I have finally opened an actual web store in addition to my Ebay store.
Right now, I'm concentrating on Books (Used) and Magic, the Gathering cards. I think that getting it stocked with those two areas will eat up much of the rest of the year. After that, I'll start in on Comic Books.
Right now, I've listed my Conflux set of Magic, the Gathering Cards.
Visit it here.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Canaries in the Mineshaft
Miners long ago learned the usefulness of canaries. By keeling over, those hapless caged birds would warn miners of toxic gasses or of too little oxygen before humans could detect (or be harmed by) their presence or lack.
In politics, canaries abound. No matter what political action is pursued, there are some who attempt to warn against it, some who "squawk" their warnings to all. It doesn't matter what political objective is pursued, there are some who attempt to warn the rest of us that the proposed governmental action is detrimental to the nation.
But, political animals are particular beasts -- they only hear the squawking of like-minded canaries and are genetically incapable of hearing the warnings of any canary who isn't politically in tune with them. Thus, it isn't until liberals begin to hear the squawks of liberal canaries that their ears perk up and they begin to take notice, if not heed, of the warnings. (Of course, the same is true of conservatives and conservative canaries. This makes perfect sense as that which is deadly to a conservative is the natural environment of liberals and vice versa...)
Some liberals are squawking, signaling to the rest of the more politically obtuse liberals that the Obama mineshaft is entering territory which may be deadly to liberals.
Robert Byrd, that self-styled defender of the U.S. Constitution, squawks of the dangers Obama's many Czars pose to that beloved document.
When they saw the price tag individual states would have to pay when the federal government stopped paying the bill for the expanded Medicaid under Obama's health care plan, Governors Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Christine Gregoire of Washington, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Liberals all) squawked their shrill cries of warning, perhaps understanding for the first time the dangers of unfunded mandates.
Forty-four liberal canaries squawked (albeit faintly and safely) about cap and tax. Eight Republicans decided that the air in the liberal mineshaft was more to their liking. It remains to be seen whether they will survive their choice.
Mrs. Boxer (who, according to her, is and should be called "Senator" if you happen to be in the military) accidentally became a canary while questioning a witness. Seeing that the witness was black, she mistook the air they shared to be liberal air and sucked in several lungfuls of conservative air. It is likely that she will survive this mistake if she is able to make it back to her natural habitat where the rarified liberal air is likely to revive her.
Even Congressman Grayson, a particularly liberal liberal, is squawking, wanting to know where the money went.
Now, admittedly, these are slight warning to committed liberals, but the number and intensity of warnings is growing. And, while the political class can almost always survive in an environment which would render the ordinary human senseless, the warnings seem to have been sufficient to steer some liberals away from the mineshaft Obama is intent upon leading them into.
In politics, canaries abound. No matter what political action is pursued, there are some who attempt to warn against it, some who "squawk" their warnings to all. It doesn't matter what political objective is pursued, there are some who attempt to warn the rest of us that the proposed governmental action is detrimental to the nation.
But, political animals are particular beasts -- they only hear the squawking of like-minded canaries and are genetically incapable of hearing the warnings of any canary who isn't politically in tune with them. Thus, it isn't until liberals begin to hear the squawks of liberal canaries that their ears perk up and they begin to take notice, if not heed, of the warnings. (Of course, the same is true of conservatives and conservative canaries. This makes perfect sense as that which is deadly to a conservative is the natural environment of liberals and vice versa...)
Some liberals are squawking, signaling to the rest of the more politically obtuse liberals that the Obama mineshaft is entering territory which may be deadly to liberals.
Robert Byrd, that self-styled defender of the U.S. Constitution, squawks of the dangers Obama's many Czars pose to that beloved document.
When they saw the price tag individual states would have to pay when the federal government stopped paying the bill for the expanded Medicaid under Obama's health care plan, Governors Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Christine Gregoire of Washington, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico (Liberals all) squawked their shrill cries of warning, perhaps understanding for the first time the dangers of unfunded mandates.
Forty-four liberal canaries squawked (albeit faintly and safely) about cap and tax. Eight Republicans decided that the air in the liberal mineshaft was more to their liking. It remains to be seen whether they will survive their choice.
Mrs. Boxer (who, according to her, is and should be called "Senator" if you happen to be in the military) accidentally became a canary while questioning a witness. Seeing that the witness was black, she mistook the air they shared to be liberal air and sucked in several lungfuls of conservative air. It is likely that she will survive this mistake if she is able to make it back to her natural habitat where the rarified liberal air is likely to revive her.
Even Congressman Grayson, a particularly liberal liberal, is squawking, wanting to know where the money went.
Now, admittedly, these are slight warning to committed liberals, but the number and intensity of warnings is growing. And, while the political class can almost always survive in an environment which would render the ordinary human senseless, the warnings seem to have been sufficient to steer some liberals away from the mineshaft Obama is intent upon leading them into.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Palin Resigns! Pundits Ponder Purpose.
Sarah Palin resigned today, delivering what appeared to be a noteless and impassioned speech in which she outlined her reasons.
Pundits did what pundits always do -- viewed it through the prism of their own political minds.
They ask: "Political suicide or brilliant move?" or "What could her "real" reason be?" or "How does this affect her chance at a 2012 Presidential run?"
These questions are useful when asked about the motivations of a politician. You can never believe what a politician says, as, of course, they're politicians and lie for a living.
Sarah Palin is not a politician. She never has been.
Sarah Palin entered politics to effect change. And, until she wandered into the arena of national politics, she was doing just that.
But, ever since she dared to be a strong, competent woman who didn't toe the NOW line, she has been subjected to attack after attack -- the "politics of personal destruction" on a scale I haven't seen of any other national figure.
Not John Edwards. Not Barney Frank. Not Chris Dodd. NO other political figure -- not those who took bribes, not those under criminal indictment, not those behind bars -- has been under such unrelenting attack as had Sarah Palin.
So, Sarah Palin resigned. She told us why she resigned.
Yet the pundits continue to probe, continue to try to impose their world-view upon her -- even though the former governor has established beyond all doubt that she does not share their world-view.
Sarah Palin told us why she resigned. She resigned because she can't do her job. Most of her time is spent defending herself from frivolous ethics charges (15 currently investigated and dismissed) which eat her time and Alaskan taxpayers' money (over two million thus far).
That isn't what the people of Alaska hired her to do. They hired her to govern -- not to spend all of her time defending herself.
There is no further political calculation beyond this simple one. She, in good conscience, can't continue to be a part-time governor when the people of Alaska deserve a full-time one.
Further, she believes that she will be able to pursue the greater good by bringing her message conservatism to the rest of the country, unencumbered by the duties of office.
She told us this.
Why do the pundits not believe her?
They seem to believe politicians such as Obama when all evidence is that he simply cannot be believed but try to ferret out hidden meaning from Palin when all evidence shows that she speaks plainly.
Pundits.
Pundits did what pundits always do -- viewed it through the prism of their own political minds.
They ask: "Political suicide or brilliant move?" or "What could her "real" reason be?" or "How does this affect her chance at a 2012 Presidential run?"
These questions are useful when asked about the motivations of a politician. You can never believe what a politician says, as, of course, they're politicians and lie for a living.
Sarah Palin is not a politician. She never has been.
Sarah Palin entered politics to effect change. And, until she wandered into the arena of national politics, she was doing just that.
But, ever since she dared to be a strong, competent woman who didn't toe the NOW line, she has been subjected to attack after attack -- the "politics of personal destruction" on a scale I haven't seen of any other national figure.
Not John Edwards. Not Barney Frank. Not Chris Dodd. NO other political figure -- not those who took bribes, not those under criminal indictment, not those behind bars -- has been under such unrelenting attack as had Sarah Palin.
So, Sarah Palin resigned. She told us why she resigned.
Yet the pundits continue to probe, continue to try to impose their world-view upon her -- even though the former governor has established beyond all doubt that she does not share their world-view.
Sarah Palin told us why she resigned. She resigned because she can't do her job. Most of her time is spent defending herself from frivolous ethics charges (15 currently investigated and dismissed) which eat her time and Alaskan taxpayers' money (over two million thus far).
That isn't what the people of Alaska hired her to do. They hired her to govern -- not to spend all of her time defending herself.
There is no further political calculation beyond this simple one. She, in good conscience, can't continue to be a part-time governor when the people of Alaska deserve a full-time one.
Further, she believes that she will be able to pursue the greater good by bringing her message conservatism to the rest of the country, unencumbered by the duties of office.
She told us this.
Why do the pundits not believe her?
They seem to believe politicians such as Obama when all evidence is that he simply cannot be believed but try to ferret out hidden meaning from Palin when all evidence shows that she speaks plainly.
Pundits.
Friday, June 26, 2009
And, never to die...
I have long believed that there was something in the body which "told" it when it was time to start dying. An old study with the pituitary glands of mice which increased the average life-span made me think that maybe it was hormone induced.
But, whatever the reason, I believe that, if you're under the age of 30 or so today, there's a significant likelihood that you'll never die -- of old age anyway (and if you're in a Western society).
I saw this today.
Interesting.
Immortality. Ennui. Zelazny.
But, whatever the reason, I believe that, if you're under the age of 30 or so today, there's a significant likelihood that you'll never die -- of old age anyway (and if you're in a Western society).
I saw this today.
Interesting.
Immortality. Ennui. Zelazny.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Say It Ain't Sosa!
The NYT reports that Sammy Sosa tested positive for a banned substance (which is not reported) in 2003, one of the 104 positive results which resulted in the current MLB stringent testing rules.
We now know two of those 104 -- Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez. Who are the remaining 102? We don't yet know, but, I'm fairly certain that other "big names" will slowly leak out.
Anyone surprised?
Anyone?
Nah.
What does this do to the Hall of Fame prospects of not only Sammy Sosa but of anyone in the "Steroid Era?"
It's hard to tell at this point. Mark McGwire has received less than 25% of the required 75% of Hall of Fame voters in each of his three years of eligibility. And, there's no "smoking gun" in McGwire's case, just what we saw on the field and his refusal to answer questions about his drug use when testifying in front of Congress.
Ivan Rodriguez will soon pass Carlton Fisk for most games by a catcher, probably today. He's won ten golden gloves. He, Bench, and Berra are said to have the best arms behind the plate in the history of the game. He has a .300 lifetime batting average with 300 home runs. He was the AL MVP in 1999. Offensively and defensively, he clearly is one of the top five catchers of all time. Yet, he likely won't go into the Hall of Fame.
Why?
Because he was named in Jose Canseco's book.
That's all. And, apparently, in this steroid era, it's enough.
But...
What if most of the current crop of potential Hall of Famers ultimately are found on that list of those 104 who tested positive in 2003?
What do we do then?
The Hall of Fame is supposed to enshrine the most dominant players of a particular era. If all or most of the players in a particular era were "juiced up," then we will have only two choices: 1) Just black out the past 20 years or so and not enshrine anyone; or 2) Compare like to like and enshrine the best of the era regardless of whether they used drugs to enhance their performance or not (with a sad nod to those who played by the rules and came up just a bit short...).
I think that we should just assume that Canseco was right and accept that the vast majority of major league baseball players were "juiced" and simply enshrine the best of this era, but with an asterisk.
We now know two of those 104 -- Sammy Sosa and Alex Rodriguez. Who are the remaining 102? We don't yet know, but, I'm fairly certain that other "big names" will slowly leak out.
Anyone surprised?
Anyone?
Nah.
What does this do to the Hall of Fame prospects of not only Sammy Sosa but of anyone in the "Steroid Era?"
It's hard to tell at this point. Mark McGwire has received less than 25% of the required 75% of Hall of Fame voters in each of his three years of eligibility. And, there's no "smoking gun" in McGwire's case, just what we saw on the field and his refusal to answer questions about his drug use when testifying in front of Congress.
Ivan Rodriguez will soon pass Carlton Fisk for most games by a catcher, probably today. He's won ten golden gloves. He, Bench, and Berra are said to have the best arms behind the plate in the history of the game. He has a .300 lifetime batting average with 300 home runs. He was the AL MVP in 1999. Offensively and defensively, he clearly is one of the top five catchers of all time. Yet, he likely won't go into the Hall of Fame.
Why?
Because he was named in Jose Canseco's book.
That's all. And, apparently, in this steroid era, it's enough.
But...
What if most of the current crop of potential Hall of Famers ultimately are found on that list of those 104 who tested positive in 2003?
What do we do then?
The Hall of Fame is supposed to enshrine the most dominant players of a particular era. If all or most of the players in a particular era were "juiced up," then we will have only two choices: 1) Just black out the past 20 years or so and not enshrine anyone; or 2) Compare like to like and enshrine the best of the era regardless of whether they used drugs to enhance their performance or not (with a sad nod to those who played by the rules and came up just a bit short...).
I think that we should just assume that Canseco was right and accept that the vast majority of major league baseball players were "juiced" and simply enshrine the best of this era, but with an asterisk.
The Health Care Debate. Do we need more socialized medicine?
I have mixed feelings about this issue.
We have a screwed up system.
For example, I pay around five grand a year for my health care insurance. Just mine. In order to keep my premiums down (!), I have to have a very high deductible -- fifteen hundred bucks.
This results in me essentially not having insurance for anything other than major medical disasters since I'm going to have to go out of pocket for anything which isn't a serious medical problem, and if I have a serious medical problem, I would be able to receive medical care for it whether or not I had insurance.
Huh.
And, in the event that I had a major medical disaster, having insurance isn't going to prevent the inevitable financial disaster, since, like most, I don't have any "nest-egg" to pay my other bills while I'm in the hospital or rendered incapable of working. (Of course, if I didn't have to pay five grand a year, perhaps I could have, over the past several decades of paying that sum, I could have saved enough to tide me over, but, then I wouldn't have insurance and the medical disaster would kill me financially.)
So, in the event of a major medical disaster, I'm pretty well financially doomed with or without insurance.
Huh.
Private insurance spreads risk. People like me who never make claims but pay premiums pay for those who make claims. Private insurance companies (in general) make their profits by taking in more in premiums than they pay out in claims. This provides incentive to delay or deny claims which are properly promptly paid. (Anyone who has had to fight with their insurance company over whether or how much to pay on a claim is familiar with this truth.)
Public insurance doesn't spread risk. Public insurance has a budget. Public insurance, accordingly, rations care. It is the inevitable outgrowth of having a limited budget.
So, no matter if you have insurance or if you're on public insurance (such as Medicaid), you're at the mercy of your insurance provider as to when or whether your particular medical needs will be paid for from a source other than out of your pocket. In the end, both are run by accountants.
Huh.
We all know (or should know) that the government doesn't do anything especially well. Trusting our medical care (a.k.a. our lives and the lives of our loved ones) to the government seems a chancy choice. But, we know that the government will be there tomorrow. (And, if it's not, our medical care is the least of our worries...)
We all know (or should know) that competition between private enterprises results in lowered costs and better service. Of course, it also results in extinction of those who cannot compete or who make bad business decisions. (Ask A.I.G.) We can wake up tomorrow in the hospital staring at an unpaid hospital bill because our former insurance carrier no longer exists.
Huh.
In the end, I have to come down (marginally) on the side of private medical insurance with the "safety net" of public insurance for those who cannot afford private medical insurance -- essentially what we have now.
What "tips" it for me is this: when the bean-counters count their beans and ration care in a public insurance model, they tend to concentrate on rationing (or eliminating) the most expensive care for those who will, if they receive the care, least benefit from it, i.e., those in the last six months of their lives. Further, those bean-counters will ration testing, since much testing results in no medical benefit other than ruling out medical conditions. (Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than exist in the entire country of Canada for example.) Public insurance isn't a fan of "experimental" medical procedures or medicine.
Private insurance companies don't like to pay for testing any more than the government, but, unlike the government, they can be sued in an effort to force them to adhere to the terms of the insurance contract. Private insurers can be forced to pay the huge costs associated with a person in the final stages of their lives -- the government can't. Whether a medical procedure or drug is "experimental" can be decided by a judge or jury rather than a bureaucrat.
So, what tips things for me?
Lawyers.
We have a screwed up system.
For example, I pay around five grand a year for my health care insurance. Just mine. In order to keep my premiums down (!), I have to have a very high deductible -- fifteen hundred bucks.
This results in me essentially not having insurance for anything other than major medical disasters since I'm going to have to go out of pocket for anything which isn't a serious medical problem, and if I have a serious medical problem, I would be able to receive medical care for it whether or not I had insurance.
Huh.
And, in the event that I had a major medical disaster, having insurance isn't going to prevent the inevitable financial disaster, since, like most, I don't have any "nest-egg" to pay my other bills while I'm in the hospital or rendered incapable of working. (Of course, if I didn't have to pay five grand a year, perhaps I could have, over the past several decades of paying that sum, I could have saved enough to tide me over, but, then I wouldn't have insurance and the medical disaster would kill me financially.)
So, in the event of a major medical disaster, I'm pretty well financially doomed with or without insurance.
Huh.
Private insurance spreads risk. People like me who never make claims but pay premiums pay for those who make claims. Private insurance companies (in general) make their profits by taking in more in premiums than they pay out in claims. This provides incentive to delay or deny claims which are properly promptly paid. (Anyone who has had to fight with their insurance company over whether or how much to pay on a claim is familiar with this truth.)
Public insurance doesn't spread risk. Public insurance has a budget. Public insurance, accordingly, rations care. It is the inevitable outgrowth of having a limited budget.
So, no matter if you have insurance or if you're on public insurance (such as Medicaid), you're at the mercy of your insurance provider as to when or whether your particular medical needs will be paid for from a source other than out of your pocket. In the end, both are run by accountants.
Huh.
We all know (or should know) that the government doesn't do anything especially well. Trusting our medical care (a.k.a. our lives and the lives of our loved ones) to the government seems a chancy choice. But, we know that the government will be there tomorrow. (And, if it's not, our medical care is the least of our worries...)
We all know (or should know) that competition between private enterprises results in lowered costs and better service. Of course, it also results in extinction of those who cannot compete or who make bad business decisions. (Ask A.I.G.) We can wake up tomorrow in the hospital staring at an unpaid hospital bill because our former insurance carrier no longer exists.
Huh.
In the end, I have to come down (marginally) on the side of private medical insurance with the "safety net" of public insurance for those who cannot afford private medical insurance -- essentially what we have now.
What "tips" it for me is this: when the bean-counters count their beans and ration care in a public insurance model, they tend to concentrate on rationing (or eliminating) the most expensive care for those who will, if they receive the care, least benefit from it, i.e., those in the last six months of their lives. Further, those bean-counters will ration testing, since much testing results in no medical benefit other than ruling out medical conditions. (Pittsburgh has more MRI machines than exist in the entire country of Canada for example.) Public insurance isn't a fan of "experimental" medical procedures or medicine.
Private insurance companies don't like to pay for testing any more than the government, but, unlike the government, they can be sued in an effort to force them to adhere to the terms of the insurance contract. Private insurers can be forced to pay the huge costs associated with a person in the final stages of their lives -- the government can't. Whether a medical procedure or drug is "experimental" can be decided by a judge or jury rather than a bureaucrat.
So, what tips things for me?
Lawyers.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Phil Jackson -- Greatest Basketball Coach of All Time?
This is a tough question. By the objective standard of playoff appearances, playoff wins, playoff win percentages, and Titles, it would seem a no-brainer.
So, why the question?
Because of who he coached, of course. He won six with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pipen, the greatest player of all time (according to most) and one of the top 50 greatest players of all time.
He won three with Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, two of the top 50 greatest players of all time.
He won this last one with Kobe Bryant, but didn't win it until he had assembled a team with one of the best centers in the game (Pau Gasol) and a 6th man forward who would be a starter on any other team (Lamar Odom).
But, the same is true of Red Auerbach. He had more than his share of top 50 all-time players (Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones.)
The same is true of Pat Riley and his six rings. He had Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and James Worthy.
Seems it's hard to be in the discussion for "best coach of all time" without having a fistful of "best players of all time," doesn't it?
In fact, a review of the rosters of the Finals winners over the history of the NBA is almost a recitation of the names of the top 50 players of all time. And, when multiple titles are won, you see multiple players who are in the top 50 players of all time (and/or ones who are certainly the best of their era).
Deeper review shows that winners of the NBA finals are almost entirely teams with a dominant big man -- one of the top 50 players of all time -- Bill Russell, Bill Walton, Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Robert Parish, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and George Mikan.
This theme, multiple titles won by a coach with a handful of all-time greats along with a dominant big man, is quite consistent throughout NBA history.
Except for Phil Jackson's SIX without a memorable big man.
Red had Russell. Riley had Jabbar. Phil had Horace Grant and Luc Longley.
Each had fistfuls of all-time greats (two or more) on their teams. But ONLY Phil was able to win multiple titles (six) WITHOUT a dominant big man.
For me, that settles the question.
So, why the question?
Because of who he coached, of course. He won six with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pipen, the greatest player of all time (according to most) and one of the top 50 greatest players of all time.
He won three with Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, two of the top 50 greatest players of all time.
He won this last one with Kobe Bryant, but didn't win it until he had assembled a team with one of the best centers in the game (Pau Gasol) and a 6th man forward who would be a starter on any other team (Lamar Odom).
But, the same is true of Red Auerbach. He had more than his share of top 50 all-time players (Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Sam Jones.)
The same is true of Pat Riley and his six rings. He had Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and James Worthy.
Seems it's hard to be in the discussion for "best coach of all time" without having a fistful of "best players of all time," doesn't it?
In fact, a review of the rosters of the Finals winners over the history of the NBA is almost a recitation of the names of the top 50 players of all time. And, when multiple titles are won, you see multiple players who are in the top 50 players of all time (and/or ones who are certainly the best of their era).
Deeper review shows that winners of the NBA finals are almost entirely teams with a dominant big man -- one of the top 50 players of all time -- Bill Russell, Bill Walton, Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Robert Parish, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, and George Mikan.
This theme, multiple titles won by a coach with a handful of all-time greats along with a dominant big man, is quite consistent throughout NBA history.
Except for Phil Jackson's SIX without a memorable big man.
Red had Russell. Riley had Jabbar. Phil had Horace Grant and Luc Longley.
Each had fistfuls of all-time greats (two or more) on their teams. But ONLY Phil was able to win multiple titles (six) WITHOUT a dominant big man.
For me, that settles the question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
