Paralysis of the Mind

First, honorable mention:

7. Angels (Added Colon, Escobar. Have a strong 1-4)
6. Phillies (Added Milton. Millwood, Myers, Padilla, Milton make a strong 1-4, but no real stopper or ace)

5. Yankees
Add: Javier Vasquez, Kevin Brown, Jon Lieber, Jose Contreras
Lost: Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, David Wells

Lieber and Contreras aren't technically adds, since both were on the team last season, but both are gonna get their starting slots this year.

The great: Vasquez. The kid has unlimited potential (241 Ks in 2003, 178 in 2002, 208 in 2001). Provided he doesn't Knoblauch his way around the big city. Oh, and uh, I hear their lineup is like, really potent. And whatnot.

The good: Mike Mussina is one consistent SOB. Kevin Brown (when healthy) can be great. Doesn't hurt that if Brown gets hurt, the Yankees can go pick up another #2 starter. Lieber was a horse before his injury, he must be glad that he doesn't have to simmer under Dusty Baker's "care" for innings pitched. If Lieber can come back to form, they'll be even more dangerous.

The poor: Which Jose Contreras are we going to see this year? He had a bit of Ed Whitson in him: he pitched great in meaningless games on the road against mediocre opposition, but looked poor against the big boys. He had some good relief outings against the big boys in the postseason, but also blew it in Game 6 against the Sawx.

The bad: Mussina, Vasquez, and Brown...? What, you say? These guys generate a lot of ground balls. You have a new third baseman, a below-average SS, an okay second baseman, and probably the worst defensive 1B in the league. Is that going to be a problem? Hard to imagine when the team will score 7 runs a night, but in tight games (especially playoff games) it could cost them.

But we're picking here. Barring major injury, their team will win the most games this season. But don't hand them the crown just yet.

4. Astros
Add: Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens
Lost: Dave Mlicki

If you can call not having Dave Mlicki in your rotation a loss. Roger and Andy come home, even though in Texas, there's no gay weddings.

The great: Roy Oswalt. I love this guy. His stats have been impressive the last few seasons, and he's a small guy (about Pedro size), and now that Larry Dierker isn't trying to make Oswalt throw 26 innings a week, his career looks like it'll take off. This could be the year.

The good: Pettite and Clemens. Pettite is overrated, I'm sad to say, because of his yeoman-like work in the postseason. And Clemens is old. As far as his contract is structured, there's no guarantee he'll make more than 20-23 starts this season. But Clemens can still crank it and dominate, just not every time out. Pettite, though, is a solid starter who rarely gives up the big game, and hasn't been hurt in a few years.

The poor:Will the real Wade Miller please stand up? After being better than advertised in 2002, his 2003 season was a mostly unmitigated disaster. Will be bounce back, or is that the real deal? And their 5th starter (probably Jeroime Robertson or Kirk Saarloos) is going to be young and untested.

The bad: They play in a Little League park. The ball carries very well in said park. That's gotta put the tremors up in any pitcher. Pettite might be happy to escape Yankee Stadium's short porch, but how is Clemens going to settle in after pitching in Yankee Stadium and the cavernous SkyDome? Their defense is average, their lineup good but not particularly explosive.

The Astros have improved their team a lot, and with the Texas Tandem, they're bound to draw an unimaginable amount of fans, which is good. It's hard to see them winning their division, though. My guess would be between 90-95 wins, a fair chance of winning their division, and I feel the best shot at the NL Wild Card.

3. Red Sox
Add: Curt Schilling
Lost: John Burkett

We point out, in the interest of fairness, that as good as Curt Schilling is, losing John Burkett might, in fact, be better.

The great: Pedro and Schill. Pedro is injury-prone, but he still makes more than 25 starts a year. Add Schilling into the mix, Pedro suddenly isn't alone as a stopper. Which is good. I think. Oh, and their offense re-wrote the record book last year, and my guess is that even with the dreadful Pokey Reese in the lineup, they'll mash out plenty of runs.

The good: Derek Lowe should have a better season this year. Before his breakout 2002, he'd never pitched over 200 innings in a season. About 85% of all pitchers who break the 200 mark in a season follow that season with a sub-par year, but most bounce back. Lowe's sinker is nasty, he isn't a power-guy, I think he'll put it back together and be 16-18 game winner with a sub 4 ERA. Tim Wakefield is the most under-rated pitcher in the game, in my humble opinion. He can start, relieve, close, play second base, and coach (when necessary). His numbers aren't amazing, but his knuckleball really contrasts with the heat of the top 2 in the rotation, and innings pitched are of no concern to him. As Jim Bouton said in Ball Four: "It's like playing pitch and catch with your sister."

The poor: "Hey! Byung-Hyun Kim! Your shrink is calling. He's asking why the great stuff you have isn't enough!" It's a little mean, I admit. Kim was very effective starting for the D-Backs last year (his ERA was under 3.4) although his W-L record didn't reflect it (mostly because the D-Backs couldn't hit a lick). When he came across to close for the Sawx, well... that was a mistake. Hey, it beat the committee... a little. The stuff isn't the question. The talent isn't the question. Can Kim hold it together for a full year of starting... mentally? If he can, their 5th starter could be one of the top 2 or 3 in the league. If not, they're gonna have that back-end hole they always seem to have.

The bad: There isn't much. If Kim falls down, there isn't a clear backup, but that's about it. Their defense isn't spectacular, but did we mention that their offense is awesome? Reese and Garciaparra are very good infielders, Mueller is average. It'll be enough.

The Sawx lost the A-Rod stakes, but getting Schilling is probably the best move for this year in the offseason. They improved their pitching staff quite a bit. They're in line to win 95-100 games, not enough to take the division, but they're the early favorites in the Wild Card stakes.

2. A's
Add: Mark Redman
Loss: Ted Lilly

The great: Hudson and Mulder. They're shooting stars that, sadly, won't be with Oakland for too many more years. Both are true top aces, and any team would be thrilled to have either one.

The good: Redman. A pitcher who did well for exceptionally bad Twins and Tigers teams, he was an important cog in the Marlins success last year. He's not especially overpowering, but he finds a way to win 15+ games and keep his ERA low. Rich Harden, pheenom. Will he pan out? He was up and down, but in his first full season, I'm willing to guess that he'll be better than average.

The poor: Maybe I'm the only one... but Barry Zito did not look like the same pitcher last season. I don't question his talent or his charmingly flaky personality, but if he can't find that curveball, he doesn't have a lot of heat to back it up, and many times last year, it looked like his control was lacking. I didn't see him pitch a lot last year, but looking at his stats, I wonder. Also, I like Ted Lilly a lot, and I think he's a bigger loss than the A's admit, even with Redman as a replacement.

The bad: Billy Beane might be able to coax the best OBP in the universe out of his guys, but frankly, they don't score a lot. If Jermaine Dye isn't the 2001 version, this team is gonna have to scratch to score enough to support the pitchers. And Eric Chavez probably won't be a part of this team in 2005.

The A's are the favorites out West, and they've got a shot at 95-100 wins (provided Dye busts out), but is their great pitching going to be enough to overcome an anemic offense come stretch time? The Angels got the bats, and so do the Red Sox... it could be a bad summer to pitch for the A's, or a great one.

1. Cubs
Add: Greg Maddux
Loss:

The great: Mark Prior might be the best pitcher of his generation. Kerry Wood is a top-10 guy. Their 1-2 punch is probably just a hair less than Pedro/Schilling, but it's gonna generate at least 40 wins for the team right there.

The good: Greg Maddux comes home. I like this story. He isn't the same pitcher (I'd argue he's their 5th starter), but he's still won 15 games a year since before I was born. I think. Carlos Zambrano is growing into a damn good pitcher himself, and he's ONLY #4. Oh, and Matty Clement? He's a #2 pitcher on a lot of staffs, and he's their fifth starter! Zambrano and Clement strike a lot of guys out, and the NL strikeout record is in jeopardy, I fear...

The poor: Got me. I guess its possible Maddux will fall off the cliff, but I find that hard to believe.

The bad: Sammy Sosa found corking Corey Patterson's and Aramis Ramirez's skulls. That would put a crimp in the offense.

The Cubbies should win the Central, win 100 games, and go straight to the World Series. Cursed or not, they have the best team in the NL going into the season, and I'd like nothing more to see them finally climb that hill.

Tomorrow: The Top 5 Lineups

New links to my right. I suggest you peruse. (Especially the blog under "worthy blogs" to that blog with the best title of all time)

Anyway, I lifted this article from another site: Liberal Programs that Conservatives Voted Against

Read that. And tell me why anyone could be one of those pseudo-Catholic conservative morons against gay marriage, social programs, and anything that Democrats say or do. I don't believe in EVERYTHING liberal, I can't be a party hack, but it's hard to argue against all the successful things that liberals have put into play over the last 80 years. Where would this country be?

I also caught a bit of the Kerry - Edwards (and others) debating on CNN. It wasn't very interesting. Intra-party debates tend not to be, but my favorite part (the bit that will probably lead all coverage tomorrow) was Edwards saying, "You [Kerry] and I are from different places." It's a good bit of politics, play up the fact that Kerry was born with a silver spoon only slightly less up his nose than Bush was. (I don't hold this against either of them) But he does make a good point - do we really want the country to have to choose between two rich scions? At least Clinton could twang a bit (and sleep with a secretary for good measure).

Of course, Edwards making fun of Kerry's zombie-like speeches was below the belt. "I... Love... This... State... Must... Eat... Brains..."

Nothing else tonight, though. It's almost spring and my thoughts turn to baseball *happy sigh* Later today, I'll start my top 5 lists for the season (Top 5 rotation, batting order, relief, improvments from last season, and offseason disappointments). One a day, I promise. :)

This is pissing a lot of people off

I don't really care for Howard Stern, but he (not unlike South Park) makes many a good point about the ideals of free speech. Of course, big companies don't like free speech - it can be unpopular. Therefore, let's condemn speech as much as possible. It makes great institutional sense to appeal to the broadest audience; it makes me sick as an American. Especially when "The Passion of the Christ" is creating such waves. From the Times:

Colleen Loiselle, 55, a Roman Catholic from Tyngsboro, Mass., said she prayed three rosaries inside the Loew's Boston Common theater.

"This is the greatest thing to happen to mankind because people are going to convert," said Ms. Loiselle, who works for the United States attorney in Concord, N.H. "People will see the passion of Christ is to live and forgive."

Now, that offends the fuck out of me, in so many ways. Firstly, I'm going to give up my faith (or lackthereof) because of a movie? And her faith really wants someone that sees a cool movie and says, "Yep, that's the religion for me!"

Me: "So, uh, I'm gonna be a wizard cause Harry Potter was REALLY REALLY AWESOME!!"

Really, though, the greatest thing to happen to mankind? Why not just order up a frontal lobotomy for the non-Christian Coalition of America? Does anyone realize that part of the power of government has risen because when the Church ran things - THERE WAS SO MUCH WARRING AND CORRUPTION THAT THE COMMON MAN REALIZED SOMETHING ELSE NEEDED TO CONTROL THE POPULACE?!!? The divergent sects of Christianity? These were created because of percieved corruption of the Church (Read about Martin Luther and the 95 theses sometime). When the Church ran things, the world wasn't a happy perfect little place, okay? According to your own sacred text, Catholics, you're not supposed to create Heaven on Earth. Tsk tsk.

I know I'm ranting, not every religious person is pushy about their belief system. I respect that more than I can properly express. It just drives me crazy, a religion that can easily accept drug abusers (George W. Bush), child-molesters (a significant amount of priests), rapers and murderers on Death Row (too numerous to recount), yet has such a huge blind spot when it comes to other religions and non-believers.

I'm sorry, Miss Loiselle, a movie won't change my mind. But you should watch Schindler's List sometime. Or The Pianist. Or Bowling for Columbine. Or Harry Potter. Or any number of other amazing movies about the good and bad of humanity. But all of them deserve free speech, just like idiot lesbian jokes and curse words. Free speech is free speech, and telling me because something is "unpopular" than it ought to be pulled, and I'll show you a fascist state. Worse here, because there isn't a dictator - it's a faceless corporation shoving its values down our throats... like it's Miss Loiselle and Mel Gibson's new flick "The Ending of the Career"!!

Really, though, Gibson has a right to show his vision. But if he does, so does Stern. Gibson's vision might be considered anti-Semetic because of the topic, and Stern's vision of utopia might be a bit preponderant on nubile and naked lesbians, but frankly, it's his right. And it's the listeners' right to change the station. Or not to see the movie. Or not to convert. Or to convert (when it's politically advantageous... okay, cheap shot) All of these are freedoms, ones which shouldn't be tampered with, popular or not.

I digress, though. I'm off to Hogwarts to learn how to turn teacups into turtles. I really did love Harry Potter, you know...

From my pals over at atrios, a new war on a new terrorist is sure to make a lot of people happy. I love when conservatives bitch and moan about how the liberal* media shows such a horrific bias. While the conservative press is allowed to make ad hominem attacks on everyone in many forms**.

Ralph Nader is also running again. I like Ralph***. He's got a good message. Unfortunately, he's the most ridiculous candidate for president since, yes, that Nader fellow ran back in 2000^. And/or that guy Perot. I have some personal information about Nader, which I won't reveal right here^^ because I want to be fair to the man. Anyone who really believes that there's no difference between the Rethuglican and Democratic parties is either blind, deaf, mad, or is too busy working in a dead-end just above miniumum wage job to notice politics unless his prescription drug coverage is going to run out and his family isn't going to get Medicaid anymore^^^.

Also, I've started to take on "the haters." Yes, apparently my blog is getting around and I'm getting needled as "one of those dorks who talks politics all the time"#. Okay. We'll make it short. I care about the fate of my country. I make the effort to follow the ball. I educate those around me who either a) unfortunately ask me a political question or b) spout something so blatantly ridiculous that I have to say something##. I think that caring about politics is more important than watching Trischelle whore it up on "The Real World"###, and I'm not afraid to spout off about it. When someone doesn't vote, that only makes my vote more valuable. So if you don't care about politics, please don't read on. You'll only be bored. And if you want to debate politics with me, I welcome it. I have plenty of right-wing friends who make more sense than anything that has ever come out of George Bush's mouth%. But don't slag me for caring, even though I know that caring is lame and uncool... someday, I'll have the chance to raise your taxes, and don't think I won't (big smile)%%.

Fini.

Endnotes:
* - in neoconservative terms, Liberal Media = Media not entirely controlled by neocons
** - such as Ann Coulter suggesting we should go to the Middle East, kill all of the elected leaders, and convert the people to Christianity. Or just Ann Coulter in general. My girlfriend is writing a book called, "Ann Coulter is a Smelly Bitch."
*** - No, I don't. But his message would be valuable coming from someone else.
^ - who was pretty ridiculous. Gore and Bush are the same? Really? Are you sure?
^^ - But I'll reveal it here. My uncle interned for Nader about 20 years ago and has always maintained that Nader is a hypocrite and just as slimy as any other politician, while trying to maintain an air of superority. As much as I dislike John "Treebeard" Kerry, I'll take what I know.
^^^ - Because Bush cut the funding to get people killed in Iraq. And raised the prices for drugs. And doesn't fund his ridiculous "No Child Allowed to Learn" plan (or whatever its called)
# I am. Bite me.
## Like a conservative who told me that Reagan started the "New Deal." What the fuck are high school teachers teaching these days?
### It is. But it doesn't change the fact that Trischelle is a slut. A nice girl, cute, but get two drinks in her and she's a slorr.
% Such as increasing our trade imbalance with Saudi Arabia and China, countries that have lots to gain from the weakening of America, will somehow make us safer and happier. And that our mission was accomplished before we rebuilt Afghanistan, Iraq, or even found Saddam OR Osama.
%% I smile because I know what I'm talking about.

I took one of those silly internet quizzes. But this one amused me. Results:

I am an Intellectual



Which America Hating Minority Are You?



Sounds about right. Even my mother told me to stop slandering the President with real live facts. "He's a simple man, Todd," she said, "He can't handle all that heavy mental lifting."

Ah, mom.

Anyway, due to certain inquiries about how I was doing after the soul-crushing that the Yankees (via arod) have shook in my world, all I can say that baseball-wise, they traded away probably the best young hitter in the game, didn't get a third baseman, and got a guy who for all his talent, has only helped teams after he's left. (The Mariners won 116 games the season after A-Rod departed. It might come from a liberal, but it's an honest-to-God fact) Jeter's defense is going to be a question all season. They still don't have a left-handed starter.

As for baseball, well, the Orioles might as well just send Tejada back to Oakland. What's the point? Worse yet, what's the point for the fans? Not many fans are like me; I'll watch Pittsburgh-San Diego if it's on because I love baseball. Most fans want to see their team have a chance somewhere beyond April 4th. My team still does have a chance, but it is NOT fair that others don't. Salary caps are flawed (but I'm working on a good one for baseball - I'll blog it as soon as its done)

At the same time, baseball has survived the fact that the Yankees have always had all the advantages. Before the nationwide draft was enacted, the Yankees had the best scouting network, bringing in tons of rural talent that others couldn't (anyone remember that kid named Mantle?) and always had the ability to buy players from smaller and poorer teams (Roger Maris, Whitey Ford, Babe Ruth). This isn't new. The numbers just look a hell of a lot more unfair today - and really, their economic advantage is bigger now than ever before. But that doesn't mean it's insurmountable. The Yankees have picked up the biggest names in the off-season for many years in a row now (Clemens, Mussina, Giambi) and lost to poorer but more playoff prepared teams. You can definitely buy success, but I know for a fact that you can't always buy a championship in a playoff based sport. Unlike in soccer, where Manchester United can legitimately buy a title, the playoffs magnify weaknesses, and in a short series, anyone can win.

So, I'm not crushed, I suppose. Indeed, the Sports Guy isn't crushed either, and he's a pretty good indicator toward Bostonian attitudes. We'll take our flawed team this year (minus the Grady Little issue) and see what happens. I just hope other fans don't forget about baseball after their team is out of the picture.

Okay class, here goes:

Kathleen Parker

Local man re-joins Air Force

Discussion: If you can't read the Kathleen Parker article don't get upset, I know you have to go through the annoying of signing up for the members section of the online paper (although I suggest it because it's a Tribune paper and with your account you get access to the LA Times and Chicago Trib, etc) I'll mention some of her finer points.

Also, the other one is written by a friend of mine for a local paper. So, of course, I'm immediately biased.

Anyhow, both of these appeared in my local rag yesterday, and since I worked (and was bored) I read them both. I try not to read the Press-Republican as much as possible, because frankly, I can only read so many stories about how perfectly wonderful livestock are. But the "Local Man" story got top billing (must have been a thrill for Katie, I'm sure it's in her clip file already) and I read with patient amusement. Afterward, I thought, "Well gee, the guys got kids, a wife, a nice life... why NOT throw it away to go kill some towel-heads?"

Why do Americans react like this? I know that on 9/11 I was pissed, scared, but above all curious. "How and why the hell did this happen?" were things I had to know. And sadly, we've never fully answered the question. Instead, we've replaced, "Let's figure this out" into "Let's make it us versus them." This guy will now trot over to Iraq because hey, he lost friends and now he's gonna go kill him some terrorists. I can understand how he felt on 9/11; but he hasn't changed his mind over the last two and a half years? His family happily let him go? Killing Arabs is going to solve anything?

Perhaps it's the rational part of me talking. I remember waking up and turning on ESPN and seeing real news suddenly happening. I vivdly remember thinking lots of comical swear words, and calling my Mom because hey, nothing works better than hearing Mom's voice. A lot of kids my age talked about nuking this or nuking that or joining the army, but it was talk on a day when rationality died before 9 in the morning.

The rationality filter should have kicked on by now, right? Well, I read Miss Parker's column (discussing the war and Bush's interview) and had a sudden realization: the rationality filter has been kicked in, vandalized, and sold for spare parts. First:

As an Independent, I fall squarely into the "He did fine" camp...

Miss Parker is an independent in the same way that Bill O'Reilly is. O'Reilly, by the way, is a registered Republican. I'm curious to know what Miss Parker really believes, but her columns are always straight right-wing madness (with the occasional sop, she IS vegetarian, which she's probably utterly ashamed of).

This is what she writes about the most important thing in the world: ...winning the war on terror and thwarting the growing menace of irrational, hate-filled barbarians who happen to think that we are Satan.

Huh. If she called me an irrational hate-filled barbarian, I'd probably hate her too. There's more.

What Bush knows to be true -- and what he says if not perfectly -- is that we are in the midst of World War III. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was necessary to changing the dynamics that led to Sept. 11 and to inhibit future assaults on our soil and interests.

The dynamics that led to Sept. 11? You mean disrespecting other cultures as an American? You mean the idea that other nations of the world think we're trying to build an American hegemony? You mean... there were Iraqis flying the planes? (Editor's note: You know, of course that there weren't.)

I find consolation in the fact that Bill Clinton was a mellifluous speaker, and he allowed Osama bin Laden to build a worldwide army against us.

Again, untrue. Clinton's staff did a far better job then Bush did (before 9/11) in slowing bin Laden. Missile attacks in Sudan nearly killed Osama. Sandy Berger straight-up warned the incoming Bush administration about Osama, which was ignored. Bush, of course, led Congress to veto the original Homeland Security department (prior to the attacks) becuase it was proposed by a Democrat. Of course, Clinton might have had a better time of dictating foreign policy if the thugs of the right hadn't launched a $40 million attack on his honor and derided his Presidency every day. But we can't re-write history.

I compare these two because of their overwhelming blindness to the actual situation. The guy is leaving behind kids and a wife. He's got a life for himself and he owes it to his family NOT to be flying across the world for this nonsense. And Parker plays right into his hands by making wild accusations of everyone who isn't 100% behind Americanism ruling the globe. She makes an "Us" and "Them" case on something that, like all other things in the world, isn't black and white. Both of these people equate patriotism with killing the other, rather than figuring out a way to turn the other into something that does not hate America.

I'm sad for both of them. They chase a vision of America that exists only in shades of the Old West and Karl Rove's brainpan. Or, At a NASCAR track

Sometimes, I'm sad to be an American. NASCAR is bad enough without the thugs from the right.

Added coments. Would love some if I got them *hint hint* especially if anyone wants to comment on the higgedly-piggedly state of the world (aka George W and/or A-Rod. Curse them both!)

Word. My dozen roses did not keep my poor girlfriend from getting really sick this afternoon. I feel bad, but will definitely feel worse once I get her cold.

G'night...

I love Valentine's Day.

I love the power that advertising has over our psyches.

Ergo, I really REALLY love V-Day.

Valentine's Day was devised one cold winter day (note, I am just making up these circumstances... I think) by a guy who works for Hallmark. His name is Hal. Hal calls his pal Joe, a VP at one of the major chocolate corporations, and says, "Joe, I have an awesome idea." Joe jumps up and calls his friend Tim, of Tim's Super-Big Flower Store. The cabal is complete.

The first ads begin. At first, it's okay to just get a card and some flowers. It's romantic. It's cute. Candy if you're really a go-getter. And it was okay if you didn't. There wasn't any pressure on guys. Girls hadn't made a big deal out of it yet. But slowly, it became a big deal. Suddenly they make movies about women who are desperate for love, if only not to be alone on Valentine's Day. And guys found themselves under big pressure to dial in a good performance on V-Day. In our later society, flowers and choclate was advertised as leading to hot kinky gymnastic sex. Nothing turns the screws on guys like said activities.

The counter, of course, is that if you somehow fail to spend money on your honey, you'll devestate her. She'll leave you. You'll never have sex again. And heaven HELP you if you really are single, you're made to feel as though this day above all others will simply crush your soul. Neither of these two things should be true, but years of advertising really do lodge in the psyche.

I love it. I totally appreciate the fact that Americans can be suckered by advertising. At the same time, though, I have serious questions about the cheapening of love and emotion.

For example, why on this day must presents be provided? Doesn't the idea of forced giving cheapen the entire point of giving a present to someone you love? You can say the same thing about Christmas and birthdays, but in those circumstances, there's an actual celebration of something special and out of the ordinary. Love is an every-day occurance, which is what makes it so peculiar and special. Celebrating love should be a common thing, not a once-a-year excuse for women or men to get mad at their partner for not making them feel extra-special. I certainly like the idea of making your other feeling good, but isn't the surprise the best part?

When my girlfriend buys me a present, or cooks me dinner, or does something nice for me, I like it. But on Valentine's Day I can't help but feel: "So what?" She was forced to go out and buy me something because otherwise she'll feel bad or she thinks I'll feel bad. That isn't a present, it's a forced tribute. And as such, it's hard to get romantic when you're forced to either spend money or time if your heart isn't entirely in it. I bought her a dozen roses and a book; it felt a lot more like paying a bill or running an errand then doing something fun and romantic. My heart was a lot more in it when I bought her dinner last week. I did it because I love her. Isn't that enough?

It would be a fascinating book to see how advertising turned one simple winter day into a massive love-fest. I'd also like to start "National T-Diddy Day" which over the course of 10-15 years would have every American donate five bucks a year to my college fund. If any advertising corporations wish to contact me, please feel free.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy continues on V-Day. And the only winners are the flower, candy, diamond, and card industries. Love is rarely a winner, and the sex isn't all its cracked up to be. Please donate to the National T-DiddyFund, you children will love you, your girlfriend will freak you, and your boss will respect you and give you several major raises. We mean it. Donate today.

Tonight we're not going to be political. I know, I know, go ahead and gasp in shock if you feel its necessary.

Anyway, I'd like to talk about the wonderful record industry. The beautiful record industry. The people who have brought us such wonderful music, from the Beatles to Led Zeppelin to John Coltrane to Guns N' Roses to Nirvana to Pearl Jam to Dave Brubeck to... I could seriously go on. My mother is a violin teacher, and I've had an appreciation for music basically since birth because of it. She got me into the Beatles when I was young and I've never looked back. Music has played a big role in my life over many years, and I know plenty of other people who feel exactly the same way.

So, I look with disgust to the state of recorded music today. I'm not talking about the music itself - I may find Beyonce so over-rated as to defy explanation but there's plenty of incredibly good music being made (Coldplay, 50 Cent, OutKast, moe, Phish, Missy Elliot, etc) - but I am talking about the RIAA and their crusade against MP3 sharing.

In 1995, when I went to buy the new Dave Matthews CD, I paid $11.99. The highest priced CDs were generally $14.99, and some were as low as $9.99. Now I walk into the record store and to buy a CD I'm looking for, it's $18.99. Some of the new "hot" CDs are on sale to drum up sales (it looks good in the papers), but at best they're 15 or 16 bucks. Okay, you say, prices increase over time. I'm willing to grant that. But CDs are now more than 70% more expensive? Milk hasn't gone up that much. Computer prices have stayed generally consistent, even though the technology has improved immensely.

So, prices have gone up. Still free on the radio, though, right? It is, but due to FCC regulations that allow a near monopoly of radio stations in an area, you get the hear the same songs over and over. Clear Channel, those friendly war merchants, now probably own at least half the stations in your area. And those stations will have the same playlist as other stations across the country, even the same playlist as each other in the same area (provided they're the same format, of course. Your Top-40 station probably won't be playing Brooks and Dunn). So on the radio you get less chance, less newness, more safe and formatted crap. And all this is fact: a smaller playlist will guarantee DJ's won't take a flyer on a new band or a local talent.

But okay, prices have gone way up, and the radio has become boring (unless you enjoy listening to "Headstrong" 17 times a day). So the MP3 revolution is in full-swing, and the RIAA realizes that hey, it's losing profits explicitly because people are sharing MP3s. This has nothing to do with price hikes and boring radio play, of course.

Don't get me wrong, I don't fall on the side of people who burn CD after CD of MP3s they've taken from the internet. Once you start burning whole CD's, I feel you're starting to cross the line of piracy. But listening to songs on your computer? If anything, a few good tracks convince people to BUY a CD, not the other way around. I know I've done it before, and I know tons of other people who have done the same.

Killing ANY possibility of acting in any interest of its customers, the RIAA decides to sue people who trade MP3s. This includes 12 year old girls, and a 64 year old woman who doesn't own a computer. Good times. Next we'll be suing Michael Jackson for being black. Anyhow, the RIAA beat its breast about how the artists were suffering, the industry was crumbling, and for goodness sake, suing was the only way to take back the music.

Now, for those of you who watch Cribs, judging by the homes displayed, popular artists are doing OK. I haven't recently seen Radiohead in a breadline, nor has Scott Stapp given up the guitar for charity work (although, I can still hope). And instead of trying to court customers, the RIAA sues them. SUES THEM!! There's been some joking about this, I can't believe there isn't outrage. MP3s were made legal in the past, the genie is out of the bottle, and suing prepubescent girls isn't going to put it back.

The RIAA could, instead, work with the online sites. Surely by charging (even a few cents) a song, the sites could make boatloads of money. And everyone is happy. We get cheap music instead of having to spend 19 bucks for a CD on which only one song is good (a sad fact that happens altogether too often) and the RIAA gets their precious money. Or, the RIAA could... perhaps... lower the prices of CDs just a tad so that customers with only 16 bucks to spend decide to buy a CD instead of something else. And maybe the RIAA should look into those reduced playlists. More radio exposure for more artists means... yes... MORE PROFITS!

Instead, the RIAA believes suing the customer seems to work better. It doesn't work better. CD to tape has been around since the beginning, and you can make a billion tapes to pass around to your friends. CD burners create 5 minute new CDs. The RIAA has a lot of other things to worry about without taking kids to court. But since they have, they deserve ALL the problems they've created. In fact, some people won't buy CD's now because they don't want to support the shit the RIAA is trying to do.

So I say, go burn your CDs, but keep going to concerts. Wouldn't want those rappers to go without Cristal.

"These are the times that try mens souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shink from the service of his country; but that he stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly - Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price on its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestian an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated"

-- Thomas Paine, The Crisis Papers, December 19, 1776

I am starting to feel like that, actually. Since the democratic nominations has been decided by the press to be John Kerry, it's time to put up or shut up. So I'll say it right now: Kerry basically sucks. He's a politician who plays by the rules. He's no Dean, no Clinton, no Kuchnich. He voted for the war, the No-Child-Deserves-Aid act, and the Patriot Act. He's been getting votes on electability - which, when broken down, basically means that voters don't like him but think he'll be liked by others. His plodding style of speaking leaves him in terrible danger of being the next Al Gore - his sharp intellect and good ideas cancelled out because the press notices that he's boring to listen to.

Fortunately, he served in Vietnam. And thank God, he isn't George W. Bush. So at least he's got that going for him. And no matter what he says or does, I (and every other person who isn't blinded by Bush) should support him. He might be a moderate politician, like hundreds of other middling pols who will never have their shot at the big job, but if the voters (and more importantly, the press) think he's the man for the job, it's time to start thinking about all the wonderful things John Kerry has to offer. Anyone who votes for any other candidate using the idiot logic of "Kerry is another Bush" is a traitor to the idea and is voting for Bush. Plain and simple.

And speaking of the press, my local paper (the Press-Republican, which gives you a pretty good idea on where it stands) wrote a shockingly good editorial about the amazingly biased coverage of the "I Have a Scream" speech. A republican paper, in a VERY conservative small-minded town both bashes AND improves the tone of the coverage? It's amazing. The major should be fired, across the board, for simply not doing their jobs. No one seems capable of asking the hard questions, no one tries to push logic in a set of questions, and instead of getting a lot of different views, the major news services push the same view, the same picture, the same soundbite over and over. One has to read online sources and blogs to get anything other than the party line. And that's partly the corporate owners, but also the reporters who "compete" but in reality mark each others coverage and tailor theirs to the standard. This has to change. I don't know how, yet, but at some point, I'll blog my press solutions.

Finally, watching the interesting Tim Russert interview of Bush this morning, Bush said about the upcoming election, "I won't lose... I don't plan on losing." The smirk was in full effect. This is said by a man who honestly doesn't think he could possibly lose. Now, I admit Bush is amazingly self-assured for someone who didn't win his first election and has turned compassionate conservatism into divisive imperialism, but I think my secret fear might come true....

... I don't like to speak, hear, or think of this, but I very firmly believe that not only does Bush know where Osama bin Laden is, I am almost assured that he's either in captivity, or sealed firmly in custody. And no matter how Kerry is doing, come October 15th or so, when Bush trots out Osama, it's done. The first time I saw Bush smirk like that was in 2000, when cameras on NBC focused on Bush and his family watching the first announcement of Florida for Gore. Bush smirked the biggest smirk I'd ever seen at the time and said, "It's still early yet." And so it was. And so it is. If they bring out Osama in shackles in October, not only is it Bush 2004, it's probably Bush 2008 (Jeb) and hell, why not run Jenna in 2020. I don't say or think this lightly, I met a former graduate of my college who now reports out of UAE who told wild tales of dodging the army and Israeli officials, spoke about how it's an almost confirmed and well-known story that Osama is not only in custody, but had a kidney operation last year in a military hospital. It might not be true. But if that's a rumor in that part of the world, it's certainly more believable than anything Bush has ever said.

Argh, I've gone and ranted again. That interview really got my juices flowing. Tim Russert did an okay job for having three GE thugs with guns to his head not to press Bush too hard (I'm making that up. I think.) And really, this whole Bush AWOL thing has a lot of promise, but I started with Thomas Paine, and I'll end with him. He knew what was at stake. I only hope our country realizes the same.

Huh. Deadly chemicals in the Senate, and all we can talk about is Miss Jackson's nipple. Karl Rove and his people must feel a little bit like Pavlov did after he got dog drool all over his penny loafers. It's amazing. I'm waiting for Reverend Lovejoy's wife to come on TV and shriek hysterically about the children. Frankly, you can get free porn very easily. Graphic smut is a lot more dangerous than a .87 second shot of a nipple from about 200 feet away. But oh how we'll sob about it for a while.

Anyway, I led the top off with a question, because I was asked that question just this morning. The asker was a girl, 19, an earnest (by which I mean uninformed) little Republican. Her dad (we'll sit on this later) owns a business. We were discussing, in groups of two, the tax burden upon state and local governments. And somehow, somewhere, she got the clever idea that I was a scary long-haired hippie anarchist liberal. I am not scary, hippie, my hair isn't that long anymore... but anyhow, we had an exchange and she asked how I could possibly be a liberal.

Get my brain going, and shame on you. Unfortunately, due to the early hour, the short amount of time we had to talk, and so forth, I could only say a few minor points. But I wish to expound upon those, because a) I'll make her read this (Hi, by the way) and b) because something that I believe in strongly I should be able to explain, if not to others, than at least to myself. So here goes...

1. I don't believe a free market economy solves all ills.

People need jobs. That's the rub of a capitalist economy. A healthy business culture helps everyone, but we do not live in that perfect world. Corporations lie, cheat, and steal. Corporations spend billions on advertising and lobbying Congress for more tax breaks (of which they already get many). But worst of all, corporations eye a bottom line. Of course, they mind their own bottom line (which isn't a criticism, they obviously have to), but even more than that, they mind the bottom line of their stock. And there's the issue I have. Stockholders have enough extra money to buy stock. Firing someone will quickly make sure that they have no extra money. Therefore, the employees ought to be cared for more than stockholders, but that simply is not the case. And that's the free market economy, where it is neither fair or free.

2. Things weren't better in the past.

If you told an American in 1800 that minorities, women, and children would have equal rights (well, children at least have MORE rights now) they would have probably died from laughing and then shot you for dementia. Conservatism, at its core, is the idea that socially, things are okay, and change should happen slowly if it happens at all. I simply cannot agree to that. Things aren't okay in this country. Even Newt Gingrich admitted in 1994 that the "liberal arm of the Democratic Party ignited the civil rights movement of the 1960s." That would be Newt Gingrich. I agree with him, for once, and furthermore, I think the liberal arm of the democratic party is the best weapon against intolerance that politics has. Gay rights, civil rights, these are important things that have to be addressed.

3. Wars and tax cuts aren't policy.

This one is obvious. Tax cuts indebt our country to nations like China and Saudi Arabia. To me, this is a hell of a lot worse than buying foreign oil or terrorists. If the Saudis or Chinese called in their debts, there's a very real possibility we wouldn't be able to pay without severe consequences. And these wars we like to wage, they cost a shit-load of money. And so, either we work on the tax code (say, making big corporations pay their share) or we stop sending useless $400 dollar checks to people. Better yet, both. The constant wars only allow the rest of the world to hate us without examining why. Think an Iraqi child who lost his dad to us last year isn't going to grow up hating America and wanting revenge?

4. Family values... mmhmm...

40 million to nail Clinton to a wall for a blowjob. None to discover Bush's (2 DWIs, cocaine use) secrets. Republicans discovered that taking a hard stand against poor "values" would win them a lot of votes. I don't know why. Apparently all us democrats have no skills in parenting, no morals, values, or any sort of redeeming qualities. Alas. Newt cheated on his wife. Henry Hyde did the same, and it happened to come out days before he was going to chair the committee on Clinton's impeachment. Arbiters of moral values? From a man who has 2 DWI's and did coke? Huh. Pardon me.

5. Church and state are seperate... right?

Not if you're a right-winger anymore. Bush is "born-again" and Falwell's group helps make domestic policy.

6. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Yes, all politicians lie. But Karl Rove has engineered too many lies in his distinguished career for anyone to trust a Republican candidate anywhere in America until Rove is good and buried. Haldemann and Nixon's cronies are Rove's (and by that, the entire RNC) inspiration. They broke the law. They had no morality. Family values!!! Remember the family values!

There are other reasons, but every time I look at a conservative, all I can think is of a tax cut. If you vote on getting a tax break (and apparently, that describes about 40% of America) you're both selfish and short-sighted. And THAT is really the problem. Friends don't let friends vote republican, after all.