PseudoSABR

He's too short.

I think keeping them both is perfectly viable, and in my opinion, ideal. The Twins have unexpected good health in the OF, 1B, and C this year. If the Twins get a good deal for Morneau, you take it, but otherwise it's silly to sell low. He's likely to have much more value at next year's deadline, even if he produces as-is. I think it's more likely Span gets dealt, and Parmelee works his way into a four day week rotation until somebody else gets hurt. With guys like Morneau, Mauer, Willingham, and Doumit on the roster, having an insurance policy like Parmelee is an assett, one we really haven't needed to cash in on this year.

Sure if you want to use Statfreak and Dave as your ying and yang that's a fair criticism. The fact is, most of the time when you are a realist and slightly pessimistic you take a beating for it. I've mistakenly done that after 2010 (Nick) to others too, so I'm not trying to play any games with this. The fact is there are many that always want to see the glass half full. They have noble reasons for doing so, but that doesn't make every pessimistic take wrong. Take this year, we're one of the worst teams in baseball and people are talking about how we can use FA as a silver bullet for contention next year. I want to hope for the best too, but at some point reality should enter the equation. And the reality about this rotation coming into things was that it was likely to be a major problem. Lo and behold, it was. The point is, it didn't take a genius to anticipate problems with the rotation or to know that the Twins would struggle to compete this year. When the team is this crappy, optimism is still pretty bleak. And no one believes a silver bullet FA will help the Twins compete, but if a lot of things break right it's not unimaginable.

I'm going to go ahead and take a giant leap about you and say that you haven't followed a race series in your life, Pseudo. If you like racing, the "atmosphere" is there no matter what you're watching. That's what racing is all about, actually. I don't get NASCAR. One of the most damning things I know about NASCAR is that most of its fans don't watch ANY other kind of racing at all. To me, closely following NASCAR is like watching the RBI race in baseball. To people smarter than a turnip, it just doesn't matter because there's so much more interesting material out there. Yeah, never followed any racing. Not sure I know the difference between NASCAR and other types.

NASCAR as I understand their fans is all about the live show. The festival/tailgate-like atmosphere and the capacity to not pay attention and still root for something evidently is a good time. Though, that bleeds into these people watching the **** on TV which is just strange.

Just two years ago or even before the 2010, the Twins were highly ranked in these kinds of rankings from fangraphs to insider. So take it with a grain of salt and one season can shake up the entire predictive future of a franchise...meh.

The only reason Parmelee hasn't played more is that we've had a lucky amount of health at OF and 1B. That can't be counted on next year. And does it really matter if we have Doumit or Parmelee in RF as long as both are getting plenty at bats.

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko? Just thought that this would be what you all were posting about, and surprised to find you weren't given today's events. Just want to make sure anyone who checks in on this knows that it happened as it was not widely covered by major news networks. If the guy had brought in a Burger King bag I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of beginning a thread here on the shooter at all, just that this shooter happened to be politically motivated, unlike other recent and past shootings, and Chik-fil-a appears to be at the center of those motivations, and here I already knew a chik-fil-a thread was rolling... so there you have all the permutations. Thank goodness you were here last week to put the shooting at the Sikh temple in perspective! Extreme whackos on either side need not enter our thoughtful discourse. Seriously.

E Vasquez with a dominant start for Rochester 7 in no runs 10ks 2BBs

Fast Revere is Fast

When Mitt Romney sits down in front of his computer and registers on Twins Daily, I'll worry about political cheap shots sent across his bow. When you call Mitt Romney immoral for giving to charity your calling me immoral, and I'm going to take that personally. You got that? Or is that to difficult to understand in the era of Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC? I wanted to let this sit a couple days. But no where did I call Romney immoral. I just think he shouldn't get a tax break for donating to his church. Fatbeer inferred this from when I said, "I have nothing against religious people, I have something against moral people." Which is just a generalization, and not specifically targeted at anyone, obviously.

Right, when it's politically convenient, Ryan has no problem spending money. Though I do believe him that he'd gut government spending with an ax.

A deal centered Span and Andrus makes sense for both sides.

Congrats, RP. The the daily dose of GHB did the trick, huh?

Watching Fox News again?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79697.html?hp=t1_3

Same problem with teachers.

non-tendered

So is your position that people are just utterly incompetent and unable to function? I mean holy crap is this a pessimistic view of humanity. There are many that need help, truly need it. I have worked with those people most of my life, I know who they are, and I don't want them to go without their needs. But I also know many people who will do precisely what you make them do for themselves. If you allow them to milk the system, not work, or work half-time - that's precisely what they'll do. I don't believe people will die in the streets if we ask them to provide for themselves. But I won't sit back and watch someone work 40-60 hours a week and be LESS well-off then someone living off the government. Screw your "don't shoot the defenseless bunny" bull**** on that's. It's hopelessly detrimental to a functional society. The problem isn't the amount of money going into social programs - the problem is that we walk into it believing so many people NEED help. If we went in thinking, well, we'll give them a hand and then let them go on their own - we'd be in a much different boat. The reason our current programs don't work is because we don't expect them too - and the mindset you're espousing is precisely why. No one can even suggest that many you suppose "need" help truly don't without you pulling some "woe is everyone" schtick that is obnoxious and dense. Hey, Levi, I really don't disagree with you that people milk the system, that capable people become lazy, that some of us wilt before the hard-won life. I get that. But I'm not so sure tough-love (in fact, tough-negligence) is the solution. How do we get people to try harder? How do we get them to invest in themselves? Well, that's some real hard-won wisdom. I want a plan to take care of the lazy, not leave them out. We can lift the heavy weight of figuring out how to help those with ennui, because it's an honest conclusion to modern life. To ask another way, how much sunk cost is too much for civilization to be civil? My belief is that we really haven't given the weakest among us much of chance. We've been damn cheap in regard to making efficacious social programs and educational institutions. We don't invest in our schools and our communities; instead we seem to hope that some private benefactor might swoop in and save us all. (Swoon!) Again, the free market/private enterprise will not take care of the weakest among us--so what will we do? Are we so callous to give them street and the waiting room ER (which bites us in the butt anyway)? I think we can do better. I agree it will cost us more in the short run, a lot more, but we will benefit by having a skilled lower class, rather than a bitter, job-hopeless class. Again, there simply aren't jobs for such unskilled, near-derelict people to work. That sense of too-good American pride has long since washed away; American middle aged adults are willing to do whatever we ask of them as long as they can pay their bills and retire in non-misery. Under the Ryan plan, we don't even offer them that. Awful. Not completely get rid of them - just put restrictions on them. I'm not on board with many of his ideas, but I appreciate that A) He's not giving us lollipops and He realizes that programs that hand out blank checks (financial aid, medicaid, etc) are not stable going forward. It allows for so much fraud and cost increases it's insane. I'd prefer if he'd address military spending along with tax increases, but at least the man is addressing real issues. I won't punish him politically for that. I'll examine his policies, but I damn sure will at least appreciate political suicide in the name of discussing the real problems. We have far too many platitudes from both sides to not embrace at least that. Some of what you say here makes sense, and I'm on board with. I am down for sensible cuts, only if we don't leave people out. We should fight for the efficacy of Medicare and Social Security, not weaken the basis of their premise; in my view, as an intellectual, as try-hard, as an earner, we must care for people that cannot (or refuse to) care for themselves and pay for it with our hard won dollars; we must not cheapen care to save ourselves a buck we probably don't need. A point of policy: The Vouchers in Ryan's plan and the general idea of Vouchers make me sick. The only way vouchers save the government money is if these vouchers cheapen under the cost of health care. So that 100 dollar Voucher today isn't worth a 100 dollars of health care tomorrow. That's the only way that the system saves money, by cheapening the health care Medicare provides. If you want to make entitlements more inexpensive, let's talk about taking the profits out providing health and housing to the elderly. The problem is that entitlements benefit for-profit enterprise, and obviously, such for-profit enterprises will make it as expensive as they can for programs that MUST exist (the essentially hold a monopoly over gov't, squash the gov'ts bargaining power to zero). It's not these entitlement programs that are the problem, it's the businesses that make profit off them. Is it really such an awful thing that Americans live longer than we intended, and that we must pay more to care for our elderly? We can do this. Even if we must take less of our earnings. We can do this. Let's not be so cheap; let us who have jobs foot the bill to engender a self-sustaining class of Americans. It won't be cheap, but I believe we can do it. That is, if we want to.

I might see you in the third round of the losers bracket. So watch the well-wishes. Does the losers bracket winner get anything? A wreath full of suck, perhaps?

With all due respect, a 35% tax rate is not soaking the rich. If you look at historical income tax rates, you will see that the current rates on top earners are relatively low. I agree with you that raising taxes will be only part of the solution. On the other hand, would you rather see some high earner pay a 50% marginal rate on income over $1 million than see a poor child die because of Medicaid cuts. I wonder what Jesus would say? If only the two sides could compromise. The Republicans could agree to cut corporate welfare (especially weapons procurement and oil company subsidies), the Democrats could agree to cut social programs and both parties could agree to relatively modest tax increases. But this is impossible because some bonehead sleazeball named Grover Norquist has persuaded too many Republicans to sign his pledge never to increase taxes. And even if Jesus sent a meteor down to send Norquist to hell, the special interests who own both parties would never let Congress do the things that would truly bail us out. Liberals and Democrats, generally, are willing to comprise. We want policy over ideology. This is often framed as weakness, and I might agree. I'd personally love to take the moral fight to conservatives; I'd love for them to define decency and corral a sense of ethics. But that's personal. And really not about solutions. Look, we all agree that entitlements and government spending leaves much to be desired; we all want to make such programs efficacious. But doing away altogether with such programs is cowardly and immoral. A bit of patriotism: I don't doubt American ingenuity can find a way to do right by the poor without screwing the working class. Government, as ugly as the word, is a path to doing right by people beyond our selves; yes, we need to hold elected clowns accountable, but we must also give such officials the capacity to do their jobs. There is policy that can be made to help weakest among us live better lives. Personally, I live in near luxury (as is); I can give more, even with my poverty level income. I'm not about giving anyone free rides, but I am about using the excess of my income to help level the playing field for the less fortunate. I'd happily give up my cable (my xbox, my high speed internet, my whatever) if I knew that money was going to push welfare beneficiaries to rebuild our bridges and highways. Heck, we need merely give these tools jobs and the economy would ripen. Honestly, I can't help but feel the conservative blue print is simply to let the less fortunate class die out. I don't see any other agenda. That's it. Old people too expensive. Working class too expensive. Some quick death might cheapen American labor and corporations might reinvest in our country. Oh boy.

Good luck in the playoffs, Mike!

Gotta love the classless left. You people don't know how to hide your true colors. Shame on you. I'm not at all deriding the Mormon Church, I'm suggesting that they are not in a position of need. For instance the Catholic Sisters suggest how immoral the Ryan budget is. I have nothing against religious people, I have something against immoral people.

How do we enforce personal responsibility? How far are you willing to go? People in the streets? Starvation at some halfway house? Duct tape and spit as a safety net? How grizzly should we allow our human ethics grow to teach people this lesson? (Poor people, just try harder! Learn some personal responsibility! Or else!) Assuming you are able bodied and mentally competent I'm willing to go real far. Capable People live in the streets by choice. Go to your nearest church and start sweeping the floors, go to an AA meeting work on your problem and start sweeping the floors, go to a hard working mom and watch her kids, or apply for a job in your area of expertise, taco bell is always hiring. Poor people in this country are rich by all global standards. This is so myopic. There aren't jobs for low-skilled people to work. Compare the number of job listings in the want-ads, to the actual unemployment numbers. I see nothing but middle aged adults working fast food jobs these days (here in Michigan, at least). It's a myth that there's jobs available, and even if there were why isn't there a social program bridging the gap? The free market is not producing enough jobs for low-skilled people, that's the problem. This is what happens when a country loses it's industrious sector. I am open to ideas about how to fix that problem, but I don't buy for a second that lower taxes is part of the solution. It's our labor that's too expensive, not our taxes. No one chooses to live in the streets. Don't be an idiot. No one chooses that life; people might make poor choices leading to such a life, but they didn't choose it. Let's help people make better choices; it's cowardly to just cut and run.

Charitable donations to the Mormon Church don't seem intended for the poor and the weak, and not very charitable after all. The charity provisions in our tax cut are abused by the wealthy to further their private interest and get a tax cut for it; quit acting like that charity money Romney gave was actual used to better benefit us all than him paying taxes.