money to pharmaceutical companies for research (might not be beneficial for 50 years), energy companies for research, subsidies for Hybrid vehicles, and for increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, entitlements, and the like, then we will see the opportunity costs of those non-productive expenditures come back to bite us in the very near-term.
Immediate productive spending is necessary. Absent of increasing the productive capacity of the American economy, all of the debt and artificial wealth that Obama wants to free up for us all will only delay the inevitable. And at the back end of it all, we will be about $3-5 trillion more in debt and turn a recession to a depression because of it.
The destruction of property and/or an economy are never good. Rahm Emanuel (Chief of Staff) once coined the phrase "never let a serious crisis go to waste." The idea that one can fix the problems of a nation through intervention are never valid. Had a recession not happened, had a building not been bombed, or a window broken, what would those resources have went to that were used to fix them? Possibly to open a bigger store, buy current technology, build roads, etc.
Our government speaks of the need, now, to invest in an outdated infrastructure system. This is, infact, productive if you believe the government has the role of building such infrastructure for the nation. However, had the government not paid farmers not to farm, could those needs have been met long ago? Had the government not paid to bomb AND rebuild nations around the world, could we have afforded productive road expenditures? Had the government not subsidized low-income urban housing, would currently urban dwellers have found low cost rural housing on their own and made a life among themselves? And those subsidies gone to roads? Had the government not subsidized elderly and impoverished health care (historically the most expensive), could we have that great infrastructure that we're so desperately behind on?
There are outdated things in this nation that need work, and no one is complaining about the portions of bailouts that go to roads. To the contrary, I think many are happy. However, when those productive expenditures are the vast minority among the "stimulus" measures, and given the non-stimulative spending that has been pursued in the past, can anyone question why I don't trust the government to not consider the costs of the broken window now?
Nations don't spend their way out of problems, they produce their way out of them. This nation needs to learn this quick, because spending can buy lower unemployment in the short term, but productive employment is what ends a crisis. If this administration is giving money to pharmaceutical companies for research (might not be beneficial for 50 years), energy companies for research, subsidies for Hybrid vehicles, and for increasing unemployment benefits, welfare, entitlements, and the like, then we will see the opportunity costs of those non-productive expenditures come back to bite us in the very near-term.
Immediate productive spending is necessary. Absent of increasing the productive capacity of the American economy, all of the debt and artificial wealth that Obama wants to free up for us all will only delay the inevitable. And at the back end of it all, we will be about $3-5 trillion more in debt and turn a recession to a depression because of it.
Revolution - Governmental Restructure
Unfortunately for all of us, we have a government that craps on the Constitution daily and tells us that it is merely putting powder sugar on the donut. We need a revolution, a restructuring of the Constitution. This is not to say that we need to change the Amendments that currently exist in our Constitution, but rather we need to restructure the initial articles that were established for a system of checks and balances that no longer work.
We live in a new age of information and technology. The reason why localized representatives were necessary in Congress was so we could have the most efficient link possible between the public and the capitol. This role is no longer necessary, however we do need local individuals who represent us to lobby on our behalf.
The idea is to keep the government as three bodies as it currently stands, and have a fourth independent, taxpayer funded organization. The major change is in the legislature.
The Legislative Branch will keep all rights in the Constitution to Declare War (which hasn't been done in 50 years), to draft legislation, and everything other than legislative voting rights. Currently, lobbyist organizations drive the votes in Washington. Representatives do not come back to the districts to discuss major legislation with their constituents, they just come back once every few years during election time.
The fourth, independent branch, will be an online voting directory and polling organization. There will be a 0.5% income tax exclusively for this organization which is not subject do deductions, credits, or anything else. It is a 0.5% FEE for this organization to manage your right to vote. All legislation drafted by Congress will be voted for online by the public. Each member this nation who chooses to exercise their right to vote will set up a profile on a U.S. Government database. You log-in by using your profile, and the system allows each individual to have one vote per individual (one per SSN).
Not only does this organization have power over voting, but also polling for the government. It is one organization that studies data every year OUTSIDE the government and provides all statistics on census data, demographics, financial information, and such to the government on request. You volunteer data to help the government understand trends from income losses, unemployment data, demographics, cost of living standards, tax liabilities, bankruptcy, and such.
This would get us back to the Constitution. The one where Congress writes legislation, the President runs the military and has veto power, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In this age of pressing for support from lobbyists and not individuals for legislation, we should take back the power. If the lobbyists had to lobby 300 million people instead of 550 lawmakers, this country will be better of.
However, if the lobbyists try to shove biased statistics down your throat that are completely untrue, you have the Federal Research and Voting Council (why not give it a name?) with a database for statistics that you can look to in order to verify whether the lobbyist organization has your best interests in mind or not.
The problem is asking our Government to take power away from themselves and give it back to the people. They talk a big game about "the people" when it comes to their biases within the two party system, I think it's time to put them to the test.
We live in a new age of information and technology. The reason why localized representatives were necessary in Congress was so we could have the most efficient link possible between the public and the capitol. This role is no longer necessary, however we do need local individuals who represent us to lobby on our behalf.
The idea is to keep the government as three bodies as it currently stands, and have a fourth independent, taxpayer funded organization. The major change is in the legislature.
The Legislative Branch will keep all rights in the Constitution to Declare War (which hasn't been done in 50 years), to draft legislation, and everything other than legislative voting rights. Currently, lobbyist organizations drive the votes in Washington. Representatives do not come back to the districts to discuss major legislation with their constituents, they just come back once every few years during election time.
The fourth, independent branch, will be an online voting directory and polling organization. There will be a 0.5% income tax exclusively for this organization which is not subject do deductions, credits, or anything else. It is a 0.5% FEE for this organization to manage your right to vote. All legislation drafted by Congress will be voted for online by the public. Each member this nation who chooses to exercise their right to vote will set up a profile on a U.S. Government database. You log-in by using your profile, and the system allows each individual to have one vote per individual (one per SSN).
Not only does this organization have power over voting, but also polling for the government. It is one organization that studies data every year OUTSIDE the government and provides all statistics on census data, demographics, financial information, and such to the government on request. You volunteer data to help the government understand trends from income losses, unemployment data, demographics, cost of living standards, tax liabilities, bankruptcy, and such.
This would get us back to the Constitution. The one where Congress writes legislation, the President runs the military and has veto power, and the Supreme Court interprets the law.
In this age of pressing for support from lobbyists and not individuals for legislation, we should take back the power. If the lobbyists had to lobby 300 million people instead of 550 lawmakers, this country will be better of.
However, if the lobbyists try to shove biased statistics down your throat that are completely untrue, you have the Federal Research and Voting Council (why not give it a name?) with a database for statistics that you can look to in order to verify whether the lobbyist organization has your best interests in mind or not.
The problem is asking our Government to take power away from themselves and give it back to the people. They talk a big game about "the people" when it comes to their biases within the two party system, I think it's time to put them to the test.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama - the Levitra Ad of Presidential Politics
Do you know how you can't go through a single commercial break on your favorite program without seeing a random Erectile Dysfunction medication advertisement and how no one wants to see them? You know, the Levitra ad where the guy is throwing the football through a tire swing in the yard, misses, looks sad, but then takes the pill and he makes the next throw while his wife walks outside with iced tea and looks turned on? You know that some guy who just happened to not get it up the night before starts to wonder after commercial repetition that he just might not have it anymore and he might need the pill.
This is the state of American politics today. The President last night spoke very eloquently for about an hour in his "Not Yet State of the Union Address but we'll call it a State of the Union Address." The eloquence is the only change we see from the previous administration, that if you're going to say something that is phony and filled with inaccuracies that you should at least sound good doing it.
For example, who invented the automobile? Was it the United State or Germany? Had Sarah Palin or George Bush made that gaffe, the media and late night shows would crush them for it. He, along with the left, are selling a brand more so than selling a truth. They say things like "_____ voted against renewable energy" instead of the truth that "_____ voted against the government investing tax dollars during a massive deficit in private renewable energy companies to subsidize research that they should be paying for on their own." Get the difference?
The brand of the day is that the government does not need us, we need the government. Unemployment has risen by 2% and people who should have foreclosed on their homes are doing so, and the rest of the population has never had it better. Stocks have fallen (temporarily) but buying power is the best in 25 years, oil is down, food prices are down, and home prices are becoming more reasonable. A few people lose their stock values temporarily, and they start to wonder if they'll ever it it back. It's only one "questionable performance," and they wonder if the Levitra ad was right.
Apparently, Barack Obama has decided that he is a brand label, not a leader. Instead of quiet leadership, sitting down, and getting the job done, he has spent his first two months in office campaigning around the country, pushing cabinet members who don't pay their taxes down our throats and calling his cabinet "the most ethical in history," and has made more national television appearances in two months than George Bush would make in 2 years.
Last night, his speech went like this: 1/3 to debt got us into this mess so we need to free up lending, 1/3 went to cutting taxes on 95% of Americans while increasing spending in unprecedented fashion, and 1/3 to continuing the military-industrial complex overseas. It's the same thing as when watching a Levitra advertisement, the first half makes you question whether you have it in the tank anymore, and the other 1/2 tells you about the possible consequences of taking the the pill. You don't listen because the 1/2 made you believe and the second 1/2 won't happen to you.
Last night, Obama said "We have a problem." You said, "You know something, I think I do." From there on, most of you probably ignored the side effects. Good luck with your urinary tract bleeding, occasional loss of hearing, blurred vision, and generally the loss of your ability to do anything other than to have sex. Soon, the government will take away everything from you other than your right to vote them back into power.
This is the state of American politics today. The President last night spoke very eloquently for about an hour in his "Not Yet State of the Union Address but we'll call it a State of the Union Address." The eloquence is the only change we see from the previous administration, that if you're going to say something that is phony and filled with inaccuracies that you should at least sound good doing it.
For example, who invented the automobile? Was it the United State or Germany? Had Sarah Palin or George Bush made that gaffe, the media and late night shows would crush them for it. He, along with the left, are selling a brand more so than selling a truth. They say things like "_____ voted against renewable energy" instead of the truth that "_____ voted against the government investing tax dollars during a massive deficit in private renewable energy companies to subsidize research that they should be paying for on their own." Get the difference?
The brand of the day is that the government does not need us, we need the government. Unemployment has risen by 2% and people who should have foreclosed on their homes are doing so, and the rest of the population has never had it better. Stocks have fallen (temporarily) but buying power is the best in 25 years, oil is down, food prices are down, and home prices are becoming more reasonable. A few people lose their stock values temporarily, and they start to wonder if they'll ever it it back. It's only one "questionable performance," and they wonder if the Levitra ad was right.
Apparently, Barack Obama has decided that he is a brand label, not a leader. Instead of quiet leadership, sitting down, and getting the job done, he has spent his first two months in office campaigning around the country, pushing cabinet members who don't pay their taxes down our throats and calling his cabinet "the most ethical in history," and has made more national television appearances in two months than George Bush would make in 2 years.
Last night, his speech went like this: 1/3 to debt got us into this mess so we need to free up lending, 1/3 went to cutting taxes on 95% of Americans while increasing spending in unprecedented fashion, and 1/3 to continuing the military-industrial complex overseas. It's the same thing as when watching a Levitra advertisement, the first half makes you question whether you have it in the tank anymore, and the other 1/2 tells you about the possible consequences of taking the the pill. You don't listen because the 1/2 made you believe and the second 1/2 won't happen to you.
Last night, Obama said "We have a problem." You said, "You know something, I think I do." From there on, most of you probably ignored the side effects. Good luck with your urinary tract bleeding, occasional loss of hearing, blurred vision, and generally the loss of your ability to do anything other than to have sex. Soon, the government will take away everything from you other than your right to vote them back into power.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Obushma Strikes Again!
Apparently the "people's" administration has announced a fourth $400+ Billion dollar spending bill in the past 6 months (and second in two months). This one is to make up for spending cuts made by the Bush administration. Two questions:
#1. If George W. Bush grew the size and scope of government more than any president in history, then how can it be necessary to pass $410 Billion in new spending to make up for his budget cuts?
#2. Barack Obama announced this weekend that he wants the deficit cut in half by the end of the first term. So far, the government has passed (and now announced) about $2.5 Trillion in "stimulus" spending. He inherited a $1+ Trillion dollar deficit. He has cut taxes on "working families" and non-working families just so long as they don't make a lot of money. If he's honest, he might push a budget with a $3 trillion budget deficit this year. If Bush was such a terrible fiscal president (which history will agree) who was once completely inept for passing a $300 billion budget deficit, then how is Barack Obama not the worst for having a lofty goal of a $1.5 TRILLION deficit before his term in office is over?
I don't doubt that he will cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term. The question is whether it is the $500 Billion final Bush budget deficit or his soon-to-be $3 trillion budget deficit? The former is a VERY lofty goal that we should praise him for (especially if it doesn't mean he's taking over 50% of my paycheck to do it). The latter is more likely, and also unfortunate that he feels it's an accomplishment.
#1. If George W. Bush grew the size and scope of government more than any president in history, then how can it be necessary to pass $410 Billion in new spending to make up for his budget cuts?
#2. Barack Obama announced this weekend that he wants the deficit cut in half by the end of the first term. So far, the government has passed (and now announced) about $2.5 Trillion in "stimulus" spending. He inherited a $1+ Trillion dollar deficit. He has cut taxes on "working families" and non-working families just so long as they don't make a lot of money. If he's honest, he might push a budget with a $3 trillion budget deficit this year. If Bush was such a terrible fiscal president (which history will agree) who was once completely inept for passing a $300 billion budget deficit, then how is Barack Obama not the worst for having a lofty goal of a $1.5 TRILLION deficit before his term in office is over?
I don't doubt that he will cut the deficit in half before the end of his first term. The question is whether it is the $500 Billion final Bush budget deficit or his soon-to-be $3 trillion budget deficit? The former is a VERY lofty goal that we should praise him for (especially if it doesn't mean he's taking over 50% of my paycheck to do it). The latter is more likely, and also unfortunate that he feels it's an accomplishment.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Desperation.....
Things are going on so well in the world that CNN is desperate for something to report......
Friday, February 20, 2009
Running Out of Insults.....
First off, Barack Obama is difficult enough to make fun of in the first place. I think I did a decent job that other day in a manner which could be difficult to play the race card on, but who knows with the way things are going today. Obama is very affluent, youthful, charismatic, a smooth talker, and relatively attractive. George W. Bush was obviously much easier to make fun of, and he didn't do anything to help his case (like take a public speaking course).
Yet this week, the NY Post published a quite funny cartoon. Now, people are picketing and representatives of Barack Obama are screaming racism. For the background, this week a chimpanzee attacked a friend of its owner. The police had to shoot the chimpanzee, because of course the owner was "helpless" in preventing the attack.
So, the police, now in the cartoon, shot down a monkey in the street. One says to the other, now who's going to write the stimulus bill? The hilarity of it all is that Obama just drafted the direction of the bill, Congress on both sides had to introduce a bunch of pork bills, handwritten chicken-scratch, and passed both the most expensive and the sloppiest piece of legislation in American history. Is the monkey a shot at Obama, Congress, or everyone who had a hand in the bill? If insurance can be so easy a caveman can do it, or investing so easy an infant can do it, then why can't a legislative bill be so crappy that a monkey could have written better? You decide.
Personally, I would have drawn an comic strip of a monkey that looks like Obama crap on the floor in one slide, in the second he would pick it up and throw it at the wall, and in the third have all of Congress standing around the feces with hands raised saying "Yay" in unison.
Historically, presidential cartoons have taken several images consistently for all presidents. They always either depict the elephant or the donkey of the respective political parties, cowboys or monkeys for the individuals themselves, or some combination of both. George Bush was both, and it didn't help matters that he actually looked like a monkey!
Today, throughout the campaign, Obama advisors and officials consistently played the race card for Obama while he "stayed above the fray." Basically, stating that in a back room, he was telling them to be tough while he can look cool, collected, and unnerved. Now while in office, he is already campaigning for his second term and is still defying anyone who makes a negative statement about him as "racist."
A monkey is a 1960's racist depiction of black people. If he's walking along side an elephant then we've sent black people back to the pre-slavery days back in African tribes. If he's walking a donkey then he's a slave. If he's dressed as a cowboy, then we're depicting him as the oppositive of slaves and rubbing it in that blacks were not afforded the luxury in the 1800's of being cowboys.
It's a no-win for cartoonists if the Obama officials keep playing these games. It is unfortunate. If you can't make fun of the president (like sarcastically referring to him as evolutionarily advanced beyond the current homosapien species), then who can we make fun of?
Yet this week, the NY Post published a quite funny cartoon. Now, people are picketing and representatives of Barack Obama are screaming racism. For the background, this week a chimpanzee attacked a friend of its owner. The police had to shoot the chimpanzee, because of course the owner was "helpless" in preventing the attack.
So, the police, now in the cartoon, shot down a monkey in the street. One says to the other, now who's going to write the stimulus bill? The hilarity of it all is that Obama just drafted the direction of the bill, Congress on both sides had to introduce a bunch of pork bills, handwritten chicken-scratch, and passed both the most expensive and the sloppiest piece of legislation in American history. Is the monkey a shot at Obama, Congress, or everyone who had a hand in the bill? If insurance can be so easy a caveman can do it, or investing so easy an infant can do it, then why can't a legislative bill be so crappy that a monkey could have written better? You decide.
Personally, I would have drawn an comic strip of a monkey that looks like Obama crap on the floor in one slide, in the second he would pick it up and throw it at the wall, and in the third have all of Congress standing around the feces with hands raised saying "Yay" in unison.
Historically, presidential cartoons have taken several images consistently for all presidents. They always either depict the elephant or the donkey of the respective political parties, cowboys or monkeys for the individuals themselves, or some combination of both. George Bush was both, and it didn't help matters that he actually looked like a monkey!
Today, throughout the campaign, Obama advisors and officials consistently played the race card for Obama while he "stayed above the fray." Basically, stating that in a back room, he was telling them to be tough while he can look cool, collected, and unnerved. Now while in office, he is already campaigning for his second term and is still defying anyone who makes a negative statement about him as "racist."
A monkey is a 1960's racist depiction of black people. If he's walking along side an elephant then we've sent black people back to the pre-slavery days back in African tribes. If he's walking a donkey then he's a slave. If he's dressed as a cowboy, then we're depicting him as the oppositive of slaves and rubbing it in that blacks were not afforded the luxury in the 1800's of being cowboys.
It's a no-win for cartoonists if the Obama officials keep playing these games. It is unfortunate. If you can't make fun of the president (like sarcastically referring to him as evolutionarily advanced beyond the current homosapien species), then who can we make fun of?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Protection from Abuse, Not Equality
You have to love a country where everyone gets a voice. I enjoy having one, but my stuff doesn't make CNN. When Pop Culture meets 24-hour news, you know something bad is going to happen. The paragraph below popped up. Basically, rumor has it that Chris Brown beat up his girlfriend Rihanna for wanting to know what whore was trying to hook up with her man. I found this particular paragraph interesting:
Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.
Wow, you have to love that the "progressive" CNN is concerned, at minimum, that society will now be in unison that rich women can be beat by the man in their life just the same as poor women. This particular writer who has first hand experience in being abused by her husband, is more hopeful that stereotypes of the poor will be ended as opposed to that Chris Brown gets some strict justice from either the law or Rihanna's father and buddies in the form of an ass kicking.
I would rather live in a world where woman beaters get their asses kicked rather than a world where society sees that it can happen to anyone and tries to shield the eyes of children. I'd rather abusers and their children see that if you abuse, you will suffer extreme consequences for the irresponsibility of your choice.
Perhaps the idea that it CAN'T happen to anyone is more important than the idea that it CAN?
Perhaps the only good that will come from the Rihanna/Brown publicity is destruction of our culture's misconception that abusers and their victims can only be universally poor, uneducated and powerless.
Wow, you have to love that the "progressive" CNN is concerned, at minimum, that society will now be in unison that rich women can be beat by the man in their life just the same as poor women. This particular writer who has first hand experience in being abused by her husband, is more hopeful that stereotypes of the poor will be ended as opposed to that Chris Brown gets some strict justice from either the law or Rihanna's father and buddies in the form of an ass kicking.
I would rather live in a world where woman beaters get their asses kicked rather than a world where society sees that it can happen to anyone and tries to shield the eyes of children. I'd rather abusers and their children see that if you abuse, you will suffer extreme consequences for the irresponsibility of your choice.
Perhaps the idea that it CAN'T happen to anyone is more important than the idea that it CAN?
Orlando Hudson a MUST
This is a complete no-brainer. Orlando Hudson should absolutely be a Kansas City Royals by week's end. I know the Royals just signed Mike Jacobs and Mark Teahan to arbitration deals, but those deals should be terminated immediately and Orlando Hudson should be in Kansas City.
The Royals don't have a single player on their roster, with the exception of Mike Aviles, that touched a .366 OBP, with Hudson has averaged the past three years. He's good for a .275 average, .375 OBP, he's athletic, good on defense, and he'll hit around 12 HR's and get you 50 RBI's.
The Royals would look at a lineup of Crisp CF, Aviles SS, DeJesus LF, Guillen RF, Jacobs 1B, Gordon 3B, Olivo C, Butler DH, Hudson 2B. The significance of this would be incredible: a .275 AVG/.370 OBP/15HR/50 RBI hitter would be NINETH in the Royals lineup. Plus, he would be a good enough hitter to move up in the case of emergency.
Buck is going to be gone anyways, Olivo is the starter and they have too much money rolled up into the catcher position. Plus, we've got players in the ranks who can take Olivo's place if needed. The departure of either Buck, Teahan, Jacobs, or maybe sprinkling in German would free us up to get Hudson. I understand that the team doesn't want to get rid of Teahan or Jacobs. Teahan can play four positions and is a solid hitter. Jacobs has some "slug" as Hillman likes to put it.
Orlando Hudson stabilizing second base for the Royals would have much more of an impact than the contributions of those four combined. We already have Butler and Shealy at first base, German/Teahan/Bloomquist all fulfill the same role. There are two positions that do not have stability in the starting lineup right now, and one of which has little in the name of promising depth: second base.
The Royals should do us all a favor and do what it takes to bring Orlando Hudson to Kansas City. He wants to be here, the fans would love for him to be here, and it makes too much sense just to let him slip through the cracks.
The Royals don't have a single player on their roster, with the exception of Mike Aviles, that touched a .366 OBP, with Hudson has averaged the past three years. He's good for a .275 average, .375 OBP, he's athletic, good on defense, and he'll hit around 12 HR's and get you 50 RBI's.
The Royals would look at a lineup of Crisp CF, Aviles SS, DeJesus LF, Guillen RF, Jacobs 1B, Gordon 3B, Olivo C, Butler DH, Hudson 2B. The significance of this would be incredible: a .275 AVG/.370 OBP/15HR/50 RBI hitter would be NINETH in the Royals lineup. Plus, he would be a good enough hitter to move up in the case of emergency.
Buck is going to be gone anyways, Olivo is the starter and they have too much money rolled up into the catcher position. Plus, we've got players in the ranks who can take Olivo's place if needed. The departure of either Buck, Teahan, Jacobs, or maybe sprinkling in German would free us up to get Hudson. I understand that the team doesn't want to get rid of Teahan or Jacobs. Teahan can play four positions and is a solid hitter. Jacobs has some "slug" as Hillman likes to put it.
Orlando Hudson stabilizing second base for the Royals would have much more of an impact than the contributions of those four combined. We already have Butler and Shealy at first base, German/Teahan/Bloomquist all fulfill the same role. There are two positions that do not have stability in the starting lineup right now, and one of which has little in the name of promising depth: second base.
The Royals should do us all a favor and do what it takes to bring Orlando Hudson to Kansas City. He wants to be here, the fans would love for him to be here, and it makes too much sense just to let him slip through the cracks.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Evolutionarily Superior OR Not an Emergency?
Today the President of the United States, is "preparing" to sign the stimulus bill. For the past two months, we have heard about the rush to get this bill on the President's desk to sign it. We are embarking on "economic turmoil that we've never seen since the great depression" and "discussing the bill was leading the desire for the perfect to superceed the desire for the immediacy and necessary."
Has anyone in the media asked the president the question that I'm begging to know: if it's necessary and it's immediacy is imperative, then why was a bill passed on Saturday still not signed as of 3:00pm EST on Tuesday? If it's so immediate and the times are so bad, then why is the president "preparing to sign the bill and talking to reporters" instead of "talking to reporters about the bill he signed this morning?"
Do you all get the difference and the importance to humanity?
Immediacy and necessity drive normal human beings to do something quickly and irrationally and have time to think through the consequences and costs after it is already done. It is in human nature to be in a hurry and be irrational in the face of an emergency. Whether it's driving 90 MPH on our way to the emergency room with an injured child, generals still firing bullets when rockets are whizzing by their heads instead of retreating, or jerking the wheel on the road when imminent danger is awaiting us up the road instead of slowly breaking or swirving. That's what the rest of us do in life, but not our esteemed president.
There are only two explanations possible for this phenomenon: either he is evolutionarily superior to the rest of us or it's not truly an emergency and the bill is not immediately necessary. His coolness superceeds human nature and he is so clutch that he stares immediacy and the end of the financial world in the face, and he deliberates.
We all thought Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods were the greatest clutch performers in history, but they have been surpassed by Obama. If Michael Jordan was as superior as Obama, he would hit those game winning shots 0.7 seconds AFTER the game ends. If Tiger Woods was so great, he would hit the 50 foot put on the 18th green at Augusta the day after the tournament ended.
We are dealing with a new type of human here. Let's all just sit back and be amazed. Evolutionary Superiority or Level of Emergency will dictate whether or not the amazement you choose will be positive or negative.
Has anyone in the media asked the president the question that I'm begging to know: if it's necessary and it's immediacy is imperative, then why was a bill passed on Saturday still not signed as of 3:00pm EST on Tuesday? If it's so immediate and the times are so bad, then why is the president "preparing to sign the bill and talking to reporters" instead of "talking to reporters about the bill he signed this morning?"
Do you all get the difference and the importance to humanity?
Immediacy and necessity drive normal human beings to do something quickly and irrationally and have time to think through the consequences and costs after it is already done. It is in human nature to be in a hurry and be irrational in the face of an emergency. Whether it's driving 90 MPH on our way to the emergency room with an injured child, generals still firing bullets when rockets are whizzing by their heads instead of retreating, or jerking the wheel on the road when imminent danger is awaiting us up the road instead of slowly breaking or swirving. That's what the rest of us do in life, but not our esteemed president.
There are only two explanations possible for this phenomenon: either he is evolutionarily superior to the rest of us or it's not truly an emergency and the bill is not immediately necessary. His coolness superceeds human nature and he is so clutch that he stares immediacy and the end of the financial world in the face, and he deliberates.
We all thought Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods were the greatest clutch performers in history, but they have been surpassed by Obama. If Michael Jordan was as superior as Obama, he would hit those game winning shots 0.7 seconds AFTER the game ends. If Tiger Woods was so great, he would hit the 50 foot put on the 18th green at Augusta the day after the tournament ended.
We are dealing with a new type of human here. Let's all just sit back and be amazed. Evolutionary Superiority or Level of Emergency will dictate whether or not the amazement you choose will be positive or negative.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Long Time...No Write
Call me a slacker, whatever you like. I am. It has been a challenge as of late to digest everything that's going on in the world and Kansas City sports, and to try to write a coherent blog about what's going on. Here's three random topics: one awesome, one scary, and one that encompasses both.
1) First off, I found out I'm going to be a dad. I can't elaborate on this point enough so I'll keep it short. It's scary and awesome both at the same time. I get to witness the growth of something of my creation from birth to adulthood, yet I have to fear every wrong move. I get to teach something that it can change the world, yet all I see is a world that is continuously giving up individual control and liberty and telling everyone that one person can't have that sort of impact. I get to learn from my upbringing and try to make it that much better for my little one. It's exciting, and hopefully the tides turn and all of the things that I teach my child that they can do with their hard work and inner strength can happen, and they won't be turned away despite their great gifts.
2) Now, to the bad. This is a scary time we are living in. The government and the media tell us that there is a recession destroying our nation in order to garner more control over our lives. If I told you all one year ago that we could have $40/barrel oil, more affordable housing, food costs would be more reasonable, and that you could get a new Hybrid SUV for under $30,000 and a Plasma TV for under $800 and all we have to give up to see that happen is 2 additional points of unemployment in the short term, you would have taken it in a heart beat. We WERE living in a world with overpriced houses, overpriced energy, overpriced food, and everything else. That is the reason why we are in the recession we are in. See, people were financing their futures away for overpriced goods now. It's a bubble in oil and housing that has now burst, and it is a great thing for the American consumer. We now have economic freedom from inflation now that the debt/oil bubble has burst, and the government is trying to scare us into keeping it propped up. They want home prices higher to collect more property taxes, they want oil higher because it keeps the US government's debtors in our good graces, and more importantly they are protecting their corporate lobbyists in oil, energy, health care, and the like. Back to topic #1, it is a scary world that my child, no matter how hard they work, will have to pay off all of this corrupt debt. Mark my words, these bubbles have only partially burst, and they will finish. The government can spend us into bankruptcy if they want to, but they will finish. We have been living in unsustainable economic conditions, and the government trying to maintain that. Are you all aware that the household disposable income (the after tax income that you get to spend) rose nationally in October, November, and December in 2008? Has the media or the new administration told you this? No. Prices have fallen and have provided a safe haven for the consumer from all of the over inflated goods in the past 10 years. The market is providing us protection and the government is acting against the population for the sake of a few businesses and corporately owned government officials. It is wrong, and the population needs to come up with a plan to stop the progress of all of these problems.
3) Wow, what a downer. Go Chiefs! The Chiefs have spent the last 3 months hitting grand slam after grand slam out of the park. I said that I was indifferent on the termination of Herm Edwards, and I still am. Scott Pioli has made this Chiefs operation a respectable organization again in just one month. This organization has a direction, a purpose with every move, and the best model in sports for both. Mark my words, Herm Edwards will never be an NFL head coach again, and I think it is unfortunate. He basically recruited a great freshman class and didn't get to see them become juniors and seniors that make a run at the BCS title. It's Les Miles winning a national championship with Nick Saban's team. No one, until Saban went to Alabama, got to see how great his recruiting is because Miles won with his players. Herm finally got what he wanted, and he didn't get to be around to see the finished product.
Either way, Todd Haley is an excellent signing. He is every bit of the "football guy" that Cowher, Shanahan, or Gruden are but he's hungry. He has learned from the best, and he is going to be an instant improvement in game management over Edwards. With "football guy" Pioli deciding on personnel and direction with the guidance of a "football guy" in Haley they will bring in "football guys" to play football. We have two offensive guru's on this coaching staff with Haley and Chan Gailey, and they will work together when Haley (hopefully) keeps him around. Now we just need a defensive guru to work with all of this highly drafted talent. Things are going to improve, and I think very quickly. The Chiefs have a dedicated owner, a revamped stadium, a young roster ripe with promise and potential, the third overall draft pick, and about $40 million in cap space to burn. This team is going to be very solid this season, and the fans should thank Clark Hunt when it happens by filling that stadium and cheering for this team like never before.
The Super Bowl is coming.
There's a lot to digest. I'm going to do everything in my power to get the Super Bowl of nations again and the Super Bowl of babies. Clark Hunt has done his part to bring an actual Super Bowl to point #3.
1) First off, I found out I'm going to be a dad. I can't elaborate on this point enough so I'll keep it short. It's scary and awesome both at the same time. I get to witness the growth of something of my creation from birth to adulthood, yet I have to fear every wrong move. I get to teach something that it can change the world, yet all I see is a world that is continuously giving up individual control and liberty and telling everyone that one person can't have that sort of impact. I get to learn from my upbringing and try to make it that much better for my little one. It's exciting, and hopefully the tides turn and all of the things that I teach my child that they can do with their hard work and inner strength can happen, and they won't be turned away despite their great gifts.
2) Now, to the bad. This is a scary time we are living in. The government and the media tell us that there is a recession destroying our nation in order to garner more control over our lives. If I told you all one year ago that we could have $40/barrel oil, more affordable housing, food costs would be more reasonable, and that you could get a new Hybrid SUV for under $30,000 and a Plasma TV for under $800 and all we have to give up to see that happen is 2 additional points of unemployment in the short term, you would have taken it in a heart beat. We WERE living in a world with overpriced houses, overpriced energy, overpriced food, and everything else. That is the reason why we are in the recession we are in. See, people were financing their futures away for overpriced goods now. It's a bubble in oil and housing that has now burst, and it is a great thing for the American consumer. We now have economic freedom from inflation now that the debt/oil bubble has burst, and the government is trying to scare us into keeping it propped up. They want home prices higher to collect more property taxes, they want oil higher because it keeps the US government's debtors in our good graces, and more importantly they are protecting their corporate lobbyists in oil, energy, health care, and the like. Back to topic #1, it is a scary world that my child, no matter how hard they work, will have to pay off all of this corrupt debt. Mark my words, these bubbles have only partially burst, and they will finish. The government can spend us into bankruptcy if they want to, but they will finish. We have been living in unsustainable economic conditions, and the government trying to maintain that. Are you all aware that the household disposable income (the after tax income that you get to spend) rose nationally in October, November, and December in 2008? Has the media or the new administration told you this? No. Prices have fallen and have provided a safe haven for the consumer from all of the over inflated goods in the past 10 years. The market is providing us protection and the government is acting against the population for the sake of a few businesses and corporately owned government officials. It is wrong, and the population needs to come up with a plan to stop the progress of all of these problems.
3) Wow, what a downer. Go Chiefs! The Chiefs have spent the last 3 months hitting grand slam after grand slam out of the park. I said that I was indifferent on the termination of Herm Edwards, and I still am. Scott Pioli has made this Chiefs operation a respectable organization again in just one month. This organization has a direction, a purpose with every move, and the best model in sports for both. Mark my words, Herm Edwards will never be an NFL head coach again, and I think it is unfortunate. He basically recruited a great freshman class and didn't get to see them become juniors and seniors that make a run at the BCS title. It's Les Miles winning a national championship with Nick Saban's team. No one, until Saban went to Alabama, got to see how great his recruiting is because Miles won with his players. Herm finally got what he wanted, and he didn't get to be around to see the finished product.
Either way, Todd Haley is an excellent signing. He is every bit of the "football guy" that Cowher, Shanahan, or Gruden are but he's hungry. He has learned from the best, and he is going to be an instant improvement in game management over Edwards. With "football guy" Pioli deciding on personnel and direction with the guidance of a "football guy" in Haley they will bring in "football guys" to play football. We have two offensive guru's on this coaching staff with Haley and Chan Gailey, and they will work together when Haley (hopefully) keeps him around. Now we just need a defensive guru to work with all of this highly drafted talent. Things are going to improve, and I think very quickly. The Chiefs have a dedicated owner, a revamped stadium, a young roster ripe with promise and potential, the third overall draft pick, and about $40 million in cap space to burn. This team is going to be very solid this season, and the fans should thank Clark Hunt when it happens by filling that stadium and cheering for this team like never before.
The Super Bowl is coming.
There's a lot to digest. I'm going to do everything in my power to get the Super Bowl of nations again and the Super Bowl of babies. Clark Hunt has done his part to bring an actual Super Bowl to point #3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
