innocence is fragile
and rarely replaced
As a serious political theory question, what is the point of the Vice President in the post 12th Amendment era? I actually very much like the idea of a loser being in a position of at least some responsibilty: it helps to prevent tyranny from any party that might get a majority, and in my mind it also is a small step towards helping minor parties advance.
But, since the VP is now, for all intents and purposes, a Presidential appointee (albeit one appointed before an election), why should we bother about direct election? The role is very poorly defined, and it would be easy enough to change the line of succsion to another elected candidate. That way, if the President wants a top advisor or administrator, he can appoint one, as it is now.
It's not a large issue by any means, but in my mind is simple political clutter. It was a good idea to help limit the executive branch; but one that, in the early years of party politics, was found too annoying by the parties and thus done away with. Either bring it back to what it was, or eliminate the position as anything except an appointee. It would recognize the truth of the situation and it would also give the Senate another position to block if they would so choose.
So, most of you know I have a penchant for urban transit, especially subways, right? Well, I just learned a new fact about my birthday. In 1863:
"The Metropolitan Railway opened the world's first underground railway on 10 January between Paddington (Bishop's Road) and Farringdon Street. "
Woooo! That's so cool! Okay, maybe I'm too excited, but I think it's cool.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for the birthday wishes.
-Written as an email to answer said question, it's long enough I figured I'd post it here. What can I say, I have a soft spot for baseball and like talking about it ;-)
He's gone, isn't he?
Actually, at first I wasn't sure. Randy may be highly inconsistent, but he does give 200IP per year, no matter what. Except his back is fluky; maybe the Yankees there know something we don't. The Yankees certainly think their rotation is full- they (obviously) believe in Igawa, and I don't think they're counting as much on Pavano as they are thinking that Karstens / Rasner / Hughes / Sanchez will be at least servicable this year. So, for this coming season, it really depends on Mussina/Wang/Pettitte : if we loose one more than say, a month, and moreso if we loose two at a time, the rotation will be thrust upon those guys I just mentioned. Cashman seems to really like them, and I like the chances of one of them panning out next year. If we need to rely on more than one to be more than adequate, things could get shaky.
For the future, I don't think this is a bad trade, organizationally. I'll quote the Transaction Oracle on the prospects involved:
"There are no top prospects here and all 3 of the prospects, while they would rank higher on the list of practically every other organization in baseball, were just barely in Sickels' top 20 Arizona prospect list. The Diamondbacks can deal these players without even sweating the prospect depth."
The prospect are 24, 24, and 23. Ohlendorf is the real key here; he is 24 and has just finished a full season at AA + one AAA start. He came out of college, so is not old for his level, and has put up respectable K numbers while walking a few too many, but really, really keeping the ball in the park. He has a decent shot at being a good player. Jackson is a good step below; his K-rate is not impressive- I'm not sure he's really better than a C prospect. Gonzalez, the shortstop, is 23 and hasn't done much but hit for decent average in his career. The kinda guy who probably has upside, but I'd need to see a good scouting report on.
From The Big Lebowski TV edit:
Best. TV edit. Ever.
Or something like that.
"No human or god can match
Nature's simultaneous 4 day
rotation in 1 Earth rotation.
No human has a right to
believe wrong - for that
would be evil thinking.
Ignorance of 4 days is evil,
Evil educators teach 1 day.
1 day will destroy humans."
"A bad metaphor is like a leaky screwdriver.
(shamelessly stolen from someone's /. sig)"
From earlier in the same discussion...
'The bubble-era vision of a Utopian Internet is dented and dirty... The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders.'
This metaphor is a can of Pringles, and its vigor is enhanced by venomous ducks that flip it daily with a caterpillar that just won't shut up.
Things like this are why I read slashdot. http://slashdot.org/articles/06/12/13/1414247.shtml