In a recent letter to the SF Examiner, Becky Evans takes issue with an earlier Examiner article, claiming that "Joel Engardio is well off-base with his screed about parks". Instead, it is Ms. Evans who has the facts wrong. Responding by her bullet points.
1. "The Golden Gate National Recreation Area is a national park".
Wrong. It is a National Recreation Area. There is a difference. As you can see by the list on that page, most NRAs are not even managed by the National Park Service!
2. "San Francisco gave its parks to the GGNRA irrevocably. Period."
Wrong. Proposition F in 1973, says "in perpetuity for recreation or park purposes with a right of reversion upon breach of said restriction". And the The Deed of Transfer for Fort Funston (for example) contains the following clause: "to hold only for so long as said real property is reserved and used for recreation and park purposes". Now, one could argue whether the proposed GGNRA regulations are in breach of said restriction, but the transfer is very clearly revocable.
3. " No one is trying to apply backcountry rules to these parks".
Maybe. But when you go online to see various petitions to restrict off-leash dog walking, they come from organizations like WildEquity, whose mission is "unites the grassroots conservation and environmental justice movements in campaigns that build a healthy and sustainable global community for people and the plants and animals that accompany us on Earth". Nothing about recreation there. Or from the Center for Biological Diversity, which "works through science, law and creative media to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction." Again, nothing about recreation. Becky Evans is a chairwoman and spokesperson for the Sierra Club. Nothing wrong with any of that, but these are all groups with primary goals of wilderness (er, one has "Wild" in it's name, duh) and species preservation. Laudable goals, but yes, they are bringing "back-countryish" rules to the GGNRA.
4. "The GGNRA is one of 401 units of the Park Service, and no matter what the name of the park, they are all bound by the same regulations.".
Wrong. Do a quick Google search for "national park special regulations", and you'll find a lot. Two early hits were a special regulation for winter tours in Yellowstone, and another that authorizes limited off-road vehicle use at Cape Hatteras. The National Park Service clearly does have different regulations for different areas.
5. "The Park Service is trying to work out a special regulation for the GGNRA which would give dogs more freedom than in other national parks..."
Stop right there. First, this contradicts her claim in #4 that they all have the same regulations. Proving my rebuttal to her! Second, and more importantly, GGNRA is not a National Park. As for the "more freedom", what GGNRA is trying to do is give dogs far less freedom than they have had in the past.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Friday, October 11, 2013
In MLB Playoffs, team payrolls matter
Here's a link to 2013 MLB team payrolls.
As for making the playoffs, if you include both wildcard teams, we had teams ranked 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, and 28 (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Reds, Braves, Indians, Pirates, Athletics, and Rays) make the playoffs. This is an average of 15.8, almost exactly in the middle. Five teams from the upper half and five from the lower half made the playoffs. So, to a first approximation, team payroll was not correlated with the regular season, i.e. making the playoffs.
But, moving on into the second round, the League Championship Series, we have the Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers and Cardinals: teams 2, 4, 5, and 12. All teams in the top half of payroll. So far in 2013, there is perfect correlation between the highest payroll and getting to the next round of the playoffs.
How about 2012? Here's are the payrolls. And, in case you have forgotten, here's what happened last year. The teams making the playoffs were ranked 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30. Six teams from the top half, four from the bottom. An average of 12.8. So payroll was very slightly correlated in 2012. But, as for success, the teams making the final four were ranked 1, 5, 6, 9. Again, all teams in the top half of payroll. (#5 and #6 ended up in the World Series).
I attribute this to the nature of the layoffs, where big stars become more important. Especially, in a 5 game series, expensive star pitchers, who, with the breaks between games, can appear two times. Two years in a row Justin Verlander has earned his $20 million a year salary vs. the Athletics. He's a great pitcher, a likely Hall of Famer. This year, he was greatly aided by Max Scherzer ($6.7 M), Victor Martinez ($13 M), with help from Prince Fielder ($23 M) and Miguel Cabrera ($21 M). These are all great players. Throw in a key homerun by Jhonny Peralta ($6 M) and you are at nearly $90 million dollars, which is close to the median payroll for an entire MLB team.
As for making the playoffs, if you include both wildcard teams, we had teams ranked 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 23, 26, 27, and 28 (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers, Cardinals, Reds, Braves, Indians, Pirates, Athletics, and Rays) make the playoffs. This is an average of 15.8, almost exactly in the middle. Five teams from the upper half and five from the lower half made the playoffs. So, to a first approximation, team payroll was not correlated with the regular season, i.e. making the playoffs.
But, moving on into the second round, the League Championship Series, we have the Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers and Cardinals: teams 2, 4, 5, and 12. All teams in the top half of payroll. So far in 2013, there is perfect correlation between the highest payroll and getting to the next round of the playoffs.
How about 2012? Here's are the payrolls. And, in case you have forgotten, here's what happened last year. The teams making the playoffs were ranked 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 30. Six teams from the top half, four from the bottom. An average of 12.8. So payroll was very slightly correlated in 2012. But, as for success, the teams making the final four were ranked 1, 5, 6, 9. Again, all teams in the top half of payroll. (#5 and #6 ended up in the World Series).
I attribute this to the nature of the layoffs, where big stars become more important. Especially, in a 5 game series, expensive star pitchers, who, with the breaks between games, can appear two times. Two years in a row Justin Verlander has earned his $20 million a year salary vs. the Athletics. He's a great pitcher, a likely Hall of Famer. This year, he was greatly aided by Max Scherzer ($6.7 M), Victor Martinez ($13 M), with help from Prince Fielder ($23 M) and Miguel Cabrera ($21 M). These are all great players. Throw in a key homerun by Jhonny Peralta ($6 M) and you are at nearly $90 million dollars, which is close to the median payroll for an entire MLB team.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
ESPN Sweetspot is missing some good baseball
During the baseball season I follow the blogs / articles on ESPN's Sweetspot. They are usually interesting and sometimes informative. And, unlike most of ESPN, they seemed less focused on the New York, Boston and Los Angeles media markets.
Their MLB playoff coverage has relapsed. As of today, Oct 8th, the playoff coverage (besides generic articles covering all the matchups) has six articles on the Dodgers/Braves Series:
Their MLB playoff coverage has relapsed. As of today, Oct 8th, the playoff coverage (besides generic articles covering all the matchups) has six articles on the Dodgers/Braves Series:
- Where's Craig Kimbrel?
- Good move by Mattingly to start Kershaw
- Hanley great, Braves awful, Fredi messes up
- Braves-Dodgers: Managers key in Game 3
- Heyward delivers after Mattingly mistake
- Underrated McCann's last game in Atlanta?
There are three articles on the Sox/Rays Series:
- Rays pull out another must-win victory
- David Price ignores fact that nerds help him
- Lackey's remarkable Red Sox renaissance
There are two articles on Cards/Bucs:
and one whole article on Tigers/As:
I'm frankly surprised that Hollywood has takes over from ESPN's previous favorite Boston so quickly.
Can you explain this biased coverage by the quality of the games? Was the Dodger's/Braves series incredibly compelling. No. Two of the games were close, but two were blowouts. Did some player do something amazing? Not really - as you can tell by the article titles, a lot of the talk was about the managers. Ryu, who had a good regular season, disappointed on the national stage. Sweetspot needed some excuse to talk about Hollywood and came up with them. Need I add that the Dodgers "developed" most of their team with brute money, not skill?
Has the #2 rated series, Sox/Rays been compelling? Sortof. Game three was exciting, decided by a walkoff, well worthy of comment. Game two was pretty good, game one was a slaughter.
The Bucs/Cards series has been compelling. The first two games were slaughters, but each team took a win to Pittsburgh, where two close and exciting games went down to the wire. And the whole story of Pittsburgh being in the playoffs for the first time in 20 years is compelling. These are two very good teams who didn't buy all their players.
The series they haven't really covered, As/Tigers, has been the most compelling. Game three was pretty good and had some fireworks. Games one and two were incredible tense playoff baseball, each decided by one run, featuring awesome pitching performances by Max Scherzer (likely Cy Young), Justin Verlander (no introduction necessary) and rookie Sonny Gray who out-pitched Verlander and matched the exploits of Hall of Famer Chief Bender from over a century ago, 1910. None of these pitching performances has been mentioned on Sweetspot. None. I repeat, Scherzer and Verlander each going 7 strong innings and striking out a small city - unmentioned. A rookie matching a Hall of Famer from over a century past - ignored. Though the Tigers offense is struggling, many As position players have had good offensive or defensive plays. Not mentioned.
Not a shock from ESPN, but I'm calling BS.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
How much is hard work rewarded in Rotissery Baseball?
I just completed my 2nd year in a competitive rotisserie 5x5 baseball league as co-owner of the SF Marauders. After leading for a couple of months in the middle of the year, we finished a solid third.
This league is a good test bed to try to estimate how important daily moves and work are to maintain your team. Because we had one team manager, the Jolly Jayhawks, who spends a lot of time on fantasy baseball, making moves basically every day, as he was researching matchups and streaming a starting pitcher almost every day. Another team, the Los Angeles Sad Pandas, paid no attention all year, making no trades, no drops or pickups, nor, as best as I can tell, did he even make internal moves to correct for players on the DL, starters who needed to be put in, etc. In effect, "his" team, including, so far as I know, the Draft, was entirely computer driven. And for my team, the SF Marauders, most of the time I was pretty active, but was away on a long vacation for nearly two months (August and September) with limited internet access.
In a rotisserie league with ten teams, each earning scores of 1-10 on 10 categories, the average score for a team should be 55. How did the three teams fare?
Jolly Jayhawks won the league and ended up with a phenomenal 85.5, 30 points above average. Is constant work is worth +30? If we break that down by month, one could argue that constant, smart, savvy work on your roto team is worth about 5 points a month, or about 1 point a week. The second place team, the Pac Bell Bombers, was also quite active and finished with 82 points, roughly supporting this calculation.
The completely inactive Sad Pandas did end up last, at 23 points. 32 points below average. Again, roughly 5 points a month. Now, part of the blame probably lies in his initial draft, since this particular league (and the managers) places less emphasis on starting pitchers and more on relievers than the computer AI seems to understand. The Sad Pandas have way too many starters and zero relievers to fare well in our league. Pulling a number somewhat out of my butt, let's ascribe -8 points to his lousy draft. He should have ended up at 31, -24 off average, for a net loss due to neglect of -4 a month, or -1 a week.
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get the ESPN site to show me some graph of the standings over time to find out exactly how my team did during my vacation. But, based on memory, the Marauders dropped from the high 70s to the low 70s. (After my return, we rallied in the final weeks to get back to 75.5) Let's say a net loss of 6, or 3 a month. Now, I did have some internet access, so if we call my activities "50% active", you come up with a loss of 6 a month for complete inactivity. Not far from the 4 and 5 above.
In conclusion, it appears that continuous, smart, high activity in a roto league is worth about 5 points a month, relative to "average activity". Complete inactivity costs about the same, 4 points a month. And the difference between high activity and complete inactivity is nearly 10 points a month. These results are based upon a very small sample size of one league, so take them with a huge grain of salt!
This league is a good test bed to try to estimate how important daily moves and work are to maintain your team. Because we had one team manager, the Jolly Jayhawks, who spends a lot of time on fantasy baseball, making moves basically every day, as he was researching matchups and streaming a starting pitcher almost every day. Another team, the Los Angeles Sad Pandas, paid no attention all year, making no trades, no drops or pickups, nor, as best as I can tell, did he even make internal moves to correct for players on the DL, starters who needed to be put in, etc. In effect, "his" team, including, so far as I know, the Draft, was entirely computer driven. And for my team, the SF Marauders, most of the time I was pretty active, but was away on a long vacation for nearly two months (August and September) with limited internet access.
In a rotisserie league with ten teams, each earning scores of 1-10 on 10 categories, the average score for a team should be 55. How did the three teams fare?
Jolly Jayhawks won the league and ended up with a phenomenal 85.5, 30 points above average. Is constant work is worth +30? If we break that down by month, one could argue that constant, smart, savvy work on your roto team is worth about 5 points a month, or about 1 point a week. The second place team, the Pac Bell Bombers, was also quite active and finished with 82 points, roughly supporting this calculation.
The completely inactive Sad Pandas did end up last, at 23 points. 32 points below average. Again, roughly 5 points a month. Now, part of the blame probably lies in his initial draft, since this particular league (and the managers) places less emphasis on starting pitchers and more on relievers than the computer AI seems to understand. The Sad Pandas have way too many starters and zero relievers to fare well in our league. Pulling a number somewhat out of my butt, let's ascribe -8 points to his lousy draft. He should have ended up at 31, -24 off average, for a net loss due to neglect of -4 a month, or -1 a week.
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get the ESPN site to show me some graph of the standings over time to find out exactly how my team did during my vacation. But, based on memory, the Marauders dropped from the high 70s to the low 70s. (After my return, we rallied in the final weeks to get back to 75.5) Let's say a net loss of 6, or 3 a month. Now, I did have some internet access, so if we call my activities "50% active", you come up with a loss of 6 a month for complete inactivity. Not far from the 4 and 5 above.
In conclusion, it appears that continuous, smart, high activity in a roto league is worth about 5 points a month, relative to "average activity". Complete inactivity costs about the same, 4 points a month. And the difference between high activity and complete inactivity is nearly 10 points a month. These results are based upon a very small sample size of one league, so take them with a huge grain of salt!
Monday, September 23, 2013
Josh Donaldson deserves the 2013 AL MVP
The Sweetspot Blog has 5 posts about why the MVP award should go to Miguel Cabrera, Mike Trout, Chris Davis, Josh Donaldson and Robinson Cano. Interesting reading.
I was impressed at just how well Josh Donaldson has played this year. He has the beat WAR of any player on a playoff team:
Baseball Reference WAR leaders: Trout 9.1, Donaldson 8.1, Cano 7.4, Cabrera 7.3, Davis 6.1.
FanGraphs WAR leaders: Trout 10.2, Donaldson 7.7, Cabrera 7.7, Davis 6.4, Cano 6.0.
If one believes MVP is or the best player in baseball, Trout deserves it. If one believes that MVP is tied to team performance, Trout is out. If so, then Josh Donaldson deserves it.
BTW, here is what the letter to the MVP voters says:
I was impressed at just how well Josh Donaldson has played this year. He has the beat WAR of any player on a playoff team:
Baseball Reference WAR leaders: Trout 9.1, Donaldson 8.1, Cano 7.4, Cabrera 7.3, Davis 6.1.
FanGraphs WAR leaders: Trout 10.2, Donaldson 7.7, Cabrera 7.7, Davis 6.4, Cano 6.0.
If one believes MVP is or the best player in baseball, Trout deserves it. If one believes that MVP is tied to team performance, Trout is out. If so, then Josh Donaldson deserves it.
BTW, here is what the letter to the MVP voters says:
Dear Voter:
There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.
The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931:
1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense.
2. Number of games played.
3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort.
4. Former winners are eligible.
5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team.
You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration.Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, including pitchers and designated hitters.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Seton Medical Center makes a great investment.
Seton Medical Center donates large amounts of money supporting San Mateo County Measure A bond measure last Fall. I've read elsewhere that the total was more like $1.5 million
San Mateo County just gave $11.5 million to Seton. That's better than a 700% return on investment.
Who says that crime, er, legalized bribery, doesn't pay? O.K., that's a bit harsh.
I (and my family) have used Seton for some medical issues, and it would be great to keep it active in the community, and there were some definite financial issues, but this doesn't seem right. Am I out of line here?
San Mateo County just gave $11.5 million to Seton. That's better than a 700% return on investment.
Who says that crime, er, legalized bribery, doesn't pay? O.K., that's a bit harsh.
I (and my family) have used Seton for some medical issues, and it would be great to keep it active in the community, and there were some definite financial issues, but this doesn't seem right. Am I out of line here?
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
My vote for new Royal Baby name
Alfred.
Arguably the greatest English King.
After a thousand years we can forgive him for being a Saxon, right?
Arguably the greatest English King.
After a thousand years we can forgive him for being a Saxon, right?
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
San Jose vs. MLB, and a Math Puzzle
In a nutshell, I say bully for San Jose. MLB and the SF Giants are using MLB's monopoly powers to restrain the commerce of the Athletics and San Jose. With rare exceptions, this should be illegal. And keeping the As in Oakland is also bad for baseball. The As would be more competitive, and would drain less revenue sharing money, if they were in San Jose. With the possible exception of the Giants, everybody wins. And I think even they would come out slightly ahead.
But I'm writing in response to a post on Hardball Times which describes the pace of Bud Selig's Special Committee as "snail-like". That is overly generous.
If you Google the speed of a snail, you get a few answers. Here were my top hits.
Infoplease says 0.03 MPH, which is 13 millimeters (mm) per second.
Speedofanimals says about 1 millimeter per second.
Wikipedia also says 1 millimeter per second (which converts to 0.002 MPH)
Arnobrosi has several answers, combining all the above, plus a few notes from actual snail racers, which come in at around 3 millimeters per second.
So we have a range of speeds over an order of magnitude, between 1mm/sec and 13mm/sec.
MLB has been "studying" the move for four years. A year is 31557600 seconds. Let's round down to 3*10^7. So our snail, in four years, can cover somewhere between 12*10^7 mm, (at the slowest speed of 1 mm/sec) up to 156*10^7mm (at 13mm/sec)
Google Maps says that the driving distance between Hegenberger Road in Oakland (site of their current stadium) and downtown San Jose (proposed new site) is 33.9 miles. That converts to 54.56 kilometers. Let's round up to 55 km.
Now that everything is in metric, the final math is easier. A km is 10^6 mm.
Our fastest snail, the 13mm/sec one, can cover 1560 km in those four years. It could do 14 round trips between Oakland and San Jose!
Even our slowest snail. the 1mm/sec one, can cover 120 km in those four years. It could travel from Oakland to San Jose and back with plenty of time to grab a hot dog and beer.
In conclusion, MLB's pace has not been "snail-like". It has been far slower than even the slowest snail.
But I'm writing in response to a post on Hardball Times which describes the pace of Bud Selig's Special Committee as "snail-like". That is overly generous.
If you Google the speed of a snail, you get a few answers. Here were my top hits.
Infoplease says 0.03 MPH, which is 13 millimeters (mm) per second.
Speedofanimals says about 1 millimeter per second.
Wikipedia also says 1 millimeter per second (which converts to 0.002 MPH)
Arnobrosi has several answers, combining all the above, plus a few notes from actual snail racers, which come in at around 3 millimeters per second.
So we have a range of speeds over an order of magnitude, between 1mm/sec and 13mm/sec.
MLB has been "studying" the move for four years. A year is 31557600 seconds. Let's round down to 3*10^7. So our snail, in four years, can cover somewhere between 12*10^7 mm, (at the slowest speed of 1 mm/sec) up to 156*10^7mm (at 13mm/sec)
Google Maps says that the driving distance between Hegenberger Road in Oakland (site of their current stadium) and downtown San Jose (proposed new site) is 33.9 miles. That converts to 54.56 kilometers. Let's round up to 55 km.
Now that everything is in metric, the final math is easier. A km is 10^6 mm.
Our fastest snail, the 13mm/sec one, can cover 1560 km in those four years. It could do 14 round trips between Oakland and San Jose!
Even our slowest snail. the 1mm/sec one, can cover 120 km in those four years. It could travel from Oakland to San Jose and back with plenty of time to grab a hot dog and beer.
In conclusion, MLB's pace has not been "snail-like". It has been far slower than even the slowest snail.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Even if NSA Phone Tapping were legal, which it's not, it's a terrible idea
The NSA Phone metadata program is an overly broad, non-specific, and non-expiring search program. Just like a Writ of Assistance. Which is precisely why we have the 4th Amendment. How can any constitutional scholar, elected official, or judge think otherwise?
Also, even if this were legal, it's a terrible idea. It's trivial to imagine scenarios where this information could be used to manipulate or blackmail Americans. And where is the whistleblower, Edward Snowden, now? Apparently in Hong Kong.
Imagine if this metadata got into the hands of a foreign government, drug cartel, or terrorist group. They could blackmail defense contractors, border guards, or guards at power plants.
As for the inane argument that if you weren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide:
Monday, June 10, 2013
Impeach Eric Holder
In testimony before Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder recently admitted to Senator Mark Kirk that the Executive Branch is spying on the Legislature and the Judiciary. In reference to the recent Verizon / phone records expose:
Kirk: “Can you assure us no members of the Capitol building were monitored?”
Now, the only correct response is "Hell no".
Instead, Holder replied "With all due respect, senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue."
That's a yes.
Kirk followed up with: “I would hope we get absolute assurance no Supreme Court justice is involved in this Verizon thing.”
Holder replied: “there was no intention to do anything of that nature to spy on members of Congress or members of the Supreme Court,”
Which means that they were spied on. Which is immediate grounds for impeachment.
Kirk: “Can you assure us no members of the Capitol building were monitored?”
Now, the only correct response is "Hell no".
Instead, Holder replied "With all due respect, senator, I don’t think this is an appropriate setting for me to discuss that issue."
That's a yes.
Kirk followed up with: “I would hope we get absolute assurance no Supreme Court justice is involved in this Verizon thing.”
Holder replied: “there was no intention to do anything of that nature to spy on members of Congress or members of the Supreme Court,”
Which means that they were spied on. Which is immediate grounds for impeachment.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
My Letter to The Economist (they didn't publish it)
SIR: In Down to Earth you write that "Some of the best minds of this generation" are Investment Bankers. Are these the same geniuses described later in Spring Break? First, they run a transparent scam to fleece tax collectors. Clever, but far from rocket science, ( an "odd ritual") and of zero benefit to society.
But then, they get really clever. Most people holding a huge loan that needed to be repaid within a week would put it someplace exceedingly safe. No, not the "best minds" at AIG. They invested in risky and illiquid bonds. Actually, worse than invested. They leveraged the risk: "used the cash it accumulated as collateral to invest in risky and illiquid mortgage bonds." What could possibly go wrong? How could the "best minds" miss the risks? When it tanked, all at a cost of $182 Billion to U.S. taxpayers.
Sorry, these are not "best minds". Best minds invent, discover, or develop things of benefit to mankind. These bankers have irresponsible antisocial criminal minds scheming to get rich quick while fleecing the rest of us.
Sincerely,
Morgan Conrad
Montara, California
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
This is not a Spin Doctor, this is a Spin Nobel Prize for the New York Times
Check out the headline, White House Pushes to Revive Legislation Protecting Reporters.
After his own Justice Department trampled the First Amendment by seizing AP phone records, today the administration, including Eric Holder, who supposedly runs the Justice Department, proposed a revival of the "Free Flow of Information Act".
BTW, the headline isn't coming from the White House. It's coming from their house organ, the New York Times, which has proven to be in complete alliance with the White House throughout the recent scandals.
After his own Justice Department trampled the First Amendment by seizing AP phone records, today the administration, including Eric Holder, who supposedly runs the Justice Department, proposed a revival of the "Free Flow of Information Act".
BTW, the headline isn't coming from the White House. It's coming from their house organ, the New York Times, which has proven to be in complete alliance with the White House throughout the recent scandals.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
The Freedom to Receive NO Information Act
The ACLU recently filed a Freedom of Information Act requesting government policies pertaining to text messages. The response was fifteen pages, entirely redacted. Yes, you heard that right, entirely redacted.
ABC News Article
NY Times Article
ABC News Article
NY Times Article
Friday, May 10, 2013
GGNRA reveals it priorities
A recent letter (and reply) in the Half Moon Bay Review, concerning the GGNRA's recent anti-dog policies, (here's a recent and fairly balanced article) is revealing. The GGNRA reply says
You can rest assured that there are many many more dog owners that horse owners. But, apparently, the horse owners, who are much more organized, have figured out which government officials to bribe with campaign donations.
The decisions to temporarily permit or restrict areas for dogs until the Dog Management Plan is complete were based primarily on conversations with the equestrian community regarding conflicts between horses and dogs...I'm sorry, I have no issues with the local equestrian community, indeed, some of my close friends are equestrians :-) , but why the heck do equestrians take the primary lead in determining dog policy??? That's even more insane that the actual dog policies.
You can rest assured that there are many many more dog owners that horse owners. But, apparently, the horse owners, who are much more organized, have figured out which government officials to bribe with campaign donations.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Our Government isn't just wasting money, it's deliberately spending it to buy votes.
Last Friday's New Your Times had a lengthy article "U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination". It described how many Hispanic and female farmers had claimed bias by federal loan officers, and the US Department of Justice had been successful in defending against almost every claim, including cases at the Supreme Court.
But then they gave in to the tune of $1.33 billion. This is more than double the air traffic controllers expenses recently "fixed" by Congress. And the total will probably rise, and could top $4.4 billion. It sure feels like a political payout to groups (Hispanics and women) that the Democrats are courting. Oh yeah - law firms. And the article supports my gut feeling.
In something of a surprise to me, since the New York Times certainly leans left, their analysis was blunt. My favorite quote is "“You couldn't have designed it worse if you had tried.” But below are more. It's a long article, please read it, but below are some highlights. Italics are mine for emphasis, and words in brackets are added for clarification. Note that some of the quotes concern the earlier case where African-American farmers had claimed and won bias.
But then they gave in to the tune of $1.33 billion. This is more than double the air traffic controllers expenses recently "fixed" by Congress. And the total will probably rise, and could top $4.4 billion. It sure feels like a political payout to groups (Hispanics and women) that the Democrats are courting. Oh yeah - law firms. And the article supports my gut feeling.
In something of a surprise to me, since the New York Times certainly leans left, their analysis was blunt. My favorite quote is "“You couldn't have designed it worse if you had tried.” But below are more. It's a long article, please read it, but below are some highlights. Italics are mine for emphasis, and words in brackets are added for clarification. Note that some of the quotes concern the earlier case where African-American farmers had claimed and won bias.
the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court.
despite the vehement objections — until now undisclosed — of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud.
an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees
Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination.
Delton Wright, a Pine Bluff justice of the peace, recalled what happened after word of the settlement reached his impoverished region: “It just went wild. Some people took the money who didn’t even have a garden in the ground.” He added, “They didn’t make it hard at all, and that’s why people jumped on it.”
Claimants described how, at packed meetings, lawyers’ aides would fill out forms for them on the spot, sometimes supplying answers “to keep the line moving,” as one put it.
In 16 ZIP codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.
nearly everyone in two adjoining apartment buildings had filed
Mr. Boyd said Mr. Obama’s support [of the settlement] led him to throw the backing of his 109,000-member black farmers’ association behind the Obama presidential primary campaign.
[A quote from one government expert, professor Gordon Rausser] "It was simply buying the support of the Native-Americans."Anyway, please read the article and reach your own conclusions. And maybe $4 billion is small potatoes in out immense deficit, but the entire year-long sequester that is causing a lot of grief is only $85 billion.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Fantasy Draft Results 2013
We just held the draft for our 10 team, head to head points league. In a points league, scoring is quite different than the more traditional Rotissery 5x5 league, as explained here in a summary of an ESPN points mock. We use nearly the same points as they do, with 12 starts allowed per week. We also have a limit of 5 transactions per week, which limits the ability to stream pitchers.
My general strategy is to draft at least seven good pitchers, and focus on power and on base percentage in hitters. I typically delay / punt on saves, picking up a couple of late round, mid-quality closers. For this year, I also decided to delay on catcher and middle infield positions. Catcher is quite deep this year, especially in our 1 catcher league. And middle infield is pretty week overall - with a few exceptions (Cano, Tulo) the points difference between a good one (e.g. Brandon Phillips) and a late round one isn't all that large. I'd rather get the big boppers in the OF and corner infield. I live in the SF Bay Area and am a huge As fan, and a big Giants fan, so I like drafting a few of them, and avoid Yankees, Angels, and Dodgers.
Our league is half fun and half competitive. A few of the teams were on autodraft, which made things interesting. You knew that some players were unlikely to make it to you the next round cause the auto-drafters might get them. But a couple of the autodrafters had modified their list, in particular, it was clear that Mommy Monsters (henceforth M-M), last year's champion, had done a great job (IMO) arranging their list. Most of the players were drafting live. Displaced Braves Fan (BRVS), SF Marauders (SFM) and I seem to have similar tastes. I had the #1 pick, which means that I have a very long wait between picks, then get to pick two. This gives a long time to plan ahead, which I liked. But you also have to look pretty far ahead. If somebody you like is in the next 20 players, they are likely to be gone, so sometimes you have to reach to get them. In my summary I goupr by my pairs of picks.
Round 1: I briefly considered Cano, and happily picked Cabrera. Cano went #2 to M-M. The rest went largely as one might expect.
Rounds 2,3: I was targeting Price or King Felix, but was surprised that Stanton fell so far. He was rated #11 IIRC, which might be a bit high with such a weak team around him. I grabbed Price, thought a bit, and decided that Stanton was a steal at #21. EE, one of my 1B targets, went next to M-M.
Rounds 4,5: Billy Butler, one of my 1B targets, went to Falcons. I like Wonderbolts pick of Harper at #30. I didn't expect Cain or Hamels to fall this far, and they didn't. But Ben Zobrist did. He takes walks and scores well in our system, rating as a top SS and 2B, plus a decent OF. With this flexibility, he was worth breaking my "wait on MI" strategy. I considered CC and Yu, but settled on Zobrist and Gio Gonzalez. M-M took CC right after.
Rounds 6,7: Three OF I had targeted, Holliday, Cespedes, and Gordon were picked before me this round. I'm not a big fan of the next tier, guys like Bourn, Jennings. I considered Austin Jackson, then went with two more great pitchers, Bumgarner and Greinke. M-M took Jackson right after! It was pretty eerie how her autopick was reading my mind. :-)
Rounds 8,9: With EE off the board, I was considering Allen Craig, Goldschmidt and Freeman for 1B, and Medlin or Moore for SP. But Saf Runs, SFM and BRVS took three of them, so I took Moore and Freeman.
Rounds 10,11: Many of the top relievers were picked just ahead of me this round, e.g. Papelbon, Motte, Rodney. One of them would have been interesting. I though long and hard about Granderson. How long will he be on the DL and how good will he be when he returns? I considered Mo Rivera and Ian Kennedy. Finally, did a bit of a reach for two of my targets, Brett Anderson and Beltran.
Rounds 12,13: M-M grabbed Swisher just ahead of me, and way ahead of his ranking! I thought long and hard about Lincecum, who had dropped a lot from his "ranking". Eventually picked Anibel Sanchez and Konerko. M-M picked Adam LaRoche, another guy "on my list".
Rounds 14,15: Lincecum and Jarrod Parker were gone. Considered Romo and Holland as closers. Went with Morse and Hudson.
Rounds 16,17: Two hometown picks that made sense, Reddick and Balfour. I have a quality closer, and my major hitters are in place.
Rounds 18,19: Nerds picked Moustakis, and SFM took Vogelsong, two guys I considered. Time to fill in MI and C, with two late round picks I think will work out well: Simmons and M. Montero.
Rounds 20,21: Aoki and a second closer, Grilli. SFM picked Cuddyer, and Underdogs picked Morales, two guys I was considering here.
Rounds 22,23: Profar for MI made sense. Our league added a second Utility spot this year, and I wasn't sure how many boppers would last, so I reached for Brandon Moss. In retrospect, this is one pick I'd change, to pick Wilhelsen instead. Hopefully for me and the As Moss will continue his breakout from last year, but it's risky.
Rounds 24,25: Adam Dunn for Util made sense. Our league doesn't count batting average. Round 25 became the "hot prospect" round. I took Gyorko, M-M picked Eaton, and Obey the Pug took Wil Myers. At the end of the year we will see who guessed the best.
Rounds 26,27,28: Here we are mainly filling in depth and guessing on prospects. I like my picks of Shelby Miller, Rutledge, and Carpenter, but it's all a gamble down here.
Summary: Like my eight starters, plus Miller, and my batters. Wish I had one more reliever, but they come and go during the year. Should be able to pick one up, or else pick up a good setup man for a few points. I probably have one too many hitters on the bench, but right now it isn't clear who should go. It will depend on how they perform and who gets hurt. If Matt Carpenter sticks, between him and Zobrist I have a ton of positional flexibility. Especially if Carpenter gains 2B eligibility and Gyorko 3B. I have a few older players (Hudson, Konerko, Beltran, Dunn) who need monitoring for injuries and decline, but most of the team is young.
Should be a fun year!
My general strategy is to draft at least seven good pitchers, and focus on power and on base percentage in hitters. I typically delay / punt on saves, picking up a couple of late round, mid-quality closers. For this year, I also decided to delay on catcher and middle infield positions. Catcher is quite deep this year, especially in our 1 catcher league. And middle infield is pretty week overall - with a few exceptions (Cano, Tulo) the points difference between a good one (e.g. Brandon Phillips) and a late round one isn't all that large. I'd rather get the big boppers in the OF and corner infield. I live in the SF Bay Area and am a huge As fan, and a big Giants fan, so I like drafting a few of them, and avoid Yankees, Angels, and Dodgers.
Our league is half fun and half competitive. A few of the teams were on autodraft, which made things interesting. You knew that some players were unlikely to make it to you the next round cause the auto-drafters might get them. But a couple of the autodrafters had modified their list, in particular, it was clear that Mommy Monsters (henceforth M-M), last year's champion, had done a great job (IMO) arranging their list. Most of the players were drafting live. Displaced Braves Fan (BRVS), SF Marauders (SFM) and I seem to have similar tastes. I had the #1 pick, which means that I have a very long wait between picks, then get to pick two. This gives a long time to plan ahead, which I liked. But you also have to look pretty far ahead. If somebody you like is in the next 20 players, they are likely to be gone, so sometimes you have to reach to get them. In my summary I goupr by my pairs of picks.
Round 1: I briefly considered Cano, and happily picked Cabrera. Cano went #2 to M-M. The rest went largely as one might expect.
Rounds 2,3: I was targeting Price or King Felix, but was surprised that Stanton fell so far. He was rated #11 IIRC, which might be a bit high with such a weak team around him. I grabbed Price, thought a bit, and decided that Stanton was a steal at #21. EE, one of my 1B targets, went next to M-M.
Rounds 4,5: Billy Butler, one of my 1B targets, went to Falcons. I like Wonderbolts pick of Harper at #30. I didn't expect Cain or Hamels to fall this far, and they didn't. But Ben Zobrist did. He takes walks and scores well in our system, rating as a top SS and 2B, plus a decent OF. With this flexibility, he was worth breaking my "wait on MI" strategy. I considered CC and Yu, but settled on Zobrist and Gio Gonzalez. M-M took CC right after.
Rounds 6,7: Three OF I had targeted, Holliday, Cespedes, and Gordon were picked before me this round. I'm not a big fan of the next tier, guys like Bourn, Jennings. I considered Austin Jackson, then went with two more great pitchers, Bumgarner and Greinke. M-M took Jackson right after! It was pretty eerie how her autopick was reading my mind. :-)
Rounds 8,9: With EE off the board, I was considering Allen Craig, Goldschmidt and Freeman for 1B, and Medlin or Moore for SP. But Saf Runs, SFM and BRVS took three of them, so I took Moore and Freeman.
Rounds 10,11: Many of the top relievers were picked just ahead of me this round, e.g. Papelbon, Motte, Rodney. One of them would have been interesting. I though long and hard about Granderson. How long will he be on the DL and how good will he be when he returns? I considered Mo Rivera and Ian Kennedy. Finally, did a bit of a reach for two of my targets, Brett Anderson and Beltran.
Rounds 12,13: M-M grabbed Swisher just ahead of me, and way ahead of his ranking! I thought long and hard about Lincecum, who had dropped a lot from his "ranking". Eventually picked Anibel Sanchez and Konerko. M-M picked Adam LaRoche, another guy "on my list".
Rounds 14,15: Lincecum and Jarrod Parker were gone. Considered Romo and Holland as closers. Went with Morse and Hudson.
Rounds 16,17: Two hometown picks that made sense, Reddick and Balfour. I have a quality closer, and my major hitters are in place.
Rounds 18,19: Nerds picked Moustakis, and SFM took Vogelsong, two guys I considered. Time to fill in MI and C, with two late round picks I think will work out well: Simmons and M. Montero.
Rounds 20,21: Aoki and a second closer, Grilli. SFM picked Cuddyer, and Underdogs picked Morales, two guys I was considering here.
Rounds 22,23: Profar for MI made sense. Our league added a second Utility spot this year, and I wasn't sure how many boppers would last, so I reached for Brandon Moss. In retrospect, this is one pick I'd change, to pick Wilhelsen instead. Hopefully for me and the As Moss will continue his breakout from last year, but it's risky.
Rounds 24,25: Adam Dunn for Util made sense. Our league doesn't count batting average. Round 25 became the "hot prospect" round. I took Gyorko, M-M picked Eaton, and Obey the Pug took Wil Myers. At the end of the year we will see who guessed the best.
Rounds 26,27,28: Here we are mainly filling in depth and guessing on prospects. I like my picks of Shelby Miller, Rutledge, and Carpenter, but it's all a gamble down here.
Summary: Like my eight starters, plus Miller, and my batters. Wish I had one more reliever, but they come and go during the year. Should be able to pick one up, or else pick up a good setup man for a few points. I probably have one too many hitters on the bench, but right now it isn't clear who should go. It will depend on how they perform and who gets hurt. If Matt Carpenter sticks, between him and Zobrist I have a ton of positional flexibility. Especially if Carpenter gains 2B eligibility and Gyorko 3B. I have a few older players (Hudson, Konerko, Beltran, Dunn) who need monitoring for injuries and decline, but most of the team is young.
Should be a fun year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
