Why We Need To Weed The Garden Of Our Hearts

At his best, like in this homily, Fr Vallee makes the work ahead of me as a Christian abundantly clear and slightly depressing. But it is not an irrational depression, just one commensurate with the task ahead. A sample from his homily:

We get so caught up in ego. Pride, jealousy and malice, meanness and insecurity haunt our hearts. These things, coming from inside, defile us and make us unclean. I fear that if someone disrespected me, I would put up more of a fight. But all of that is ego and nonsense. All of that is poison, it oozes from a discontented heart and makes everything unclean.

To be Christian is to be like Christ, to point beyond yourself. In John’s Gospel, when Jesus performs a miracle, and the crowd begins to praise him, Jesus cuts them off: “You don’t understand. These are not wonders, it is not about me, these are signs of my Father’s glory.” If you are only pointing to yourself, accumulating honor and glory for yourself, you are not Christian because you are not acting or thinking like Christ. Sin is not a monstrous demon waiting to overpower us from the outside. Sin is a tricky little devil who hides in our hearts, planting small seeds of malice, meanness and pettiness which, left to grow, bloom into great and terrible evils. Take care with the little things. Be gracious, kind and patient. Keep the garden of your heart free of weeds. ... As I always say sometimes: “In a world where Jewish carpenters rise from the dead, everything is possible.”

The email address to request to be put on Vallee's email distribution list is Cioran262@aol.com. To see the entire homily click on 'read more' below. Search for other Fr Vallee homilies in this blog by entering 'Vallee' in the search box in the upper left hand corner or look for Fr Vallee in the linked Labels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fr Valle Homily - Aug 30, 2009

I. Gospel
I am struck by a line from today’s Gospel. Jesus says: “Nothing that goes into a man from the outside renders him unclean. Rather what comes out of a man’s heart makes him unclean.” When Jesus first spoke these words, they were, perhaps, the most revolutionary thing he ever said. Jews had suffered and died for dietary laws. Jesus was dismissing all of that with one fell swoop. Little wonder people were upset. People never like change: “All of a sudden we can eat pork as long as our hearts are pure!” Worse than that: “You mean it does us no good to refrain from pork if our hearts are impure!” Many of you are old enough to remember how scandalized many people were when they found out that they were not going to hell for eating meat on Friday.

II. The best and the worst
Jesus is clear that good and evil are about what is in our hearts, not what is in our bellies. Sin is an internal, not an external, matter. Today I would like to speak of one of the best priests, and human beings, I have ever had the good fortune to know and work with. He was a man who was pure of heart. If I ever grow up, I want to be like him.

III. Gilberto was the best
My second pastor as a priest was Fr. Gilberto Fernandez, now Bishop Fernandez. Please pray for the good bishop. He has been very ill for several years now. Bishop Gilberto was the pastor when I was the associate here at St. Kevin’s. Those of you who remember him know he was a wise, kind and gracious man. I remember someone once said if him: “Gilberto Fernandez is a perfect Christian gentleman.” Anyhow, when I was here, I was the only priest in the parish whose first language was English, so I did most of the English masses. One Saturday, a man came into the rectory and asked to speak to the pastor. The secretary called Fr. Fernandez. Fr. Gilberto greeted the man. The man, a little annoyed, said, “no I want to speak to the English pastor, the young guy who does the masses.” Most people would have at least corrected the man, asserting their position as the actual pastor of the parish, many priests, I fear, would have berated him, Fr Fernandez did neither. He smiled kindly at the man and said: “Wait a moment, I will go get Fr. Vallee.”

IV. What would I have done?
Think about this little story. It should make you easy; it makes me uneasy: “How would I have reacted in the same situation?” We get so caught up in ego. Pride, jealousy and malice, meanness and insecurity haunt our hearts. These things, coming from inside, defile us and make us unclean. I fear that if someone disrespected me, I would put up more of a fight. I would let ego take over and tell the old man, “Hey, wait a minute, I’m the pastor!” But all of that is ego and nonsense. All of that is poison, it oozes from a discontented heart and makes everything unclean.

V. They think they love God, they only really love themselves
To be Christian is to be like Christ, to point beyond yourself. In John’s Gospel, when Jesus performs a miracle, and the crowd begins to praise him, Jesus cuts them off: “You don’t understand. These are not wonders, it is not about me, these are signs of my Father’s glory.” If you are only pointing to yourself, accumulating honor and glory for yourself, you are not Christian because you are not acting or thinking like Christ. Sin is not a monstrous demon waiting to overpower us from the outside. Sin is a tricky little devil who hides in our hearts, planting small seeds of malice, meanness and pettiness which, left to grow, bloom into great and terrible evils. Take care with the little things. Be gracious, kind and patient. Keep the garden of your heart free of weeds. As for me, if I ever grow up, I want to be like Bp. Fernandez. I don’t mean I want to wear his miter or carry his crozier. I mean I want a heart that is simple, pure and kind. I know I am not there yet. But as I always say sometimes: “In a world where Jewish carpenters rise from the dead, everything is possible.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Meet Barack Obama's Grinder

One of my favorite William F Buckley quotes was his response to the question of why Robert Kennedy refused to debate him. He replied, "why does baloney reject the grinder."

Meet Barack Obama's Grinder on Health Care, Keith Hennessey.

In a pre-blogosphere era, a slick politician could do what President Obama did at Portsmouth on August 11th with little negative ramifications. What he did was speak extensively about health care reform and made significant and repeated mistakes about some of the facts involved. The mistakes all put his health care proposals in a better light, which obviously suggests that the mistakes were, at best, intentionally careless [see #'s 18 through 20 at end of post].

But thankfully, we are smack-dab in the blogosphere era. Enter Mr. Hennessey [with a name that begs for a cut & paste] and his blog. Why and how is his blog a nightmare for the Obama Administration? He never raises his font, uses no harsh language, examines the logic of positions and comments and then ties in all their supposed facts to either the legislation itself or other governmental entities reporting. It is a thing of beauty.

I'm not going to admit to shedding any tears of joy as Mr. Hennessey deconstructs Obama's statement [see #15 below] that, "I'm not promoting a single-payer plan." Hennessey points that Obama does not object to government being the "only entity that pays for all health care," it's just that he doesn't want to promote it because he realizes the transition would be disruptive. But there were a few Brian Piccolo sniffles, as I told the wife, 'think I'm coming down w'sumptin.'

BTW - The more we hear the President speak without a teleprompter, the more we understand his need for a teleprompter. Just like with his non-apology to the Cambridge police, I get the feeling the President is being exposed like some pre-season overrated college football team in their first game -- see every Notre Dame team since 1997. Will the genius label ever be used again by a non-shill without a smirk?

By all means check out his blog yourselves, but if you're rushed, here are the bullet points on the subject areas of discrepancy [fact or logic vs Obama statements] Mr. Hennessey highlights in separate blog posts:

1. The President’s overpromise that everyone can keep their health plan
2. Putting the government in charge of your health insurance
3. Waiting in line
4. Government-mandated benefits
5. Preventive care does not save money (in the aggregate)
6. The House bill would increase short-term, 10th year, and long-term budget deficits
7. The President was incorrect – AARP opposes the bill
8. The bills would take Medicare savings needed for solvency and spend them on a new entitlement
9. Medicare is not a good example of government-run health care because Medicare is fiscally unsustainable
10. Even if the public option drops out of legislation, other parts of these bills would put private insurance under government control
11. The President says the public option will keep private insurers honest at the same time he proposes cutting payments to private insurers competing with the Medicare public option
12. The pending bills would move more cost-benefit decisions from insurers to people chosen by the government
13. Guaranteed renewal and guaranteed issue
14. The President says “we may be able to get even more than” the $80 B of budgetary savings that the pharmaceutical industry thought was a ceiling promised by the White House
15. The President says he’s not “promoting” a single-payer plan, but the only concern he raises is a disruptive transition
16. Many examples suggest that the government cannot compete on a level playing field with private firms
17. The President trashes the U.S. Postal Service and undermines the case that government can run a complex health system
18. The President understates the annual cost of new spending by a factor of two
19. The President says that 2/3 of the offsets come from Medicare and Medicaid spending, while the only public estimate (for the House bill) shows 21% instead. He also advocates a tax proposal that Congressional Democrats killed last Winter
20. There are 46 million people who are technically uninsured, but the target population is probably one-third to one-half that size

Read more!

Edward Kennedy and Emotional Appeals

You can see it coming, right? Later this year, Democrat proponents of the single-payer option in Health Care reform will play the legacy card. The legacy card will sound something like this:

It would be a cruel twist of fate to delay this vote and risk that Sen. Kennedy not be with us to vote for this historic legislation. Let's act now so that he can rest at peace knowing that the great work of his Senate career was not in vain ...

In some circles it will have a powerful emotional appeal, i.e. Boston, Hyde Park, etc.

It would be a mistake to base such an important vote on an emotional appeal though. The thought runs counter to how Sen Kennedy acted during his life. In the most important -- aside from bar hopping on Good Friday 1991 -- decision of his life, Sen Kennedy mightily resisted any semblance of emotion; Namely, when to inform the police that he had driven a car off a bridge. The car contained a young woman who had not escaped. Some facts from that evening involving Chappaquiddick after the accident:

Kennedy swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown and returned to his hotel room, where he removed his clothes and collapsed on his bed.

By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss. At 8 a.m., Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel. The three men subsequently crossed back to Chappaquiddick Island on the ferry, where Kennedy made a series of phone calls from a payphone to his friends for advice; he again did not report the accident to authorities.

Earlier that morning, two amateur fishermen had seen the overturned car in the water and notified the inhabitants of the nearest cottage to the pond, who called the authorities at around 8:20 am. A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body at around 8:45 am. The diver, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that:

Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car

Police checked the car's license plate and saw that it was registered to Kennedy. When Kennedy, still at the pay phone by the ferry crossing, saw that the body had been discovered, he crossed back to Edgartown and went to the police station.

One thing is certain about Ted Kennedy. Edward McCormack was wrong. Edward Moore Kennedy wasn't a joke. The man who worried about his political future as a young woman died, proved to be something much more serious that evening.

In a way, it's easy to understand Kennedy's continued interest in politics as he approaches the end of his life. Politics is no doubt preferable to thinking about death, or what comes after. So while none of us knows for certain what awaits him, or us for that matter, how many people do you know who would trade places with him on judgment day, even if that day were not so imminent?

Mary Jo Kopechne, a Catholic woman, RIP.

Read more!

Jeremy Hermida And The Expectations Game

Jeremy Hermida and his up and down professional career reminds me of Joaquin Andujar's favorite word, 'jewneberno.' In 2002, at Double-A ball, he overshadowed his then and future teammate, Josh Johnson. The Marlins top Minor League prospect from 2004 through 2006, Hermida became only the 2nd player in MLB history to hit a grand slam in his first MLB at-bat, in August 2005. Since 2006, Hermida has proven to be an average MLB hitter, a poor outfielder and has received more fan abuse than an ACORN thug at a Minuteman rally.

But when you get into Hermida's batting splits, you begin to get a sense of why he gets more chances than Earl Weaver's first wife among baseball people.

Here are his overall numbers:
YR --- AB --- AVG --- OBP --- OPS
2006 - 307 -- .251 -- .332 -- .700
2007 - 429 -- .296 -- .369 -- .870
2008 - 502 -- .249 -- .323 -- .729
2009 - 380 -- .258 -- .347 -- .734

Here are his AWAY numbers:
YR --- AB --- AVG --- OBP --- OPS
2006 - 149 -- .242 -- .329 -- .685
2007 - 219 -- .324 -- .401 -- .949
2008 - 271 -- .288 -- .364 -- .851
2009 - 186 -- .231 -- .327 -- .709

Offensively, after having an OK rookie season, Hermida had a very good 2nd season. Further, buried in the numbers for that 2007 season, is a remarkable differential in favor of his 'away' stats - 57 points in batting average and 96 points in slugging percentage. In 2008, he regresses in his overall stats to numbers which are similar to his OK 2006 season. However, the advantage in 'away' stats not only remains, they increase to 85 points in batting average and 175 points in slugging percentage. On the road, Hermida actually had great and good seasons in 2007 and 2008.

So if you are the Marlins braintrust during the 2008 off-season, you know that you have a good left-handed hitter on the road, 3 full years of MLB experience at the age of 24 and a durable player. While your home field is not a hitters park, it does not explain the type of differentials Hermida has produced, so perhaps there is a chance that he can duplicate his road performances at home. Besides, other teams can read those stats too, which gave Hermida value. You can hear other GM's thinking, 'I bet that kid will really produce once we get him out of that silently morbid Death Valley ...'

Two-thirds of the way thru 2009 and Hermida is basically repeating his 2008 [and 2006] season, with one important change. The home / away differentials have disappeared. No wait, they haven't just disappeared, they've flipped. Hermida is hitting 53 points higher at home than on the road this season, while the power numbers are the same home / away. 'Splain dat to me Lucy.'

So now is the time, right? Now is the time to give up on him? Wait, one more thing, he is maintaing his averages from 2008, despite cutting down on his strikeouts and increasing his walks. Statistically speaking, a player who improves in those areas should see his average increase. Also, his OBP is over .400 for August, not bad for an 8th place hitter.

So go ahead and cut him loose if it makes you happy. Like Harry Calllahan's punk, I hope you feel lucky, because I think the guy will be consistent Nick Johnson-type hitter sooner than later. Besides, what's another 2 months at this point?

This evaluation stuff, is no so easy Mister

Take a look at the list of first overall MLB draft picks below. For every Alex Rodriguez, there's a Paul Wilson. For every Ken Griffey Jr, a David Clyde. For every Danny Goodwin, there's a ... Danny Goodwin. Listen, we are talking #1 overall here, which Hermida wasn't, if it's an inexact science with them, there are no sure things. In comparison we can say one positive thing about Hermida, he's no Danny Goodwin.

First overall Major League Baseball draft picks
1965 Rick Monday Kansas City Athletics
1966 Steve Chilcott New York Mets
1967 Ron Blomberg New York Yankees
1968 Tim Foli New York Mets
1969 Jeff Burroughs Washington Senators
1970 Mike Ivie San Diego Padres
1971 Danny Goodwin Chicago White Sox
1972 Dave Roberts San Diego Padres
1973 David Clyde Texas Rangers
1974 Bill Almon San Diego Padres
1975 Danny Goodwin California Angels
1976 Floyd Bannister Houston Astros
1977 Harold Baines Chicago White Sox
1978 Bob Horner Atlanta Braves
1979 Al Chambers Seattle Mariners
1980 Darryl Strawberry New York Mets
1981 Mike Moore Seattle Mariners
1982 Shawon Dunston Chicago Cubs
1983 Tim Belcher Minnesota Twins
1984 Shawn Abner New York Mets
1985 B.J. Surhoff Milwaukee Brewers
1986 Jeff King Pittsburgh Pirates
1987 Ken Griffey, Jr. Seattle Mariners
1988 Andy Benes San Diego Padres
1989 Ben McDonald Baltimore Orioles
1990 Chipper Jones Atlanta Braves
1991 Brien Taylor New York Yankees
1992 Phil Nevin Houston Astros
1993 Alex Rodriguez Seattle Mariners
1994 Paul Wilson New York Mets
1995 Darin Erstad California Angels
1996 Kris Benson Pittsburgh Pirates
1997 Matt Anderson Detroit Tigers
1998 Pat Burrell Philadelphia Phillies
1999 Josh Hamilton Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2000 Adrián González Florida Marlins
2001 Joe Mauer Minnesota Twins
2002 Bryan Bullington Pittsburgh Pirates
2003 Delmon Young Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2004 Matt Bush San Diego Padres
2005 Justin Upton Arizona Diamondbacks
2006 Luke Hochevar Kansas City Royals
2007 David Price Tampa Bay Devil Rays
2008 Timothy Beckham Tampa Bay Rays
2009 Stephen Strasburg Washington Nationals

Read more!

Why American Democracy Is In Trouble

Using the latest available year -- 2007 -- we know the following facts about people who filed Federal tax returns:

Top 1% of Household Incomes

• Top 1% are those who reported incomes of $410,000 or more
• Top 1% paid 40% of all the personal income taxes collected
• Top 1% pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% combined
• Their taxes amounted to 22% of their adjusted gross income

Top 5% of Household Incomes

• Top 5% are those who reported incomes of $160,000 or more
• Top 5% paid 60% of all the personal income taxes collected

Bottom 75% of Household Incomes

• Bottom 75% are those who reported incomes of $66,500 or less
• Bottom 75% paid 13% of all the personal income taxes collected

In the WSJ, Charles Murray makes the case on why having a significant part of the country not paying taxes is bad for America:

America is supposed to be a democracy in which we're all in it together. Part of that ethos, which has been so essential to the country in times of crisis, is a common understanding that we all pay a share of the costs. Taxes are an essential ingredient in the civic glue that binds us together.

Our democracy is corrupted when some voters think that they won't have to pay for the benefits their representatives offer them. It is corrupted when some voters see themselves as victims of exploitation by their fellow citizens.

By both standards, American democracy is in trouble. We have the worst of both worlds. The rhetoric of the president tells the public that the rich are not paying their fair share, undermining the common understanding from the bottom up.
...
This deforms the behavior of everyone—the voters who think they aren't paying for Congress's latest bright idea, the politicians who know that promising new programs will always be a winning political strategy with the majority of taxpayers who don't think they have to pay for them, and the wealthy who know that the only way to get politicians to refrain from that strategy is to buy them off.

The Murray article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Withholding Is Bad for Democracy - AUGUST 13, 2009

So is the payroll tax. End them both and voters will have a healthier understanding of the government burden.

By CHARLES MURRAY

America is supposed to be a democracy in which we're all in it together. Part of that ethos, which has been so essential to the country in times of crisis, is a common understanding that we all pay a share of the costs. Taxes are an essential ingredient in the civic glue that binds us together.

Our democracy is corrupted when some voters think that they won't have to pay for the benefits their representatives offer them. It is corrupted when some voters see themselves as victims of exploitation by their fellow citizens.

By both standards, American democracy is in trouble. We have the worst of both worlds. The rhetoric of the president tells the public that the rich are not paying their fair share, undermining the common understanding from the bottom up. Meanwhile, the IRS recently released new numbers on who pays how much taxes, and those numbers tell the people at the top that they're being exploited.

Let's start with the rich, whom I define as families in the top 1% of income among those who filed tax returns. In 2007, the year with the most recent tax data, they had family incomes of $410,000 or more. They paid 40% of all the personal income taxes collected.

Yes, you read it right: 1% of American families paid 40% of America's personal taxes.

The families in the rest of the top 5% had family incomes of $160,000 to $410,000. They paid another 20% of total personal income taxes. Now we're up to three out of every five dollars in personal taxes paid by just five out of every 100 American families.

Turn to the bottom three-quarters of the families who filed income tax returns in 2007—not just low-income families, but everybody with family incomes below $66,500. That 75% of families paid just 13% of all personal income taxes. Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation has recast these numbers in terms of a single, stunning statistic: The top 1% of American households pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% combined.

My point is not that the rich are being bled dry. The taxes paid by families in the top 1% amounted to 22% of their adjusted gross income, not a confiscatory rate. The issue is that it is inherently problematic to have a democracy in which a third of filers pay no personal income tax at all (another datum from the IRS), and the entire bottom half of filers, meaning those with adjusted gross incomes below $33,000, have an average tax rate of just 3%.

This deforms the behavior of everyone—the voters who think they aren't paying for Congress's latest bright idea, the politicians who know that promising new programs will always be a winning political strategy with the majority of taxpayers who don't think they have to pay for them, and the wealthy who know that the only way to get politicians to refrain from that strategy is to buy them off.

For once, we face a problem with a solution that costs nothing. Most families who pay little or no personal income taxes are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. All we need to do is make an accounting change, no longer pretending that payroll taxes are sequestered in trust funds.

Fold payroll taxes into the personal tax code, adjusting the rules so that everyone still pays the same total, but the tax bill shows up on the 1040. Doing so will tell everyone the truth: Their payroll taxes are being used to pay whatever bills the federal government brings upon itself, among which are the costs of Social Security and Medicare.

The finishing touch is to make sure that people understand how much they are paying, which is presently obscured by withholding at the workplace. End withholding, and require everybody to do what millions of Americans already do: write checks for estimated taxes four times a year.

Both of those simple changes scare politicians. Payroll taxes are politically useful because low-income and middle-income taxpayers don't complain about what they believe are contributions to their retirement and they think, wrongly, that they aren't paying much for anything else. Tax withholding has a wonderfully anesthetizing effect on people whose only income is a paycheck, leaving many of them actually feeling grateful for their tax refund check every year, not noticing how much the government has taken from them.

But the politicians' fear of being honest about taxes doesn't change the urgent need to be honest. The average taxpayer is wrong if he believes the affluent aren't paying their fair share—the top income earners carry an extraordinary proportion of the tax burden. High-income earners are wrong, too, about being exploited: Take account of payroll taxes, and low-income people also bear a heavy tax load.

End the payroll tax, end withholding, and these corrosive misapprehensions go away. We will once again be a democracy in which we're all in it together, we all know that we're all paying a share, and we are all aware how much that share is.

Mr. Murray is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent book, "Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality," will be out in paperback later this month (Three Rivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!

Could Guantánamo Bay Be The Next Hong Kong?

Could Guantánamo Bay become the next Hong Kong? Yes.

Paul Romer lays out one possible scenario in his TED talk about Charter cities. Romer's scenario would be dependent on Cuban leadership that was honest as to the limitations and failures of its existing government. We obviously can't expect to happen with the current regime.

But who knows about the next person in a position of leadership for Cuba. They might be looking for a way out of the Communist albatross without explicitly admitting defeat to the US. Again it's obviously unlikely, but what a powerful idea. A recap from the post on the most interesting blog on the web - Marginal Revolution:

Imagine that the United States and Cuba agree to disengage by closing the military base and transferring local administrative control to Canada...

To help the city flourish, the Canadians encourage immigration. It is a place with Canadian judges and Mounties that happily accepts millions of immigrants. Some of the new residents could be Cuban émigrés who return from North America. Others might be Haitians who come work in garment factories that firms no longer feel safe bringing into Haiti...

Initially, the government of Cuba lets some of its citizens participate by migrating to the new city. Over time, it encourages citizens to move instead to a new city that it creates in a special economic zone located right outside the charter city, just as the Mainland Chinese let its citizens move into Shenzhen next to Hong Kong.

With clear rules spelled out in the charter and enforced by the Canadian judicial system, all the infrastructure for the new city is financed by private investment. The Canadians pay for the government services they provide (the legal, judicial, and regulatory systems, education, basic health care) out of the gains in the value of the land in the administrative zone. This, of course, creates the right incentives to invest in education and health. Growth in human capital makes income grow very rapidly, which makes the land in the zone even more valuable.

What do bright minds who look around and see the type of governments the world constantly produces wish to do? Here is how Patri Friedman [yes, he of Milton and David lineage] summarizes the libertarian dilemma:

Democracy is rigged against libertarians. Candidates bid for electoral victory partly by selling future political favors to raise funds and votes for their campaigns. Libertarians (and other honest candidates) who will not abuse their office can’t sell favors, thus have fewer resources to campaign with, and so have a huge intrinsic disadvantage in an election.

Libertarians are a minority, and we underperform in elections, so winning electoral victories is a hopeless endeavor.

So what is a libertarian to do? It's called Seasteading and this is their mission statement:

To further the establishment and growth of permanent, autonomous ocean communities, enabling innovation with new political and social systems. By opening a new frontier, we intend to revolutionize humanity's capacity to improve quality-of-life worldwide by creating experimentation and competition among governments.

Now this organization has been in the planning for years. But I suspect the current administration is not exactly hurting their recruiting efforts. When I look at the Oasis of the Sea model above, I see people who are doing a lot more than bemoaning the encroachment on their freedoms. I agree with their reasoning, but am not ready to get onboard. Ultimately, we Christians who believe in freedom are called to [the good] fight here on land until the last ACORN drops, or we do.

Read more!

What Is It Like To Be A Florida Marlins Fan?

What is it like to be a Florida Marlins fan? It's not as bad you might think, even before the great Wild Card run of 2009 [which will come to be known as the ugliest Phillies collapse since 64]. You've heard all the negatives, here are just a few of the positives, which encompass some of the supposed negatives:

• World Championship every 5 or 6 years
• None of those spoiled and wealthy players just going through the motions
• A zero tolerance policy towards 'can't miss prospects.' Yes they can miss and we are going to find out right now!
• Our unique attendance and home field dynamics, allow Miami fans to watch MLB while still observing CDC swine flu precaution guidelines.
• We Marlins fans can bond with great players before they enter the insufferably pompous stage of their career. There was a slight, but unavoidable, overlap with Miguel Cabrera.
  

The last item is the one which is the most constant source of fun for us Marlins fans. Every series seems to be another opportunity to re-live great memories or likable ball players. Let's walk back across the recent schedule:

• Houston Astros in town. Pudge catching, J.T. Snow is out! But it's not just the stars, Brian Moehler was here in 2005 & 2006.
• We just left Philadelphia. Paul Bakko did some time here in 2000. The dearth of ex-Marlins is the likely cause of the curse about to befall them.
• Washington Nationals? They are the Northern Marlins. Josh Willingham, Scot Olsen. Logan Kensing. Again it's not just that they played here [Ron Villone 2005], those guys came up to the big leagues here. Marlins fans would root against Willingham in only the most extreme conditions.
• Cubs. Derek Lee. 2-run double off Mark Prior in THE INNING. Ryan Dempster was a starter here for 5 years. Kevin Gregg was the most recent in a long list of improbably good Florida Marlins relievers - see the list below.
• Atlanta Braves. Eric Gregg [click here for an ode to the greatest strike call ever] and Yunel Escobar. Escobar is from Cuba, which is the equivalent of spending 3 years with the Marlins in our community].

OK, the streak ended with Atlanta. The Boston Red Sox? Oh, you mean the place Lowell and Beckett went to cash out with our blessings. I scan the boxscores for R Andino, M Cabrera, L Castillo, R Castro, A Gonzalez, M Jacobs, D Lee, M Lowell, M Olivo, J Pierre, M Redmon, I Rodriguez, G Sheffield, M Treanor, etc. I don't like to see our pitchers have to face each other, J Beckett, AJ Burnett, K Gregg, B Looper, J Miller, S Mitre, C Pavano, B Penny, J Vargas, D Willis, etc.

The Improbably Good Florida Marlins Closers

• 1993 - Bryan Harvey
• 1994 through 1997 - Robb Nen
• 1998 - *no saves were recorded
• 1999 through 2001 - Antonio Alfonseca [aka, El Pulpo, The Dragonslayer, and Six-Fingers]
• 2002 - Vladimir Nunez
• 2003 - Braden Looper - a personal favorite of mine - Marlins had a Saturday morning game-day promotion where kids were taken on a pitching, fielding and hitting sessions right on the field and under the stands, in the case of the hitting. Looper and Freddi Gonzalez were the pitching and batting instructors. In a highlight, my 7-year old daughter almost knocked Freddi over with a line drive. We're talking 2000 or 2001.
• 2004 - Armando Benitez
• 2005 - Todd Jones
• 2006 - Joe Borowski
• 2007 through 2008 - Kevin Gregg

*-Just kidding - Matt Mantei

Read more!

Mariano Rivera Will Be The Next John Smoltz

That 39-year old Mariano Rivera will be the next John Smoltz is a matter of if, not when. By 'the next John Smoltz,' we mean the example of an aging superstar pitcher whose body finally begins to pitch his age. Sometimes the 'ifs' in MLB are hard to see coming. This ain't one of them.

We invoke Baseball Gods and fate to explain some sports injuries. But unless you run a plastic surgery factory in Aventura, the effects of aging is a fairly mainstream scientific idea. That's why this is the one injury -- perhaps breakdown is a more exact term -- which would most affect who the next world Series Champion will be and is not hard to see coming.

Soon we will appreciate the irony that the great John Smoltz's final game happened in front a similarly great contemporary like Rivera. Don't think Rivera wasn't having melancholy thoughts as he watched either; 'Is that how it will be for me? Will I have to suffer the ignominy of having a Coco Crisp doing Grand Slam curtain calls? God, maybe I should get out now? Worse, maybe that moron Girardi will call me in again to discuss my mechanics.'

So what do wealthy New York franchises do with stubborn facts about the aging process? They develop a theory of course. Let's call it the Omar Minaya theory. Now Omar Minaya didn't invent this theory, he is just its latest poster boy. The OM Theory defined:

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in that paying 8-figure salaries to veteran players who would be in the decline of their careers in any other era [a non-Bionic era], will keep them healthy during an entire major league baseball season: i.e., see Carlos Delgado.

2. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons. i.e., management of New York MLB teams and their fans.

[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe) of Old English gelafa; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]

I'm not a gambler, but if I were, finding a Yankee fan and placing a wager that we are only weeks away from the beginning of the end of Mariano Rivera's spectacular HOF career is almost an unfair way to make some money. The more interesting question to me is which Bionic Era major leaguer will go down next.

Now members of my own family, who inconceivably worship at the secular-Yankee alter, namely my brother Fred and Evelio [I-phone Yankee logo wallpaper, 'nuff said], will vociferously suggest that this observation is driven by a hatred of the Yankees [and a broader hatred of all NY professional sports teams]. They would not so much be wrong about my feelings as they would be limited in the understanding of why I take such pleasure in their misfortune, i.e. sports hatred.

I appreciate what the Yankees do for MLB. They and other large market teams have in effect been subsidizing smaller market teams for many years. They do not do so out of charity; you see, if there there were not economically viable MLB teams in smaller markets, there would be no NY Yankees. I just love the irony of seeing the beneficiaries of their payouts succeed where they fail. Besides, I made a promise as I sat and watched the stinking, Darwin theory-challenging and thuggish-Knick [redundant?] fans exiting the Miami Arena on May 3rd, 1998.

It may be slightly outdated, but I urge all fans to read Sports Illusion, Sports Reality by Leonard Koppett. He does an excellent job of explaining why if it weren't for the constant drumbeat of media coverage, we wouldn't be as interested in MLB. In other words, we are kidding ourselves if we think we follow professional or college teams based on the love of the sport.

So again, who's next after Rivera?

That guy ===> ===>

But don't say his name out loud, we wouldn't want to jinx the 35-year old.

Read more!

Why The Baseball Gods Stepped In

At a certain point during Tuesday night's Marlins game at Washington, the following factors must have reached a tipping point with the Baseball Gods:

• Florida Marlins record against the Washington Nationals in 2008, 14-3.
• Florida Marlins record against the Washington Nationals in 2009, 9-0.
• 25-yr old Josh Johnson appeared on the verge of throwing a 2 hit shutout, having retired the last 20 batters and about to face the bottom of the order with a low-pitch count in the 8th inning.
• Johnson would also be likely extending his streak streak of allowing three runs or fewer in his starts - the streak was now at 18 straight games.

The Marlins were on the verge of going 24-3 against the Nationals. The Baseball Gods don't allow great teams to abuse bad teams that badly over a 2 year period, let alone a just average team doing it to a bad team. The surprise was not that the Nationals rallied with 6 runs in the 8th, but that they even had to rally. That the rally came so late. What kind of debts does this franchise have with the Baseball Gods? Are the Baseball Gods trying to make Pittsburgh feel better in comparison?

Take a look at the Elias MLB Standings grid. The grid allow us to go back to 2002. I'll focus on division rivals which typically play each other 18 times and find the most lopsided records in both leagues and what those teams records were the following year.

• 2002 - BOS v TB 16-3
• 2003 - BOS v TB 12-7

• 2002 - PIT v MIL 15-4
• 2003 - PIT v MIL 7-10

• 2003 - OAK v TEX 15-4
• 2004 - OAK v TEX 11-9

• 2003 - SF v SD 14-5 and WAS v NYM 14-5
• 2004 - SF v SD 7-12 and WAS v NYM 9-10

• 2004 - NYY v TB 15-4
• 2005 - NYY v TB 8-11

• 2004 - LAD v ARI 16-3
• 2005 - LAD v ARI 5-13

• 2005 - LAA v TEX 15-4
• 2006 - LAA v TEX 11-8

• 2005 - ARI v LAD 13-5
• 2006 - ARI v LAD 8-10

• 2006 - BOS v BAL 15-3
• 2007 - BOS v BAL 12-6

• 2006 - HOU v PIT 13-3
• 2007 - HOU v PIT 5-10

• 2007 - CLE v MIN 14-4
• 2008 - CLE v MIN 8-10

• 2007 - SD v SF 14-4
• 2008 - SD v SF 5-13

• 2008 - TB v BAL 15-3
• 2009 [partial] TB v BAL 3-4

• 2008 - ARI v COL 15-3
• 2009 [partial] ARI v COL 6-6

• 2008 - FLA v WAS 14-3
• 2009 [partial] FLA v WAS 9-1

If the Marlins finish the year with a 13-5 record against the Nationals, they are on track to have had the best record in back to back years against a division rival than any other team in MLB since at least 2002.

Seriously fellow Marlins fans, what are we complaining about?

Happy birthday Daniel!

Read more!

The Mismatch of the Century: Spin vs Video

Are you going to believe a bunch of grainy old videos taken on camera phones by the type of people who attend speeches and seminars about Health Care policy -- which the White House does not denied their authenticity -- or the White House Communications Director spin?

Check out the Breitbart TV, The Weekly Standard and the
Drudge Report

This White House is even going as far as asking people to rat on their fellow citizens if they criticize their health care proposals. Can naming block captains be far behind?

Here is the nuts and bolts of why they are panicked. From economist Keith Hennessey's blog:

The President’s fiscal policy is based upon a flawed health care premise, and the flaws are becoming apparent to a wider audience.

The Administration’s fiscal strategy is to increase short-term spending (and not just on health care) and more than offset those spending increases through long-term reductions in federal health care spending.

In theory this strategy could work, but by ducking painful policy choices on health care reform that would actually reduce long-term health care spending, the President and his team have placed their health care and fiscal policy strategies in jeopardy.

Flaw 1: The arithmetic is nearly impossible. These bills start by increasing federal health spending 10-15% by creating a new entitlement. That digs a huge hole before beginning to address the existing fiscal problem.

Flaw 2: As it becomes increasingly more difficult to pass health care reform legislation, the Administration is lowering the bar to say such legislation must not increase the long-term deficit (rather than must reduce it). But to make their fiscal policy case, the Administration needs to be able to demonstrate that health care reform will reduce long-term deficits.

Flaw 3: The Administration has not recommended policies that would actually reduce long-term federal health spending. When experts (like CBO) point this out, the Administration misrepresents the analysis and repeats their claims of long-term savings.

As CBO has dismantled this argument, it has placed health care legislation in jeopardy. In addition, the linchpin of the President’s fiscal policy case is buckling.

Flaw 4: The Administration says the long-term savings will exist, but the savings are too nebulous to be precisely scored. What, then, do they plan to display in next year’s President’s budget if they are successful? At some point someone would have to attribute specific long-term budgetary effects to an enacted health care reform bill. You can’t just hand-wave past this problem forever. It will catch up to you.

Perhaps the most prominent non-lefty economist is Greg Mankiw. He summarizes the issue the following way:

Are you more worried about the problem of the uninsured or about the long-term fiscal imbalance?

Read more!

Is It Not Enough To Believe?

Is it not enough to believe? No, suggests our favorite ethernet pastor, Fr Vallee, we must believe for the right reason.

In today’s Gospel, the crowds have followed Jesus because of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus is, clearly, critical of the crowd’s motivations. He says, “You are looking for me not because you saw ‘signs’ but because you ate your full of the loaves.” This is a clear and repeated theme in John’s Gospel. Jesus always insists that the mighty works he does are not miracles or even proofs that he is who he says he is. For John’s Jesus, the deeds of power he performs are “signs.” Signs of what? Signs of his Father’s glory. It is not enough that the crowd, or ourselves for that matter, believe. We must believe for the right reason. As T.S. Eliot opined in The Cocktail Party, “the last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason.” So, what exactly is the right reason? The right reason, the only reason that makes any sense, is that we have come to know and love Jesus Christ.

The email address to request to be put on Vallee's email distribution list is Cioran262@aol.com. To see the entire homily click on 'read more.' Search for other Fr Vallee homilies in this blog by entering 'Vallee' in the search box in the upper left hand corner or look for Fr Vallee in the Labels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fr Vallee Homily - Aug 2 2009

I. Miracles vrs. Signs
In today’s Gospel, the crowds have followed Jesus because of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. Jesus is, clearly, critical of the crowd’s motivations. He says, “You are looking for me not because you saw ‘signs’ but because you ate your full of the loaves.” This is a clear and repeated theme in John’s Gospel. Jesus always insists that the mighty works he does are not miracles or even proofs that he is who he says he is. For John’s Jesus, the deeds of power he performs are “signs.” Signs of what? Signs of his Father’s glory. It is not enough that the crowd, or ourselves for that matter, believe. We must believe for the right reason. As T.S. Eliot opined in The Cocktail Party, “the last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason.” So, what exactly is the right reason? The right reason, the only reason that makes any sense, is that we have come to know and love Jesus Christ. Jesus us tells us this himself at the end of today’s Gospel. After they have been arguing about the bread Jesus gave and the bread Moses gave in the desert, Jesus makes his case with prodigious clarity and stark simplicity: “I myself am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

II. Not coercion, invitation
Being a philosopher, I find this entire matter fascinating. You see, the great deeds Jesus performs are not miracles in the normal sense of the word; they are signs of his Father’s glory. Those of you who are not philosophers might think this to be an unimportant and rather “too subtle” distinction. But the multiplication of the loaves is not a mere historical fact or a scientific anomaly. In fact, Jesus himself says that if faith is just based on miracles and wonders, it is not really faith. The great deeds that Jesus performs are not attempts to coerce belief from skeptical crowds. The great deeds that Jesus performs are nothing less than invitations to see the glory of the Father and share in the love of the Father and the Son. The great deeds of Jesus are invitations to share in the inner life of the Trinity. This is why, even after the Ascension, Christians still perform these mighty deeds. Because Christ sent us the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is, precisely, the love which exists between the Father and the Son. Maybe there are so few miracles today because there is so little true faith or, maybe, there are still miracles going on all around us. We have just forgotten how to recognize them as such. Anyhow, that is a question for another homily.

III. A story of an old and young philosopher
I know I have waxed a bit theological today. I apologize. John’s Gospel, with all of its mystical poetry and theological dreaminess, tends to have that effect on me. Let me try to simplify. These last two weeks I have had my nephew Jason with me. He is 12 years old and a very curious (curious in the good sense) child. One of the first things he did, upon arriving, was beat me in chess. He, then, preceded to beat me in tennis. If it were not for ping-pong, I would have no manly pride left whatsoever. My nephew likes to discuss philosophy with me. One day we were discussing the nature of perfection. Well, let me be honest, we were not so much discussing as arguing. I must say I was very impressed that a 12 year old who has read a few books on philosophy could hold his own with his uncle who has a doctorate in philosophy. Anyhow as we were discussing (arguing), it dawned on me all of sudden that the very act of discussing is an act of love and respect. In fact, without love and respect, no discussion is possible. The point is I do not love my nephew because he is clever; he does not love me because I am a philosopher. We love each other and that love makes everything else possible. The crowds and ourselves do not believe in Jesus because he is powerful and can multiply loaves, cure the sick or raise the dead. We believe in Jesus Christ because we have come to know and love Jesus Christ and that love, which is an extension of the love which exists between the Father and the Son, is what makes all signs and wonders possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more!