Tee Ball Bunt Machine

And I dont agree with the Goverment being run by Zionists. First, those people are Americans first and Jewish second. Also, the PRESIDENT isn't Jewish If you listen to many evangelical leaders, you don't need to be Jewish to be a Zionist apparently. Or at a bare minimum, a Zionist sympathizer. As for what anyone is first or second, I wouldn't dare speak for anyone else. Virtually all of the neoconservatives are heavily tied to AIPAC and other similar organizations, because the neoconservative belief system says that Israel is a good example for what the rest of the Middle East should become. They also agree with Israel's occasionally militaristic goals (such as settlements in Palestinian territory). Interestingly, about 80% or more of the major figures in neoconservatism happen to be Jewish (practicing or not). Here are my problems with your statements: #1 - Most of the Neocons came from the old far left, as neo-trotskyists and such. Many people today would correctly note that those people really don't represent anything that can be termed as conservative policy or thought. #2 - By singling out the Neocons, you act as though it's only them. The DNC is just as much in the pocket of AIPAC as the GOP. If you disagree with me, please, show me the great Democratic opposition for our government's pro-Zionist policies? I mean who do you think just passed that ridiculous resolution in Congress? Here's a hint - they're in the majority now! Again, I'm not saying your wrong, there's no reason to single out the Neocons here. The Democrats are every bit as bad with regards to Israel.

I was watching a debate on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in the US on youtube - if you search Doha debates Israel lobby or something like that you should find it. Anyway, during the whole thing, something really hit me which was just more pronounced recently by the resolution stating support for Israel. Now in really trying to explain how powerful the pro-Israel lobby is, I think this is a great yet simple example: Just think of how many times and how often we hear US politicians say "Israel has a right to defend itself". Now that comment seems very innocent - after all, who shouldn't have a right to defend themselves? I think when being honest and objective we would all agree that all human beings have a right to defend themselves. But have you EVER heard, or can you even IMAGINE hearing an elected official in the US saying "Palestinians have a right to defend themselves"? Again, it should be very innocent thing to say, and true, but I've never heard it said, and I think the fact that even saying something that simple seems taboo demonstrates the problem. And this isn't a question about party lines either. Don't blame the neoconservatives cause it's not just them. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are probably the only ones in Congress not falling over themselves to cheer on Israel, so if you're Republican or Democrat, please recognize that your party is part of the problem.

If the team wants to talk with him, I have no issues, but EVEN IF we sign him - I do NOT want him in the rotation. The guy hasn't hasn't made it through a full season healthy since he was in Boston. I'd be happy to take him in the bullpen for a low price, but I would be VERY dissapointed if the FO were to sign him with the belief that he could be an ace again. It would be the rotation's equivalent of what Jorge Julio was for our bullpen IMO.

Isnt the united states supposed to be a friggin isolationist country anyways? Thats what this country was born off of. Not wanting to deal with Europe. The Monroe Doctrine. The Roosevelt Corollary. Ignoring both World Wars until they were practically forced into them. Goodness, what has happened. Not isolationist, but non-interventionist. As for what happened - Zionism became very popular in the post-Holocaust world. That, and then a very effective pro-Israel lobby developed in the US, which is arguably the most effective lobby in American politics. Perhaps anywhere in the world. Also...How can you claim for no reason? A country that has called for wiping out israel and it is developing nuclear technology. So a leader of a country saying something is now justification for an attack? And how many countries has Iran EVER attacked or invaded? How many has Israel attacked or invaded? If having (or wanting) nukes is so bad, why is it ok that Israel has more than 200 nuclear weapons? Should they honestly be afraid of the offchance that Iran might build one? Israel's military is so far of ahead of Iran's that the idea of Iran posing a serious threat to Israel is comical. I could get into the whole issue of our foreign policy and nuclear weapons, but that's a side issue. It is remarkable though how Israel, through it's lobby, maintains a perception in the US of being a victim and non-aggressor in it's many conflicts.

I dont see what the real problem with Gupta is..... Its not like he doesnt know what the hell he is talking about... I don't know that anyone said there was anything wrong with the choice, it just wasn't something anyone expected. I could say that there is something wrong with having a Surgeon General in the first place, but that's not the topic here.

No. First, he would cost way too much. Second, Hoffman has thrived his entire career playing in the NL West against what I think one can argue are inferior offenses. I would say that I also think Hoffman is overrated, and that while he has accumulated nice numbers and has been good and consistent, he isn't the sort of player who rises to big occassions.

I think hanley said he likes to be called el nino which is the kid in spanish i think. The kid or the boy, I'm sure it's probably just how his family calls him.

So much for trying to shake that "celebrity" stigma, instead lets pick a TV Doctor. I suppose it is a less comical than Dr. Phil would be. But what can I say - I don't even think there should be a surgeon general.

Rangers have a stacked system, brewers have shown they know how to build a team and have a solid system, same with padres and mariners. Orioles system has completely turned around, same with the Royals. Really the only organizations that you can say are doing substantially worse than us are the Pirates and Nationals. I'm not sure what you mean by "substantially", but to me it's all quite simple: We spend less and our team does better than any of those mentioned. Over the last 6 seasons (2003-2008) we've had only 2 seasons (2006, 2007) where the team wasn't competetive within the division throughout the season and finished over 500. I'm not even bringing up championships.

Good luck to Pavano, but I think it's ridiculous. This is one of those times where I'm actually proud to be a fan of a team that doesn't throw money away like this.

Andruw Jones at his best was an amazing player, and if he's available for a low price, I say go for it. 2008 for him could very well have been like Mike Lowell's 2005, and made even worse by having less playing time. Even if he(Jones) never recaptures the way he played in 2005, if he rebounds well he could easily be a GG OF again and provide good power, even without consistently hitting for average. I also remember this one amazing highlight of Andruw Jones hitting a broken bat HR to straight away dead CF in Atlanta. Not just because of that, but I do think he is an especially talented player, and if he has been lazy, last year might be a wakeup call. If he comes cheap, it would be worth it to see if comes out with something to prove.

Richardson is a smart guy. At least smart enough to know what's coming, that Obama's plans won't save us, and that he really doesn't want to be Commerce Secretary during what will continue to be a historic economic downturn. Richardson will beat the local charges and still have a future in national politics. If anything, I think this investigation may just be an excuse. Call me a conspiracy nut if you like, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out in the distant future that he intentionally had someone tip off authorities to give him this excuse out of Obama's Cabinet.

I realized this article wasn't worth reading once the writer implied that the auto-industry's problem was that they don't spend enough money, because their problem is exactly the opposite.

I don't have much of an opinion on this other than to say that IF we acquired Turnbow and he were to have a good year, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a RP got his groove back down here, so I think it's hardly something we should look at as being impossible. One more thing, since I didn't see his name while people were talking about the Bullpen - Do we not expect Jose Ceda to factor into the bullpen this year?

In any case, the bottom line is that there's only one reason to keep Hermida and one reason to shop Hermida. If you keep him, it's because you think he will come around and produce somewhat like he did in 2007. If you shop him it's because you (apparently like the FO) believe that he won't consistently produce at a high level anytime soon. And if you believe that, there's no sense in not moving him for cheaper talent on which you haven't yet soured.

Did Baker switch to hitting right handed during the off-season? "Only other" Means that there's one more aka baker I didn't realize our lineup was so RH heavy until now. damn. Assuming that's what you were referencing anyway, but I don't see what other relevance that rhetorical question would have to what he said. I suppose I read too fast and missed the word "other". Either way, I think having a mix of LH and RH hitters is overrated. Especially in the case of the Marlins where a lot of our RH hitters tend to hit better vs RHP than they do vs LHP. And especially when then the LHB in question put up an OPS below 730 last season. Not even to mention the fact that the team has said they will be focusing more on improving the defense & speed, both to which Hermida contributes little.

WHy they hell would they trade the only other LH in the lineup for some dude who is gonna either be splitting time or in the minors next year. Then I'd really be mad because they really are throwing the season away. I'm sick of all these "rumors". If they really wanted a catcher then Olsen/Willingham would have been enough to get somebody! Hell I'd even think about shipping off Anibal Sanchez for Max Ramirez. Catcher isn't as big a concern as people are making it because they would have gotten one for the four guys shipped out. Did Baker switch to hitting right handed during the off-season? As to your first question, my guess would be: #1 - The FO has little to no confidence left in Hermida. #2 - They want to get something for him that may be useful in the future, whether as a player on the MLB team or in a future trade. There never are many good catchers available at any given time.

Unfortunately, in Iraq you don't see many at all. What happens in Iraq will teach us a lot about what factors are most important in developing a democracy. I think this is a great experiment and there is no other example we can point to teaching us anything one way or another. This is a test case. I have a moral issue with the idea that we are running an experiment on these people's lives. But then I have issues with most aspects of the war.

Pie's career minor league line is .299/.353/.470 and he never hit more than 15 HRs at any level. That's minus one tool... He Ks way more than he walks... 206-532, there goes another tool.... So, now we're left with... he can probably hit for average... play defense and be fast... Jeremy Hermida's minor league line .284/.397/.436 He K's more than he walks So now we're left with...not that fast and can't really play defense Should we give up on him Hermida walks like crazy, which is why his OBP in the minors was so much higher than his BA. That tool is very far there. He's also got fine speed, has good glove control, and a very good arm. Walks like crazy? He had 48 BB last season. Compare him to the much maligned "free-swinging" Dan Uggla who had 77 BB last season, and it's hardly what I'd call "walking like crazy".

I've got no problem with giving Bonifacio a shot in the bigs from Opening Day. I mean if were gonna have someone OPS 730 in RF, they might as well run fast and play good defense.

Maybe some of those Somali Pirates can offer storage space for OPEC Oil Tankers.

Too many people like to disingenuously suggest that if someone thinks the Iraq war was a mistake that they then support(ed) Saddam Hussein. But its not until we say it that you realize how ridiculous that is. We didn't go to war with Iraq on the basis that Saddam was a bad guy and that dictators are a problem, it was on the basis of a lie - that Iraq posed a serious threat to the US. We never belonged in Iraq, not because our being there would harm the Iraqis, but because our being there harmed the US. Our national debt has doubled and our economy is now in collapse. Of course you could also make the point that Iraq has become a haven for Islamists and terrorists (and no matter what you say negative about Saddam, he wasn't an Islamist), and talk about the death toll of the last 5 years on the Iraqi side, and make an argument either way if things are better now. But for us, the only thing that matters is that we never belonged there and the longer we stay, the more harm we do ourselves. I'm also more than a bit bothered by the incoming administration being agreement with the outgoing one on the lie that Iran poses a threat to the US. It doesn't.

You have to have some really good blinders on to say we need less, not more regulation of business after seeing the catastrophic mess that we find ourselves in as a result of, in large part, deregulation of business or a lack of regulation. Time and time again it has been proven that businessmen and businesswomen left to their own devices without any regulation - from the tulip market collapse in the 17th century Europe to the Bernie Madoff scam of the century - will eventually end in disaster. The opposite is true, although I won't suggest it's obvious, because the problems caused by regulation aren't immediately obvious. Greedy businessmen left to their own devices could never have accomplished scams of the same magnitude as Madoff's without government regulation, and if I am being unclear, I am saying literally that government regulations enabled Madoff to pull off this scam. What he did was already illegal, without having the SEC there. But what was the function of the SEC in this case? It was to deceive investors by convincing them that they had investigated Madoff and that his operations were legal and legitimate. Suspicious investors realized that Madoff was up to something and reported him to the SEC, which then turned around and gave Madoff their stamp of approval. Now whether that was an honest failure or corruption is almost irrelevant because your chances of creating a regulatory agency (or any organization for that matter) that suffers from no corruption or incompetence are 0%. It will happen because human beings will always make mistakes. The problem wasn't that the SEC failed to notice a scam like Madoff's, that is inevitable. The problem was that all his investors were dependent on the SEC to determine how trustworthy an investment was/is. They expected the impossible - that the SEC could and would catch every case of fraud in the market, so they invested recklessly. Without the SEC, suspicious investors would simply have taken out their money and probably taken their suspicions public, leading to more investors doing the same and ending Madoff's scheme 9 years sooner, rather than having Markopolos's tip being lost somewhere in the SEC's offices. If there is a need to investigate a company due to suspicious behavior and such, it should be the job of the POLICE, not some political "regulatory" agency staffed by industry insiders, to conduct the investigation. And if you're gonna bring up something like Tulipmania as an example of bad business, I don't think it's fair to detach it from irrational spending patterns that probably had something to with the bubonic plague that was going around at the time.

Clinton did a far better job of regulation than Bush (who never really tried). There were few major business scandals that happened under Clinton's watch, whereas under Bush, we had Enron, WorldCom, most of the financial giants, and many banks go under due to illegal or unethical business practices. At least some of these companies are gone and won't be able to pull stunts like that again. Sadly, I don't think many business titans ever learned the lessons of Enron. Madoff & Enron didn't exactly start during the Bush years. These people were running their scams all through the Clinton years - simply because their frauds didn't go bust under Clinton's watch isn't something to credit Clinton for. If anything, you would have to give Bush credit for the fact that he and his regulators "stopped" these frauds, even if it was really the instability of their schemes that did it. Seriously, how do you argue that Clinton did a better job of regulation when Madoff & Enron & surely others we still haven't found out about yet went on doing fraudulent business as usual throughout the Clinton years?

Trip to Guantanamo? Most likely there won't be a Guantanamo still open within a couple of months. Call me when it actually happens.