Archive for August 1st, 2007

Wednesday Softball Blogging

First Wednesday softball game since, um, May (lots of travel and rain). Did pretty well at the plate (5-for-6 with a double, 4 runs, and an RBI), but very hit-and-miss in rightfield, with an even distribution of nice plays and awful ones. Alas, the Sunday game has been canceled due to lack of interest. Damn shame, that.

2007 Stats: 7 games, .769 BA (40-52), 1.019 SLG, 5 2B, 1 3B, 2 HR, 25 runs, 18 RBI.

Career Stats: 54 games, .618 BA (231-374), .837 SLG, 37 2B, 6 3B, 11 HR, 134 runs, 103 RBI.

Just for yuks, I am now at the point where I have played a third of a 162-game schedule, so if I were to extrapolate out, I would be on pace for 111 doubles, 18 triples, 33 home runs, 402 runs, and 309 RBI. Heh. Of course, that would be with 1122 at-bats, which is roughly double a typical major-league season. But even cut in half, the numbers look pretty good except for the home runs, which are kinda lame.

Just don’t compare them to any of the good softball hitters, please.

August 1st, 2007 at 10:23pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Softball

News Flash: Hugh Hewitt Is Dishonest

Today’s NYT has an interesting story about how most Republican bloggers are unhappy with the Republican presidential candidates for ducking CNN’s YouTube debate, mainly because it makes them look out-of-touch and backward. But not Hugh Hewitt, oh no:

“If the G.O.P. candidates agree to this format, expect a series of cheap shots about all of the top-tier candidates,” Hugh Hewitt wrote on To the argument that the party may appear backward by not participating, Mr. Hewitt said: “Perhaps, but if that means skipping a no-win set-up where MSM agenda journalists work for weeks to put a video shiv into one or more of the Big Three, I am for it.”

Okay, so.

Thing 1: Just browse around Media Matters for a little while and then come back and tell me about all the liberal “agenda journalists” at CNN.

Thing 2: How is this argument specific to a YouTube debate? If CNN really had it in for the Republicans (ha!), it could just as easily sandbag them with nasty written questions like Bernard Shaw (CNN anchor) did to Dukakis.

Thing 3: I think this is intended as some kind of clumsy payback for the Democrats’ boycotting the Fox News debates, and/or yet another attempt to keep the myth of the “liberal media” alive, but it seems to me that the logical conclusion of this argument is to say that the Republicans can only debate on Fox News, or possibly ABC.

Thing 4: What a wanker.

1 comment August 1st, 2007 at 06:43pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Blogosphere,Elections,Media,Politics,Republicans

Gold Star For Obama

For remembering who we’re actually supposed to be at war with:

Senator Barack Obama said today that the United States should shift its focus from the war in Iraq to a fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said that if the Pakistani government fails to eradicate terror operations inside its borders, the United States should withhold aid and should strike Al Qaeda targets there itself.

Mr. Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said the Bush administration’s Iraq policy has made America more vulnerable to attack, and has weakened the country’s position in pressing the president of Pakistan, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to close down terrorist training camps.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said today, “we will.”

Now why is it that a wimpy, not-serious-about-terror Democrat is the one saying that, and not our Fearless Implacable Defender Of The Realm?

Again: The Republicans are not serious about terrorism, they’re serious about expanding their powers, and they’re serious about occupying Iraq – either forever or until it can become the Democrats’ problem. But actually doing something about the Osama bin Laden branch of al Qaeda? Eh, not so much.

UPDATE: Adding, I’m not sure unilaterally attacking al Qaeda in Pakistan is a great idea, but I think tough talk is more than warranted, and a helluva lot more than Dubya’s been doing – he seems a lot more concerned about al Qaeda In Iraq than al Qaeda itself.

Also, it would be pretty hilarious to see all the wingnut talking heads put on their Serious Faces and gravely explain about how you can’t just invade a sovereign nation without any provocation…

August 1st, 2007 at 05:29pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Obama,Terrorism

David Frum Gets It Completely Wrong

Yeah, I know, no-one could have foreseen that…

Maybe you’ve heard about the recent polls showing a huge Democratic advantage among young voters. The latest , conducted by Stanley Greenberg for the Democracy Project, shows (among other dismal tidings) a 19-point party identification lead for Democrats among voters younger than 30.

Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day. The range of the issue disagreements range from the most prominent issues of the day (Iraq, immigration) to burning social issues (gay marriage, abortion) to fundamental ideological disagreements over the size and scope of government.

Okay, this sounds pretty straightforward so far: Young people hate Republicans because their policies and ideology are appalling. Good for them. But the wily David Frum manages to draw a completely different conclusion.

Read the report in full, however, and you come across an interesting nugget on page 6: White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points. The Democrats owe their advantage among youth to a huge lead among young African-Americans (78 points) – and a very large lead (43 points) among Hispanics.

In the past, Republicans could win elections despite their unpopularity among ethnic minorities. But with the huge surge of immigration since 1980 – and especially since 2000 – the voting map of the United States has been redrawn in ways inherently deeply unfavorable to the GOP. If Republicans face an inhospitable future after 2008, we will hear much of the dreadful legacy of George W. Bush on social issues, the war, the environment, etc. But Greenberg’s own work makes clear that these issues matter relatively little.


No, the legacy that will damage his party is the legacy of immigration non-enforcement. This has imported a large new community of people who are both economically struggling (and thus open to Democratic arguments) but who lack deep attachment to the American nation (and who are thus immune to the most potent of Republican appeals). It is these voters who will sway elections in future. And thanks to this president’s immigration policies, there are going to be a lot more of them than there might otherwise have been.

Wow. Frum starts out with what is actually a very important observation, and then draws the exact wrong conclusion from it. The Republicans’ problem is not leniency on immigration “enforcement” (it’s unclear whether Frum refers to Republican leniency, or the country’s leniency as a whole, but it doesn’t really matter); quite the opposite. The Republicans’ naked hostility towards immigrants has completely cancelled out their appeal to conservative religous Latinos, and their overall support in the Hispanic community has cratered as a result.

If the Republican party embraced immigrants instead of talking about them as subhuman vermin, stayed away from foolish wars, race-baiting, sexism, homophobia, and pervasive corruption, they could be a majority party for decades to come. On the other hand, they would no longer be the Republican party…

(h/t Nitpicker)

2 comments August 1st, 2007 at 11:52am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Immigration,Media,Politics,Racism,Republicans,Wankers

Final Coney Island Rideblogging

I’m almost out of Coney Island photos; just one more post after this one.

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
I liked the ponytail action on this one, and didn’t even notice the strangely envious look on the girl on the right.

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
“They say STAFF is a bad mother-” “Shut your mouth!”

August 1st, 2007 at 11:09am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Coney Island,NJ/NYC,People,Photoblogging

Wednesday Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging

Algore picks up another high-profile endorsement:

Former Vice President Al Gore has been endorsed for President – by Mother Nature herself!

“Al Gore will be our next president, if I have anything to say about it,” Mother Nature told Weekly World News. “More than any other non-candidate, Mr. Gore has shown that he has the planet’s best interests at heart. I mean, who else could take a power point presentation and turn it into an Academy Award-winning film about global warming?

“I backed Gore in 2000, and we all know what happened then,” Mother Nature said. “I’m not making any threats, but need I remind Florida at the onset of hurricane season – it’s not wise to fool Mother Nature twice?”

Run, Al, run!!!

1 comment August 1st, 2007 at 07:09am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Weekly World News

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




August 2007
« Jul   Sep »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *