One reason for disappointment...

with President Obama has been his terrible record with civil liberties. If you listened at all to what he said while campaigning, it was quite obvious that he knew the right answers, but if you've watched what he's done as President, it's quite obvious that he doesn't care. Today, we find out that he has committed the ultimate breach of civil liberties. He has assassinated a US citizen.

Was Awlaki someone I'd want to ever talk with, or even meet? No. But he did have rights as a US citizen (and, one would hope, just as a person), and the most important of those rights is the right to live.

Did he commit any crimes? Not that we're aware of. But even if he did, he still has the right to a fair trial to establish that he did, in fact, commit those crimes. And then to be sentenced by a jury of his peers.

Did he say some terrible things? Well, I haven't heard any of his speeches, but from what I've heard second- or third-hand, he probably did. Is that illegal? It is not. Free speech is not just about protecting things that most people want to hear. In fact, it is not about protecting those things at all; they don't need to be protected. It's about protecting those on the fringe. And the courts have established, over the years, that pretty much anything short of incitement to imminent violence is protected. So he certainly cannot (legally) be killed over what he was saying.

So we have a very clear case of abrogation of justice (at the very least), and a President getting the ultimate in tyrannical power: the power to kill your political enemies. Let's hear it for justice.

Update: I forgot to make note that the US official reporting this is granted anonymity; this is also very disturbing. And the official apparently claimed that al-Awlaki is

suspected of inspiring or helping plan numerous attacks on the United States

I'm skeptical of this, if for no other reason than we didn't hear anything about this before his killing. But even if we grant it as true, suspicion does not justify killing. You need to be 100% certain that he did, in fact, do those things, before issuing a death sentence. And you need to demonstrate it clearly enough that a jury feels the same way, and gives that sentence. None of that ever happened.

I am probably too optimistic

I wrote this about Obama's statements for progressive policy a couple of weeks ago. It was making me feel a bit encouraged, but I was reminded a couple of days ago that I probably shouldn't.

I can't find the article now (I'm pretty sure it was from Greenwald), but it was pointing out that this is almost certainly all campaign posturing, with nothing of substance to follow. Unfortunately, it does make complete sense, and wouldn't surprise me. As a Senator, Obama was a moderate Democrat. As a President, he's a moderate Republican. I guess that's better than a radical Republican, which is the only kind I can see emerging from the Republican primary, but it's certainly tough to get excited about.

I'll still get out and vote, but it won't be something to which I'm looking forward.

I took it one day at a time, and it didn't cost me a dime...

My apologies to Johnny Cash for the title. Last week, (coincidentally) on the tenth anniversary of our first date, my wife and I were able to make it out for dinner and a movie. Dinner was pretty good, at a very nice (not top-of-the-line, but very nice) Italian restaurant in DC.

And for a movie, we went to One Day. This one hasn't gotten good reviews (in fact, we almost didn't see it, because the reviews were so bad, but the alternatives were worse. Sad), but we enjoyed it.

It tells the story of two people who met right around their university graduation. She liked him; he warmed to her. In any event, the title comes from subsequent coverage of their lives, looking only at July fifteenth of each year. Some years see them together, some don't. I'll warn you, though, the date is not defined by that "first meeting" (they actually alluded to casually meeting previously, although only she remembered).

I must admit to largely disliking the guy from the beginning; he was funny, but completely dissolute. The only thing he did of any worth for quite a bit of the movie was helping her move to London.

Eventually, they fall in love, but it requires a long time and him growing up. The strongest part of the movie, to me, was in how it showed him maturing. It didn't go so far as to show him going to a substance abuse program, but he definitely did become much more of an adult. The relationships between him and his parents were also fairly interesting, despite not showing a lot of depth there. Actually, maybe I'm phrasing that wrong. They didn't get a lot of screen time, but there was some depth in that time.

I did find myself wondering how things got where they were between the two of them. I can see her initial attraction; he was young, smart, rich, and good looking. But I rapidly wondered why that didn't quickly die off; she certainly saw all his flaws. Things came to a head when they met for dinner, and ended up leaving, saying, "I love you, but I don't like you". But I did wonder how things could keep going that long; it was over ten years already at that point.

In the end, it was a slow movie, but one with some payoff towards the end. As I said, we enjoyed it (well, outside of one absolutely brutal scene), and I thought it ended up being a pretty good movie.

Reporting the Sandman

I've mentioned The Post's Tom Boswell a few times, generally not very nicely, and his effort today does nothing to convince me that I was misguided.

His in-print title on that is "The greatest Yankee since Babe Ruth" (on a side note, why do these columns frequently seem to have different titles on-line versus in-print?). To look at that in some detail, why don't start with an obscure award called the MVP (for which Boswell has a vote, I'd imagine).

Awards won by Yankees players since Ruth (working backwards):
Alex Rodriguez: 2005, 2007
Don Mattingly: 1985
Thurman Munson: 1976
Elston Howard: 1963
Mickey Mantle: 1956, 1957, 1962
Roger Maris: 1960, 1961
Yogi Berra: 1951, 1954, 1955
Phil Rizzuto: 1950
Joe DiMaggio: 1939, 1941, 1947
Spud Chandler: 1943
Joe Gordon: 1942
Lou Gehrig: 1936

Notice a name missing? Yeah, that would be Rivera. In fact, if you search more closely, you'll find that he's never even gotten a single first-place vote for MVP.

I'm not trying to detract from what Rivera's done; he's probably the best relief pitcher of all time (and certainly the greatest closer).

But I find it a difficult proposition that he's a greater Yankee that someone who was never considered the best player in their league (or even best pitcher, as he's never won a Cy Young award either; though he has been close, there) is a greater Yankee than any of that dozen MVP winners. Even if you throw out the one-time winners, that's still five amazing ball-players. So, obviously, his peak was not as high as any of those guys.

How about we compare them on WAR (as tabulated at baseball-reference) as Yankees:
Rivera: 56.1
A-Rod: 44.0 (in eight seasons)
Donnie Baseball: 39.8
Thurman Munson: 43.4
Elston Howard: 28.7
Mickey Mantle: 120.2
Roger Maris: 27.9
Yogi Berra: 62.1
Phil Rizzuto: 41.8
Joe DiMaggio: 83.6
Spud Chandler: 26
Joe Gordon: 36.3
Lou Gehrig: 118.4 (though only 23.6 after the Babe left)

And a couple of others, just for comparison
Babe Ruth: 149.6
Derek Jeter: 70.5

Rivera actually compares better, there, than I expected, to many of those players. You could easily rate him ahead of most of those guys. But it still seems awfully difficult to rate him ahead of ALL of those guys. DiMaggio, Gehrig, and Mantle seem especially difficult, and Berra also a stretch.

Also, the article had a comparison of top ERAs with 1000IP. Unsurprisingly, Rivera is at the top of the list. But let me add another column to his chart, innings pitched.

Rivera: 2.22, 1209
Wilhelm: 2.52, 2254
Ford: 2.75, 3170
Quisenberry: 2.76, 1043
Sandy Koufax: 2.76, 2324

So three of the other four pitched FAR more innings than Rivera. Though they did pitch in more favorable eras for pitchers, so there's that. But the point is that the chart was, at best, unconvincing. Another part it misses is that being used in a relief role (especially one almost entirely of the one-inning variety) significantly (and consistently) reduces your ERA. A 2.22 ERA as a reliever is not as good as a 3.0 ERA as a starter (I forget the exact amount, and can't find it now, but that much is true). But it certainly begs the question of why the Yankees never moved him back to starting. Plus, it significantly reduces the persuasiveness of the second chart, on postseason ERA. His postseason record is still damned impressive, but not quite as much as that chart appears. it is demonstrably easier to do that when you never face a batter more than once in a game.

Again, I'm not trying to say he's not a great pitcher. He is. He's almost certainly the greatest reliever ever (I haven't done any specific research to be completely confident in that analysis but I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't even close). And he probably would have been much greater as a starter. His rate stats wouldn't be as impressive, but his overall value would be much higher.

But the main point is that it is absurd to call him the greatest Yankee since Ruth. Absolutely absurd. Being a reliever just didn't give him the opportunities to even get into that conversation. Did he do everything possible to get into that conversation, given his role? Absolutely. But it's still ridiculous.

To the rich go the spoils

Got a bit lucky this weekend. I remembered the Man U-Chelsea collision this weekend Saturday evening, and thought I'd missed it already. A bit of checking, and I saw that it was going to be today. To quote a book my daughter likes, "'Hooray,' they yelled twice". (And you thought this was another tax policy rant. Hah! :)

And on the plus side, in checking, I got to see most of the US/Canada women's friendly. Although, as my wife pointed out, there was nothing really friendly about it. The Canadian defense, in particular, didn't seem to believe in playing the ball; they were just brutal (their captain did manage to pick up a card for jersey grabbing. Not only was it right in front of the ref, but holding on the side where the ref was, but she didn't even let go until well after the whistle blew). And it's a good thing (for them), because that was the only thing that kept the US from winning by a large margin.

The US just completely dominated possession, despite a disturbing number of passes behind their targets. Most of those were still completed, but it really disrupted their flow. And with the defense the Canadians were showing, they didn't have anyone who could penetrate (at least not in the first half; Heath, I think, was doing a very nice job in the second half). Damn, and now I'm showing the time between the game and now, as I remember feeling that Rapinoe wasn't doing well, but can't remember why. In any event, the game ended in a one-all draw, but it really shouldn't have.

To get back to the main point, Man U came out firing on all cylinders. They were strongly dominating the play through most of the first half, although they did allow Chelsea a couple of close calls with two or three atrocious passes around their back line. Chelsea also generated one really nice chance without help with a pass over U's back line to the side, followed by a full-volley pass across the goal-mouth to a striker on the other side who shot it on a full volley, but the goaltender got it.

In the eighth minute, though, just after I had made a comment to my wife about how close the defensive marking was on both sides, Manchester got a free kick and two players were uncovered off the kick. Unsurprisingly, the nearer (Smalling) buried the ball in the back of the net.

Nani made it two-nil half an hour or so later with a rocket into the upper corner from just outside the box. And Man U's scoring was closed out shortly before the half when a scrum developed in front of the right side of Chelsea's goal. The ball popped out on a deflection to Rooney, who was loitering right at the middle of the goal and buried it.

It looked like things would be a lot closer in the second half, when Anelka (who had just come on as a sub at the half) hit Torres behind the defense for a very nice goal thirty seconds in. But that would close out the scoring, amazingly.

I say amazlingly, because there were a number of phenomenal opportunities remaining, but they would all be flubbed one way or another. Rooney slipped and fell on a penalty shot, kicking the ball into his plant foot and deflecting it way high and off to the side. Torres managed to sneak behind the defense one more time, make a great fake on the goaltender, and then shoot the ball a few feet to the side of the completely open net. Rooney got behind the defense quite a long ways from the goal, and passed when the keeper came out to challenge him. The pass went to Berbatov, who weakly put it towards the (mostly open) net, but Ashley Cole caught up to the shot and pushed it outside. Yes, with a bit of luck, Rooney could have had a hat trick of hat tricks. That would have been something.

I will say this from watching the game: both of those clubs are phenomenal on the counter-attack. And it seemed like ManU was relying more on the long ball than when I've seen from them in the past (and Chicharito was not an effective target for those balls, today).

With this, Manchester City drawing (to Newcastle, maybe? I wasn't paying too much attention when the highlights were playing) and the Gunners losing, Man U is alone atop the table with an awe-inspiring goal differential. They really do seem to be in a league of their own, at the moment.

Finally a Democratic President?

Well, it remains to be seen, but this is promising.

The only point of skepticism I see is this paragraph:

Obama will pledge to veto any cut in entitlements that does not also include increases in tax revenues.

I would really like to see a much stronger statement than that, because it makes it sound too easy to cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.

Incidentally, I was talking to a friend of mine about kids the other day, and he talked about having an idea of grandparents raising kids instead of the parents. The main goal of that was so that people would have seen more about how to be a parent by watching their own parents raise their grandkids before they had to raise their own grandkids. It's an interesting idea, but the reason I bring it up was that he lamented how that would be almost impossible to work because of the disintegration of the nuclear family.

I mentioned that if current Republican plans are allowed to come to fruition, most people would be unable to afford to retire (around half of all retirees live on Social Security alone), and would have to be supported by their kids. That would force the parents to move to be close to their kids once they were unable to (or close to unable to) take care of themselves. The other factor in that is the ongoing destruction of the middle class by shifting all money upwards.

That will also help to ensure that people will need to take care of their parents when they get old.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out whether that's a good thing or not.

Kudos to WaPo

I was kind of mocking last week about WaPo's finally noticing, and prominently mentioning, just how counterproductive current tax rates are. And I still have mixed feelings about that, but I'm glad to see that they're continuing to mention the problem.

This time they're looking more at write-offs and corporate taxes. The teaser in the paper promised to look at the whole problem, but I know it didn't do that, because that would require the entire paper to go into even a cursory look.

And it opens by talking about how

the debate has revolved around “loopholes” for corporate jets and ending “carve-outs” for well-heeled special interests. But if the goal is debt reduction, that’s not where the money is.

The problem with that is that the goal isn't debt reduction. Republicans don't care about it at all; they just use it as a cudgel to attack democrats in power. If they really meant it, they'd do it all the time, not just when there's a democratic President. And the Democrats in Congress, and the President, don't really care about it either, they're just trying to look "bipartisan" (as if that's something that's always useful).

Not to say that I think bipartisanship is terrible, I think it's great when both sides are negotiating in good faith. But when one side is insane, and willing to take hostages, it's just not productive. In fact, it's actually counter-productive.

But to get back to the main point, it isn't an accident that the crap that they're making a big deal about is small-ticket items (not that they aren't hugely egregious, but the dollars compared to the size of the budget is basically pocket change).

I guess the article does get to one important point, though.

All told, federal taxpayers last year received $1.08 trillion in credits, deductions and other perks while paying $1.09 trillion in income taxes, according to government estimates.

Which means that the entire government operating budget is being borrowed. Think about that for a moment, and what it means for what is possible in supply-side economics. You would have to cut more than 99.9% of the total budget in order to stop borrowing. The IRS' operating budget, alone, is more than the $10B left in that difference above. To say nothing of the debt service costs. I'm quite sure those are more than $10B also. You think you could survive without any federal services at all? Well, Social Security has its own funding, so that would still be around. And maybe Medicare/Medicaid would as well (they have their own funding, but I don't know if its enough to pay their bills). But nothing else. Not even salaries for the President and Congress. Ok, maybe that part would be good.

Does the Republican position that tax increases are always evil still make sense?

iPad-orama

When the iPad was about to be released I wrote some of my expectations. I can't find them now, but largely they centered on the iPad being a media consumption device, leaving the computer for media creation.

Obviously, I was largely wrong about that. The iPad, with a keyboard, would, I think, be a perfectly acceptable main computer. I wouldn't do it, but I think it would be livable.

But what I wanted to talk a bit more about is Plex. Plex, once you install the iOS app, is a fantastic media center application. You run the main server on your computer, and it can serve out your content (music, movies, photos) to your iPad. Sweet.

It even takes care of transcoding, where needed.

Even better, it builds a nice, browsing interface, which is especially nice for your movies and TV shows. It doesn't recognize everything, but does get an amazing amount of stuff right.

I've been playing with it for a couple of weeks, now, and the only problems I've run into are some foreign stuff where it can't find the subtitles. That's definitely annoying, but it's a small subset of my foreign stuff (and I've got a LOT of that).

The other cool thing you can do with it and an iPad (and I haven't done this because I don't have a computer in my theater yet), is that you can use the iPad as a remote control for content playing on the computer.

As I said, it rocks. And if you want to watch your content anywhere, it's a cool way to go about it.

A thought on the debate yesterday

I didn't watch the Republican candidate debate last night; it would have been bad for my blood pressure. But I'm a bit surprised that everyone seems focused on Perry's comments on Social Security being a Ponzi scheme, and nobody bothered to bring up his suggesting that Texas might want to secede from the US at some point.

Yes, the Social Security thing is a big deal (and he certainly does deserve criticism for it, given how fact-free it is, and how stupid of an idea devolving it into the states is), but is it really bigger than the US fragmenting?