Sports: Lots of excitement in MLB ... the lowly Brewers won ten in a row, but lost before they would force a local business to sell hamburgers or something to the entire city [per a promise, which they actually had to do once a while back), the Wild Card race is something like a six way tie, and the Central races continue to be close. My underdog Royals are in trouble, needing to play a doubleheader today, as well as a couple other extra games ... while being statistically behind by a few percentage points. The Mets got their 5000 home run, Detroit their 100th loss before September (quite a feat), and Bonds came back from bereavement leave (his dad died of cancer) and hit a home run off Randy Johnson ... and was very emotional.

The Yanks eked out a 10-7 win vs. Boston, after a 8-4 lead dropped to 8-7 after Mariano almost completely gave up the lead ... inheriting three of Jeff "the latest nailbiter path to Mariano" reliever runs, but than the Red Sox's closer gave up yet another home run to the Yanks. Kim is iffy in other games too ... if Pedro can't hold on to a 3-0 [a Pettite error basically led to all three], 3-2 [a ground rule double and a wonderful catch stopped even more runs], and 4-2 [down 3-2, Pettite gave up a run in the very next inning, but that's it] leads ... the team just isn't going anywhere. Pedro lasted but four, but in general, he always is too tender. This and the failure of the Red Sox to cut back on the offense and get at least one more stud starter, is why they never will get anywhere.

Meanwhile, after getting two of three from the Braves, the Mets were swept by the Phillies. Sao again had trouble in the fifth -- he seems to be five inning pitcher these days -- changing a 1-0 game to 4-0, and you knew it was over. They finally got a hit in the seventh [a player did get hit earlier] in the last game, but on the last play of the game, Reyes got hurt (a costly rare walk). Well, the Phillies always love playing at Shea. A nod to the Mets organization btw for having a special "cheap seats" promotion for the last month of the season. I think they probably should have did something like that earlier, and it obviously has something to do with the fact that school will mean a lot fewer fans to the lastest round of meaningless games. But, it's a good thought, anyhow.

Some Thoughts: "The Press Effect," Cheney v GAO, David Letterman, and Freddy v Jason. On the Rez by Ian Frazier is a pretty good book on Native American life (called "Indians" in the book without any comment on the name potentially being offensive), centering on the Oglala Sioux. Another pretty good thing is watching the NY Mets play good baseball, including taking two out of three vs. the Braves in Atlanta. I don't expect miracles, but next season might not be half bad.

Pre-Season Football: Chad Pennington broke his wrist, Michael Vick his leg, and various other star players were seriously injured in the pre-season aka the "too long series of meaningless games that just ask for trouble." I don't really understanding this whining. There are four or so (Jets this year have five, including one in Japan) pre-season games. These games are useful for conditioning, preparing for the regular season, and evaluating talent in real game situations. You obviously need some pre-season games. For instance, Spring Training in baseball might be too long, but it isn't meaningless. Just because they don't count in the standings, the games have various purposes. And, if not four, how many? Two? Is two games enough? The first game will often be badly played, as players get the cobwebs out. Also, it is useful to take a look at backups, and one game often is given to backup QBs. So, I think it is fairly clear that two to three games at least are necessary, probably at least three. One game is not worth that much carping.

And, what will be gained if the pre-season is shortened considerably? More regular season games? First off, two pre-season games are not equivalent to two regular season games as a matter of conditioning, energy levels, ability to perform, and so forth. So, we are not talking about a straight trade here. Also, when would the two games be played? August? I don't think so ... the heat of summer is not an ideal time. January? There must be a reason why games are not played into February, so this would questionable as well. Chopping a week off pre-season might help, but on the other hand, more games might require more training of backups because of the possibilities of injuries to starters will increase. Perhaps not ... either way, game or so won't matter that much.

Anyway, and most importantly, what is the difference if players get hurt in Week One as compared to pre-season? Not much, except that the latter way allows the player to get healthy before the season begins. Finally, Vick got injured not this weekend, but last weekend. And other players got hurt early as well ... so a shortened pre-season wouldn't have helped them! If anything, it would be worse, because some will be back near the beginning of the regular season instead of a few games into it. [In 1999, the Jets lost their QB for the season in Week One ... if it happened in the pre-season, maybe they would have been more prepared, instead of taking weeks to get fully behind Ray Lucas. Either way, the Jet fan wouldn't have felt much worse if Vinny Testaverde got hurt in a "meaningless" game.]

Pre-season is not "meaningless." It might be a week or so too long, but unless a vast majority of the injuries fall in the final game (which the regulars often don't even play in), injuries will continue even if we shorten it. Finally, I don't know if extending the regular season is a good idea (another game probably won't hurt), but it really is irrevelant to the matter at hand. Injuries will happen ... making the pre-season into a scapegoat is silly.

Still More Thoughts: I had a pretty heavy week apparently, huh? The computer message board can turn in a sort of online thoughts journal that (ideally) leads to some feedback and discussion. It also can be useful to determine how your words are being interpreted. For instance, I cited what others thought about the Pledge of Allegiance's use of "under God" (added in the 1950s to show we were a religious people, not atheistic communists) and was a bit taken aback when a reply mentioned my "prejudices." (The post concerned Roy Moore, see below, but this is what the person was responding to, as I later learned). It turned out that it was thought that I was discussing my own views. Others can result in additional information, as seen by an article referred to me by someone who read my post on Daniel Pipes. I appreciated this because though I discussed his nomination to the Institute of Peace, I really know very little about him per se. I hoped my post would add to my knowledge.

Some posts lead to predictable replies, as this one on Attorney General's Patriot Act Roadshow. I reeled back some of my rhetoric, as I try to do, because things tend to be more complex than either side thinks. It is hard to tell if I changed any in the last ten years, but I think I have become a bit more restrained ... except when watching sports ... and reflective. I hope so at least. Other replies are interesting in that they give me an opposing viewpoint, hopefully in a respectable and intelligent fashion. See, for instance, this post on Prop 54 (Racial Privacy Initiative), which was inspired not only by a Findlaw article (often an interesting piece leads me to contemplate some and feel a need to post), but an earlier post that supported the effort. Since I have mixed feelings about such things, and the original post got basically negative replies, I posted something. The responses were per usual appreciated.

A couple books. Joy in the Morning by Betty Smith (author of A Tree Grows in Brooklyn) was an enjoyable story of young love that takes place in a college town in the 1920s. Not only is the primary character (a young newlywed named Anne) a charming character, it was unusual to have so many matter-of-fact mentions of sex. It was written in the early 1960s, but I bet it was somewhat controversial, especially since it clearly is partly geered to young adults (the husband and wife are twenty and eighteen, respectively). It was a nice find, since I have trouble finding fiction that I enjoy. The other was a good little book entitled Torn Between Two Cultures: An Afghan-American Speaks Out by Maryam Qudrat Aseel. The title is self-explanatory, but it was notable for putting a human face on a religious but modern first generation Afghan-American [I thought perhaps the term was "Afghani," but she doesn't mention any controversy regarding the matter]. I read stories like this and I can simply can not stereotype. We are not just dealing with "them" but people just like "us." This tends to compel one to look at things differently, or so I think anyway.

Some More Thoughts:: Excessive criticism of judicial picks is counterproductive, Death Penalty Irony (abortion doctor murderer), is the President evil? , and Roy Moore, defender of the faith and the 10A (ten commandments display).

Few Thoughts: Blackout coverage, conservative bloggist, power of the "fray," and cameraman killed in Iraq.

The Blackout: I really have nothing profound to say about it, but since I reside in NYC, a few words. Luckily, I was not in Manhattan, so was not stuck with the rest of the mass of humanity trying to get of there. I was outside reading and had no way to know there was a blackout until I noticed the streetlights were out. Again, it was not immediately apparent anything occurred an hour or so earlier ... there really didn't seem to be any more people on the street, and it was obviously quite light out around 5PM on an August day. I heard the news on the radio and thought "oh okay." I basically staid home until the lights came on ... so "Blackout 2003" (please) was mostly boring for me. I was annoyed hearing how others had power (including some not too far from me) long before me, but I survived to 4PM when it came back on. Also, I heard the Yanks on the radio (they are in Baltimore) and only later in the night was it even really dark. Though some places are still seriously effected, NYC handled things pretty well ... though I was getting annoyed, I lived through 1977, and that was days.

As I said, mostly boring. The one notable thing is that the NY subways were knocked out ... still are ... and even on 9/11 one was able to ride them fairly regularly hours after the events. Some cities have water issues ... our only water issue is that the beaches were closed (some pools were open) today because of sewage issues. The blackout does suggest that we need to update our electrical grids, and so forth, but the quick and fairly easy (on the whole) way that even this major and pretty unique event was dealt with, is pretty amazing. And, a day without electricity ... well, I survived. Nothing much happens in August, anyway, right?

Few Thoughts: I posted some stuff on various issues over the last week: Bush on Iraq (and Gore's Speech), nuances of language, some Iraqi thoughts, and concerns about judicial independence/sentencing discretion.

How about the CA recall? It is a bit of a joke that Arnold, benefits to Republicans aside, is the leading candidate/"solution" now offerred in California. The recall was started by a small bunch of rich guys to overturn a popularly elected governor who is only partly to blame for the mess over there, while the alternative last election was subpar, as it is this time (what exactly does Arnold know about running California? uh ...). He is a great scapegoat though, but still, this doesn't justified a rushed recall election (new governor, if elected, due to come in November) that might result in a "winner" that only receives a minority of the vote. The obvious nature of all of this makes it tiring to discuss, but then, quick "fixes" via direct democracy that involve easy choices (supporting Arnold is rather easy, isn't it?) is a longstanding practice over there.

On the other hand, the Mets are doing good ... not great, they are the Mets after all ... but challenging the Cards, Astros, and Giants, they held their own. Mike Piazza came back in style today. KC took two out of three of thier first series vs the Yanks, so are hanging on to 1st place. The Marlins actually took 1st place in the Wild Card race, and are surprising people just like its new manager said they would back a few months back. And, the Jets won their second game, thanks to some end of the game turnovers.

Baseball, Movies, and Books: KC finally did it ... after blowing a two run lead in the ninth vs. Tampa Bay, it lost again today (losing pitcher: Anaheim castaway, Kevin Appier) fell from first place because the White Sox beat the As. Armando Benitez gave up a key insurance run ... for Seattle ... and Roger Cedeno (yeah) is playing good for the Mets (showing some life of late).

On the movie front, Freaky Friday was fun ... it started off annoyingly predictable, but the leads are good, especially once they switch. A few are annoyed that Asians are treated in a stereotypical matter (the switch is thanks to a charmed fortune cookie), and they have a makings of a point. It was not necessary ... amounting at best a couple of cute characters. I also saw the British immigrants being exploited (and struggling to survive) drama/thriller Dirty Pretty Things. Well, part of it ... the leads were too good to be true, and the story was a bit dull. It had potential, but not good follow through.

After a bit of a dry spell, I found a few good books as well. A couple were of the "enjoyable but been there, read that" sort of nonfiction that is like watching average television. A bit more notable was The First Impeachment: The Constitutional Framers and The Case of Senator William Blount by Buckner F. Melton Jr. It is the little known story of the very first impeachment, which actually was against a U.S. senator involved in an Aaron Burr sort plan (the subject of a later book by the author) to invade Spanish territory in the West.

After summarizing the constitutional history of impeachments and the background to the Blount (Blunt) Conspiracy itself, Melton discusses the complex goings on in Congress, which ended in a whimper -- the Senate did expel Blount, who jumped bail and eventually was elected to his home state legislature (and presided over an impeachment there!), but wound up deciding it didn't have the power to try for impeachment. Why? Apparently ... though they didn't specify ... because senators are were not considered impeachable. This is so even though many framers of the Constitution originally thought they were.

Interesting bit of history, American and constitutional. Good notes (footnotes, not endnotes, which is fairly rare) and bibliography.

Summer Time Blues: Oh well. KC lost again, after coming back from a defecit (thus Lima still is perfect), but blowing it ... for the second time Lloyd had a role (this time he got the loss, last time he just gave up the runs that decided the game). They now are tied with the White Sox, who beat up on slumping Seattle, and behind in the win column. They survived one drop off, helped by the Twins slumping ... the White Sox can't keep this up, can they? Oh they might ... and August brings six games against the Yanks and other trouble for KC. Buckle up guys!

The Red Sox lost for the second time in two days vs subpar teams (the first time Pedro pitched ... it's almost a bad thing these days when he pitches for them), and the As won, so Oakland is inching back to that Wild Card lead. The As beat the Yanks, who are having hitting woes. Hitting woes, such as getting a lead runner to second with no one out in the ninth, but not scoring, makes Benitez not getting that third out in the eighth ... opening up a chance for the unearned run that decided the game (homer with two outs off Osuna, by the person who got that unearned run, won it in the tenth) ... matter. Meanwhile, the Mets are currently losing it via the bullpen. Another wasted effort by Trachsel (6.2, one run vs the Cards) because of a six run eighth. Now it's time for previously dependable Wheeler to mess up. So it goes. The Mets actually showed life for a little while ... now they are losing eight games out of ten, and basically simply suck. A team like the Brewers suck, but actually show some life now and again ... currently, the Mets need to show a bit more life ... is four out of ten too much to ask for?

I was not up to see it, but the Jets lost to Tampa in the opening game of pre-season football ... in Japan. A few years ago the Mets played the Cubs there, but I think it is a lot easier when the game is pre-season action like this. The As/Mariners was scheduled to play last March, before the hostilities cancelled their plans, but I think baseball is more popular in Japan than football. Given all those European football games I see (Rhine Fire seems to predominate), wouldn't Western Europe be a more logical site? Anyway, football in August is a bit hard to take ... heat and football does not go great together.

Baseball Update: One loses track of all the moves that the Yankees are making these days ... now they have Aaron Boone at third, Ventura went to the Dodgers (sorry Robin), and Gabe White also came over from the Reds (he's a good, if currently hurt, reliever). Recently, troublesome Mondesi was sent out (it is nice in a way that ball players have the pride to be upset when they feel they are being underplayed or not treated fairly, but given his mixed performance, such players also have some nerve complaining ... like "poor baby") and yet another outfielder came. Meanwhile, the Mets got rid of some more veterans, including Lloyd, who went to Kansas City. Sadly, Kansas City just got swepted by the White Sox, so are but two games (in the loss column) separated ... there is still a long way to go, and I fear that the Sox's recent surge might mean they will be the Central winner. Deserved, if they can do it, but sad in a way ... maybe, like the Twins, a late drop-off will still be followed by a great year. I don't know though ... I think the KC owners want to have an excuse to cut payroll and so forth.

You Can Count On Me ... but not universal fate: I recently saw the DVD version of a favorite movie of mine, You Can Count On Me, in which Laura Linney is excellent and pretty hot (a crude comment perhaps, but every time I watch it, I am reminded about how cute and sexy she looks in the film ... in fact, she looks much better in this film than in various other roles she played). I am starting to get DVDs out just to listen to the commentary (this one also had a sort of promotional set of interviews with the cast as well), and being a bit of a film nerd (geek?), I continue to love this sort of thing.

The writer/director made a comment early on that helped me admire his point of view ... he does not believe in any overreaching "purpose" to the world or any particular "reason" why two people meet and fall in love. It's not like it is some question of fate or anything, just a combination of little things, which seems to be a pretty common sense view. It annoys me, for instance, that Jamie on Mad About You has this in my view egotistical view that somehow her love and marriage with Paul is unique ... they in particular, it seems, were "meant" to be in a way that others were not. Nice idea, but I don't think it's true. It might be true that the couple has any number of traits, life experiences, and so on that makes their match more ideal than many others. I do not know if that is true as compared to both of them being somewhat full of themselves in regard of their own self importance ... a theme that the show at times jokes about.

The director also notes that perhaps, who knows, there might be some universial purpose. Such a purpose is far above his cognizance (my word, so don't blame him, if it is used badly) though, and I'm willing to agree with that. There are things we don't understand. On the other hand, I just do not see much evidence of some overreaching fate or some anthropomorphized version of the concept of good/creation/life that many call "God." The use of such a problematic concept to explain life's mysteries or because it provides some solace (I guess some celestial Easter Bunny can serve a similiar purpose without all the shit "God" leads to) does not work for me. This does not mean life has no meaning ... there are rhymes and reason to our lives, and we can benefit from even the bad parts of it. I don't think this means the bad stuff was somehow "necessary" or anything though, and I find unreasoned leaps of faith as cheating. For if we don't use reason, why be human at all? Walking upright is great and all, but it's not something be that proud of.

Unintelligent Response To Intelligence Proposal: A quick blip during an otherwise slow news cycle (time for President Bush to go on vacation for a month again, isn't it?) involved a twist on the future market, this time as a tool for intelligence gathering. The basic idea is that the markets as a whole are a useful tool to determine information and has been shown to be so even outside the usual economic context. For instance, it has been shown to be a good determinant of political campaigns. Thus, the Pentagon suggested that it be used to collect intelligence ... using financial incentives in a creative, and hopefully successful way. It was struck down as an immoral gambling of human lives. The level of moralistic holier than thou breast-beating involved was a tad sickening.

Various arguments made against it suggest that knee-jerk emotional appeals are as unwise as the term implies. First, the very moral horror at "gambling" is ridiculous given our basic financial system is based on such risk taking, including areas such as insurance and the basic well being of millions of people that surely at some level involves betting on human lives. I don't care what you call it, if "gambling" provides a service, name calling will not make it any less useful. Second, many suggest the information is not as open and verifiable as other markets offer ... but again, in economic and other markets, the information is often not "clean" and at times involves specialized information that means only a limited group can "bet" or "play." A related concern is that the people involved, let's say terrorists, are not rational actors. This is a dubious preposition (e.g. it is a timed honored falsehood that Saddam is an irrational actor and your average suicide bomber does not kill himself for no reason ... and experts in the field will tell you that) and the implication that other markets (e.g. political campaign strategy) do not have irrationality inherent to it is erroneous. All the same, markets have some value in such fields.

Next, some suggest that the market would benefit terrorists. As some note, an intelligent terrorist could benefit from the financial markets now ... for instance, some well timed investments pre-9/11, or how about if one knew a certain captain of industry would die in a car crash the next day? Second, do these critics suggest that any useful intelligence collection techniques be totally secret, and not open to public view? If not, any number of useful techniques has a potential to benefit terrorism ... the argument is that in the long run, openness will benefit the "good guys" more.

A related concern is that "successful" predictions would result in the U.S. stopping the event, and therefore there would be no "payoff." This could be factored in, so the predictions alone would benefit the investor. Likewise, the idea that terrorists or others can "fix" the system would suggest that any number of very important markets also is unwise. Again, the idea is that in the long run we will benefit more than we will suffer. Fear of some kind of foreign policy backlash also is raised ... but if the net result is less harm, I don't quite understand why this is a problem. Is the "this looks bad" factor that troubling to require a potentially useful tool not be used? And note that it is but "a" tool ... some criticism somehow seems to feel that it is misplaced use of money and effort better earmarked elsewhere, as if such alternatives will not be offered anyway. The distrust in this system alone would counsel policy makers not to put too many eggs in this one basket, and to have many other alternatives and even redundant sources of information for those loathe to rely on future markets such as this.

Finally, various other emotional appeals were raised. I will note two that suggest the misplaced concerns that contributed to the quick disposal of a potentially useful idea. Some see this as just one more unsavory technique offered by the Bush White House or the current bunch of intelligence types ... the same class of people who have been criticized for not thinking "outside of the box" or creatively enough to prevent harm ... as if the idea actually came from other fields such as economic theorists. Anyway, the whole concept seems comparable to "Game Theory" (the area John Nash of A Beautiful Mind helped originate), which has been around for around fifty years or more, and also is involved various decisions that affects life and death. One person suggested terrorism has "no demand" or even "negative demand," which is wrong, since obvious someone wants it! Experts, experts the country as a whole in some form pays for and is willing to "gamble" on as worth their salaries, spend their careers analyzing such demand.

The ultimate success of the process, dropped like a hot potato, is unclear, but it was worth trying. I would not be surprised if it is actually tried in some form, perhaps as an unofficial market or as an unpublicized field study of some sort. Putting aside largely misplaced moral concerns, the cost/benefits of potentially risky activities and procedures can only be determined if they are actually field tested. A country that accepted the rather controversial and potentially dangerous concept of pre-emptive war should not be so opposed to the use of a potentially valuable, and probably much less lethal, additional tool in the ongoing struggle against domestic and foreign insecurity.

Political Strategy and Perceptives: Recently, I discussed and took part in discussions about the appropriate winning strategy for the Democrats. First off, I responded to some conservative praise of Prime Minister Blair's speech to Congress. I think Blair put forth an eloquent speech with many Democratic themes, though the overall point of it all was really to support President Bush and his flawed Iraqi policy. This is why conservatives who in most cases don't think much of the Prime Minister's policies went out of their way to rave about his speech. A speech some demeaned as his "white man's burden" speech ... good intentions, but done so in an unsavory, almost colonialist way.

I added some two cents to a more general discussion on "values and arguments" here with some additional comments here (the response that took Dave Barry's quote seriously is amusing). An interesting article by Harmful To Minors author Judith Levine about the alternatives to marriage is found here. I support her general attempt to argue that in the current era there are many "marriage like" relationships that should not all be put into one box known as "marriage," but still receive some governmental sanction for various reasons, including care of children. I also talk about how the current administration is no fan of free trade in a somewhat amusing, though serious, case involving Vietnam and catfish.

While on the political theme, the NYT reports that the President has nominated two more for the DC Appeals Court, where Miguel Estrada is destined to go whenever the filibuster against him fails. There are various reasons why these nominees show yet again the I got to say slimy nature of the Bush judicial nomination process. One nominee is Janice R. Brown, a black conservative [who wrote a key anti-affirmative action decision] that has gotten some controversy, but though I'm not familiar with her record enough to make any conclusions, my tentative belief is she is likely just a conservative pick whose color helps smooth the way.

It is true that many Clinton picks were struck down for ideological reasons, so this is a factor, but it is the least of the problems in this case. First, the President is making three nominations to a key circuit court with openings largely because Republicans blocked Clinton nominees, and also argued there was no need for a full bench. Apparently, now they changed their mind.

Second, the other nominee is thirty-eight year old Brett M. Kavanaugh, an associate White House counsel, a key player in choosing other nominees to the federal bench. Thus, the Democrats in the Senate as well as others involved in the process would likely distrust him, not unjustly seeing him as an ideologue in a time when we need noncontroversial picks to the bench. His age is also a factor ... I do wonder if he is so qualified that it is justified to place someone so young on a federal appellate bench. Finally, guess what else he is known for? Yes! He was a key aide to Kenneth Starr, having a big role in the investigation of President Clinton and writing the infamous Starr Report. You [expletive deleted] got to be kidding me! How in the hell is this guy a good choice, especially to this court when Justice (in California) Brown alone is controversial for her views? It is this sort of thing that aggravates me to no end ... the arrogance, lack of desire to even try not to be divisive, and the lack of guts to even admit the fact half the time that makes by blood boil.

I am unsure who I support among those running for the Democratic nomination, but my basic belief is that many of them are acceptable choices because they share certain basic beliefs. All the same, perhaps my key requirement is someone who does not act like this. Someone with the moral integrity not only to cook evidence but also not have the gall to pervert the judicial nomination process, not willing to give an inch, but instead only inflaming the situation more. He has help, it is true ... the Republicans in the Senate cannot even resolve that a very controversial nominee such as William Pryor crosses some line ... can't throw that bone to the opposition, not even Sen. Spector, who has spoken of his misgivings, but voted with the rest to send his nomination out of the committee. The result? The Democrats might be forced to filibuster ... yes a whopping third of one for a hundred nominations ... thus inflaming things further. And, who is blamed? The Democrats, more often than not! Sigh.

New Threat To The Universe: Apparently, there is new evidence of Dark Energy that is "wrenching the universe apart." A team of scientists has discovered what they called "the shadow of dark energy." This would add to "emerging consensus of a universe dominated by mysterious dark matter and even more mysterious dark energy" that "means that parallel lines drawn across the cosmos will not meet." Like duh.

"If we can just keep collecting a few more clues about it," Dr. Riess added, "we might actually be able to figure out what the heck it is." It is theorized, however, that " the passage of microwaves through the modern universe" might be involved here. Imagine if each had a burrito or worse yet a bag of microwavable popcorn! Or a microwave tiolet.

Anyway, clearly the "Dark Side" is involved and we can use "the force" to stop it.

It also apparently has something to do with credit cards: Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania, compared the effect to racking up credit card debts in an inflationary era. "The payback is less than what is borrowed," Dr. Tegmark said. Sounds like an okay deal to me.

"Dr. Scranton, also in an e-mail message, said his team's work was important in validating the dark energy because it relied on sky survey data not available to other teams." They got it from the Brits.

More Baseball and Stuff: The last couple nights gave us some chances to view the results of some recent baseball trades involving Mets personnel. Armando Benitez came on with a four run lead tonight and pitched two innings largely without incident, though he had a bit of trouble getting the third out. Yesterday, John Franco blew a hold opportunity in the ninth, taking the loss ... 3-2 vs. the Braves. Jeremy Burnitz made an error as a Dodgers, but redeemed himself later on with his bat and base running. Also, former Met Rickey Henderson got a home run tonight for the Dodgers, showing he still has something left.

Meanwhile, I saw Swimming Pool, the latest Charlotte Rampling film, an actress many might best remember as Paul Newman's love interest (in a matter of speaking) in The Verdict. This movie is mostly style with little point ... the leads are fine as is the setting ... there is nice eye candy in the form of a young nubile niece. All the same, you are left wondering, "um, will there be like something happening sometime?" Rampling's last movie with this director, Under the Sand, was largely stylistic as well, but there was more meat to it. This has a point, but drags on and on without much of a plot, so one wonders after around a half hour, what the point really is. It can be enjoyed for style alone, but I got bored after a while. It is a movie you can look back upon and admire, but still are left with the realization it really wasn't that enjoyable overall.

Baseball and Stuff: Good All Stars ... Dontrelle Willis [Clemens did w/o incident] should have got a chance to pitch, over either Woody Williams (2 runs) or Russ Ortiz, and it was sad in a way that the NL All Stars blew a 5-1, fifth inning lead, but it was all in all enjoyable. Armando Benitez, who probably couldn't have done worse in the eighth than Eric Gagne (who decided to give up his first save since last summer here ... WHEN IT COUNTS!!!), looked a bit lonely when he was introduced. He now is with the Yanks, for Jason Anderson (young kid, seems to have some potential from the little I saw of him) and two other prospects. Maybe, he will do good as a right handed set-up man ... does suggest the desperation of the Yanks though. They, as much as anyone other than the Braves and the Phillies, know his history. As to Gagne, he helped complete the AL come from behind effort that we saw in Game Six of the Series ... and probably shouldn't have faced two run homer/Blaylock. But then, Dusty Baker left pitchers in too long in the Series as well, didn't he?

I might have saw the first summer blockbluster that I actually fully enjoyed in a summer blockbuster way ... Pirates of the Caribbean, which is no prize in the plot department, but Johnny Depp is fun, as is the movie on the whole. As a fan of the British show Coupling, it was fun to see its "Chandler" sort character play an English naval captain. The movie needed at least one good naval set piece ... battle it had left something to be desired ... but its scale on the whole still was blockbuster worthy. I'm also a sucker for historical fiction, including the tongue in cheek kind.

The President is having a bit of trouble these days with some statements he made in regards to Iraq ... the implication being he defended the path to war based on flawed evidence. Meanwhile, economic numbers continue to look bad, conservatives are upset at his protectionalist moves in regards to free trade, and the administration continues to support big government that interferes with our lives. This led me to start a new series discussing why Republicans and conservatives should feel wary about the guy. One post (targeting doctors who talk about medicinal marijuana use with their patients) that links to my other post (international trade plus "ethics") suggests my overall strategy.

Roger Clemens Too: Well, looks like the another "he shoulda have been an All Star" somehow got to be one ... though Barry Zito was perhaps the late one to know, it was announced the PTB decided he could not pitch, after pitching yesterday. So, suddenly there was a shot for a retiring/300 game winner (eventually). Meanwhile, Mets All Star Benitez decided to blow a save on the last game before the break. Jason Philips saved the day ... and pitch runner's Roger Cedeno's ass (a long double barely got him to third, after he twice stopped to make sure it wasn't caught) ... by hitting the winning RBI in the bottom of the inning. Thus, it was not surprising someone lost their job ... Jeremy Burnitz was traded to the LA Dodgers, probably one of the few teams who might have even a harder time to score runs than the Mets. Unless you count the White Sox, who recently loss a game 1-0 vs the Detroit Tigers. Robby Alomar doesn't seem to have put them over the hump.

Meanwhile, last weekend I caught some of the Degrassi marathon, including the well done date rape episode. The show itself harkens from Canada, is shown over here on the Noggin Network and is a sort of teenage soap opera.

I also recently finally found a book that was fairly enjoyable, Religious Liberty in American: Political Safeguards by Louis Fisher. The book argues that the political process is more important than the courts in protecting religious liberty and provides a history lesson from past to present to summarize how this was true over time. I think he somewhat overstates his case at times (and generally focuses on Free Exercise over the Establishment Clause), but it is a good rebuttal to those who put too much faith in the courts. It also is well written in a style accessible to both a general audience as well as those specifically interested in the field.

Dontrelle Willis Update: The Associated Press reported today that rookie sensation Dontrelle Willis will be on the All Star Game after all, replacing injuried All Star Kevin Brown. Meanwhile, Dodgers fans are gritting their teeth just a bit more, given how their inability to hit will be just that much worse now. The article notes that Willis was originally left off so Kerry Wood could play. As AP points out: "Wood is 9-6 with a 3.19 ERA, while Willis is 8-1 with a 1.98 ERA." The article also says that Dusty Baker apparently suggested at the time the reason why he did not pick DW was because "he had never seen him pitch." If you say so, Dusty.

Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines: Well, I saw the latest Terminator flick. On the whole, it was a bit lame. The movie really gave us nothing new (besides a female villian ... nothing special), had the intelligence level of your average Beavis and Butthead episode (especially removing the pretentious voiceovers), and less action than its predecessors. Claire Danes did not get much of a role as the love interest. She tricks John Connor early on (given his experiences thus far, it didn't take much), but soon enough she is whiny and scared for her life for half of the film. The ending was a blatant cliffhanger ... not even pretending to be the true end of the film, and left something to be desired (to not spoil anything by submitting plot details). Finally, the action level seemed a bit down and the FX did not show much signs of new twists. It went down fairly easily, wasn't boring or anything, and was basically fun ... unless you thought how a summer flick should be a bit better than this.

Open To Ideas, Including From Outside Our Usual Borders: "Americans' ability to draw on ideas from all around the world, synthesize them and integrate them into our lives and our institutions is one of the abiding features of American ingenuity and one of the abiding strengths of American [society]. Something tells we that we will survive the occasional citation of a European court." A few sound words concluding a criticism (citation in my discussion) of the suggestion that a reference to an European Court decision in the Supreme Court's homosexual sodomy opinion was somehow a threat to our sovereignty. It is but one of a line of often passionate criticisms of Supreme Court justices finding international judicial decisions of some relevance to our system. Others can be guided by us, but not us they ... how sadly parochial.

As I note in the linked piece, it is just a piece of an overall xenophobia. For instance, other nations who disagree with us on Iraq are not just mistaken ... they aren't worth our respect. The alternative is a threat to our "sovereignty" ... a "sovereign" is a king. Aren't we over that? Doesn't the Constitution bar titles of nobility partly because of that very fact? I might be stretching here, but the word continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth. It got my notice when a libertarian party candidate suggested removing sovereign immunity so governments too can be sue for wrongs. They would probably appreciate this too ... a piece (with personal commentary) on how blacks need to change directions in the fight for civil rights, including a good deal of personal effort to help build the necessary foundation for success. If Bob Herbert can listen to views libertarians might honor, we can admit that foreigners have something to teach us as well.

Baseball: Tonight was typical of the Mets ... these guys are not ten or so games below .500 for nothing. After coming from behind in the final game and thus sweeping the Reds (first sweep of the season), they lost the first two games vs. the Braves. No shock. Seo had his third bad game ... the game turned on a pair of three run homers (two pitches). The second game was slow water torture. Jason Roach (filling in for Leiter, who surely had the potential to pitch comparably given his year thus far) pitched six, coming within a batter of leaving with a very respectable 3-2 score. The Braves got the home run though, so it was 5-2. The Mets, on the other hand, missed opportunity after opportunity down to the eighth where an error assisted bases loaded situation (one that even upset the usually copacetic Braves pitching coach) ended with a f-ing pathetic grounder back to the pitcher. Bound to happen. Still, even the lowly Devil Rays and Brewers have their days. The Indians tonight one hit the Yanks. The Mets have so few days against good teams ... and not one truly exciting late inning result that I recall. Tonight would not be the first.