PseudoSABR

Trump called it off today. Certainly would make for a spectacle.

Very sad. I'd hesitate to call this a mistake given his personal struggle with this kind of addictive behavior. A mistake would be taking a drink, if his personal struggle posed such a risk; but to put himself in the position of driving, and getting caught driving drunk suggest this might not be the first time. I hope seeks and receives the help he needs. Clubhouse morale couldn't get much lower, unless Allen was part of the problem (which there's no indication of).

I took a look at that Northern Conspiracy angle, as I'm not a book reader (for-shame), and I hadn't heard of it, but boy is it rather convoluted if you haven't read the books. When the Umbers first brought Rikon to Ramsey, I thought they were playing Ramsey, but when Osha was killed I thought: welp, I guess not. But maybe she knew the odds and was a willing assassin. Given that the other houses (Mandalays, etc.) are hardly in the show, and we don't know whether Rob legitimized Jon as his heir, I'm not sure we necessarily need a Northern Conspiracy now that Sansa and Jon are off to rally the troops. Though the North Remembers as a theme is pretty cool if we get to see the Freys and Boltons get theirs. I'm curious what is going on with Blackfish at Riverrun, and if what Baelish told Sansa is actually true. (I worry Breanna is heading for trap (and where is Podrick anyways?)) Petyr misappraised either Sansa or Ramsey, probably both, and I'm don't doubt he has another plan to parlay this outcome to his favor. I worry the Vale army might join the Bolton's... How about that Meera killed a White Walker? Does that confirm the Twin theory? Or was that spear she threw dragon glass (that'd be an unaccounted coincidence, as the show usually let's us know if there's special weapons hanging around). I hope the show is careful with the Bran time-warging around. It could become really convoluted quickly. My reading of the Hodor events, isn't just that Bran warged into past-Hodor to reach present Hodor to hold the door, (although Bran does seem to do this to get Hodor to get over his fear), but rather Bran wargs into past-Hodor so fundamentally that the hold-the-door behavior will exist when the future becomes. I look at interactions with the past as not time-altering but time-confirming. I wonder how the time stuff will play out with the Tower of Joy and the Mad King, as Bran might have had more significant hand in both. As non-book reader, if Benjen turns out to be this Coldhands, it would be hard to swallow given there's been no foreshadow. If Benjen returns, I hope he's just Benjen Stark... (Another aside: After going down the internet abyss last night, I encountered the character Lady Blackhart...wtf? I stopped doing research after I learned her Identity.) From a narrative perspective, GRRM must have had really worked out so much of the character arcs, time-stuff, plot-twists before actually turning his world into prose. Thinking about depth and detail of Hodor's origin and namesake is just narratively impressive.

For sure.

Bernie did work with the GOP on a veteran's bill, but it was defeated. I don't think Sanders would have survived as a politician without having a record of compromise and negotiation. He was a mayor for ten years; I doubt he let the government grind to a halt.

Bernie's criticism is valid in many, many cases. Consensus is not some great cure all. There's a fairly large distinction between an unwillingness to negotiate on the goals/principals, and an unwillingness to negotiate altogether. Negotiation and compromise aren't part of Sanders' platform, that much is true. There are some other candidates that seem to be touting their ability to negotiate and compromise...to what end? I'm not exactly sure.

Don't comprise the goal, comprise on how you get there. Sanders appeal is that he won't back off from specific principles; that's not to say he wouldn't negotiate on a host of specific policies and procedures that wouldn't compromise those principles or undermine such goals.

A Bernie win might end up changing the make up Congress, especially if ends up being a windfall. That's the only way any real legislation would come to pass. Perhaps unlikely, but in the face of governance (or non-governance) as usual, it's an understandable choice for many who are not satisfied with the status quo.

The criticism on Clinton and other Dems is that they start negotiation with a compromise already in hand. That such politicians represent pre-arranged agreements satisfying the elite and special interests all in the name of practicality. Moreover, political compromise is nearly impossible when one of the parties is intractable; I certainly don't thinking cowing to Republicans in the name of getting something done is an asset. The only way anything gets done by either Sanders or Clinton is with a windfall election that constitutes an unwavering mandate. It's understandable why many believe that Sanders is the better vehicle to make that happen. I don't even really know what Clinton is running on exactly, other than not-as-bad-as Republicans and practicality (which sounds a lot like status quo governing to me). For all the criticism that Sanders gets about the lack of nuance in his ideas, Clinton deserves equal criticism for the ineffective messaging on her own policy goals. (I know I could find statements as such on her website etc., but that's hardly the point.) I mean what would a Clinton-mandate actually mandate?

Goddammit give us ten episodes a season, and make two of them. Why do the shows so often split the final season in half? Breaking Bad, Battlestar Gallactica... I think it serves to undercut any real climax...

You can't really believe this, can you? The Twins don't seem to be trashing (as in throwing some one out, or trash talking some one) any of their young players, as disappointed as they might be the results on the field. The early 2000s teams had several star players go up and down their first several years, only to find legitimate and sustained success at some point.

I just take it as a given that the whole system would have to be reformed to institute whatever it is that Bernie is precisely saying.

Bernie might not be the guy to accomplish it, his policies don't show the nuance of addressing the complexity and scope of many of the problems -- that said, the policy goals themselves aren't simply unworkable. Whether it's universal health care, tuition-free education (as opposed to college for everyone), breaking up the banks, etc. are obtainable. The issue isn't so much that we can't do such things, it's a debate about which path we take to get there, and whether we have the political will to accomplish what works against entrenched and powerful private interest. For my part, the difficult barrier to overcome is not necessarily the mechanism to accomplish any one of these policies, but rather the substainable political will to follow those policies through wihtout letting them get muddied up like the Great Society and the ACA did. Bernie is selling a target, not a path; for him, the point of elections is to set goals, not settle the nuance of policy. I think we need an election mandate in support of these kind of policy goals in order to start the engine of generating good practical ideas. I'd prefer trial and error, especially at the state level to test out a variety of schemes, rather than debate on the speculative merits of a given plan (where ideology so often will the line of division). I really don't see what Bernie is proposing as all that radical, impossible or generally terrible in terms of societal goals. In fact, I jive with them. And I'd love to debate the policy in terms of effectiveness, rather than in terms of whether or not to do it...

Five-thirty eight had a pretty even-handed discussion on whether Bernie is hurting Clinton's chances.

Part of package for Jimmy Butler?

I think Sanders wants a substantial role in defining the party platform. If Sanders keeps a float until the convention it will be much more difficult to disavow his socialistic ideals. I think the Democrats have to bring him into the process somehow and it will be interesting to see what that looks like. As impossible as it seems now, I can see him being on the ticket (for perhaps one term?), which might be a pretty mobilizing force. In any case, I hope Clinton doesn't get too clever and pick a VP who tracks to the right of her. I worry she'll go bland and safe. I don't know a lot about Sherrod Brown, but I've heard his name floated, and perhaps he could appease the progressive wing of the party. But some one like Tim Kaine? Bleh.

This is the developmental process. The notion that development happens in straight line with a constant slope isn't born out in reality. It's possible that Berrios mechanics went to crap; that the Twins were wrong in his readiness; that he lost the feel for one of his pitches; that he couldn't take what he was doing in the bullpen sessions to the mound; etc. etc. There exists plenty of reasonable (and likely) explanations for why the Twins promoted Berrios then and demoted him now, mostly having to do with Berrios own performance. (It's the classic pitching prospect paradox: 1) The Twins were wrong to keep Berrios down so long. 2) The Twins were wrong to promote Berrios too soon.) Sometimes prospects get rushed a bit, and the only way to know that often is with the results on the field. As is the case here.

The situation with Meyer, Polanco, and Kepler aren't comparable, as Berrios was actually given a chance. (I wasn't happy about the lack of playing time for any of those guys. That is not the situation here). This is yet another transaction that illustrates confirmation bias. "The Twins are incompetent therefore this move was incompetent." I think painting with so broad a brush leads to poor analysis and obscures what exactly is going on with Berrios. Are there any circumstances where you'd believe sending down Berrios was the right move? If you can't imagine such circumstances, there's no point in having discussion.

I addressed this in my post (the parts that you cropped out). So you think just throwing him out there over and over is the way to do it? The problem wasn't the lack of realistic expectations, the problem is that Berrios pitched horribly. Well below replacement level or what ever reasonable expectation one could have. It's not that Berrios if failing to show poise or to finish people off -- given his total lack of control -- there's probably a mechanical issue. If all Berrios needed to succeed was to calm down, I might agree with you, but I don't think that's all he needs. He needs to work on his mechanics without regard to his own or the team's success or failure, that task is much easier to accomplish in AAA for the countless reasons people have listed above.

Or maybe totally not. The fear of demotion is real; it's not artificially imposed by the club. The Twins aren't rooting against Berrios (which is the implication of your post), and given his early call-up, they obviously believe in him, and wanted him to succeed.

I don't think any one is imposing that on him - I imagine it's self-imposed, as a result of the big league atmosphere and perhaps some immaturity. Is it really so hard to believe that it might be easier to 'practice' and 'tinker' in the minor leagues as opposed the majors? Whether or not there's pressure to 'win', there's certainly added pressure from a variety phenomenon at the big league level. This shouldn't be a contentious point. I think sometimes it's too easy to forget these players are human beings, and the psychology of success is very complex. The notion that you just keeping throwing players who have struggled mightily out there and expect them to get comfortable or develop seems like a sketchy proposition to me.

So much this. Some people here have some troubling notions of player development. Repeated exposure of a struggling prospect is the bluntest of developmental tools. Even Berrios must see that he's not getting the job done; now he can focus on getting himself right without the big league pressure to win.

I think you're conflating the Framer's fear of the populace with the rigors of legislation. The Framers (and let's remember they are diverse and disparate group) didn't intend for obstructionism; although they were cynical of the voting majority. The framers certainly created a rigorous process for bill-passage: bicameralism (needing both houses) and presentment (President's signature), but framers enabled a mere majority of votes in each house for a bill to survive. There are specialized cases where super-majority is necessary to proceed with legislation, but the framers certainly didn't use a super-majority as their baseline. The Framers fear of the populace shows up not in the rigors legislation but in things like the Electoral college and how the Senate was once selected (by state legislators).

Why would the Republicans in Congress be more willing to work with Clinton than Obama on anything resembling a progressive bill? I don't think it particularly matters if it would be Sanders or Clinton, the GOP in Congress will hold the line. The GOP is hardly eager to compromise, Clinton would have to concede more than half way to get them board, likely neutering any progress that could be made. Our best hope is that GOPs margin in the house is very thin, and Clinton wins with a mandate; in that scenario she may be able to push things through Congress in the first six months. But after that, it will be the same ole GOP ballgame.

I think the act of voting can be considered rhetorical, rather than intended to affect the way our government gets stuff done in the short term. The results of the election might not change policy over the next cycle, but it could signal quite a bit about the trajectory of our politics. For better or worse. I think people will be motivated to vote.