Dan Gould

I dig House, though people keep telling me its not as good as it was at the beginning. For those more interested in the TV show than the "music", here's a great site that tells you if they got the medicine right for each show: http://www.politedissent.com/house_pd.html

Are you referring to embracing CDs or embracing downloads? As to Daniel's comments, I suspect he is right, that the "industry" will have much of a role in the future. The problem, in my opinion, is that the "industry" does play a role (for better or for worse) in its power to promote acts "to the next level". A model wherein a lot of musicians are little atomized individuals selling their own music - it might be a better deal for the musician but how will these musicians get notice and attention? Again, its for better or for worse, but the majors choose acts to promote, and use their power of promotion to make the music lover aware of them, particularly through articles in magazines like DB that are barely disguised promo pieces. I'm not at all sure how, outside of the home bases of these artists, people will come to be aware of these musicians that are acting as completely independent agents. Maybe one answer will be artists "seeding" (in a different sense than its currently used) bit-torrent sites with live recordings as a way to get themselves heard and direct those people who do want to pay for music to their site for more. As an example, if Organissimo had formed and started getting attention ten years earlier, where might they be now? Maybe BN, in more flush times, takes notice and signs them - then Jim, Joe and Randy would be in a completely different place now, instead of looking at stacks of unsold CDs and $2000 debt. (Of course, we'd be in a different place, too, because BN wouldn't appreciate what people were saying about Norah on Organissimo's BB. )

He is on a few radio broadcasts that are in circulation among collectors, I think, but that probably doesn't help you.

Well, IMHO, the Cowboys showed that they are the class of the conference and should be odds-on favorites to win the conference championship and go to the super bowl. And like Paul says, I think it could be a good 'un, against NE or Indy.

The one located in my avatar and sig. He just had a zany run with his sister Gracie and then came inside to con me into giving him a cookie (he comes over to you, puts his front paws on your chair and stairs deeply into your eyes, then when he is sure he has your attention, he walks over to where he knows the treats are kept, looks up at the counter and then back at you - and if you don't give him what he wants, he'll repeat those exact steps until you do).

Emmitt is a proud graduate of the University of Florida, so it can hardly be held against him that he's functionally illiterate.

Well, Mr. Deeley got his wish as the Phils re-signed JC Romero. I gotta say though that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Phils regret giving him a three year deal (plus an option year) for 12 million before its all over. This is a guy who took the one year deal with the Red Sox in order to re-establish his worth in the market. He's been on a downslide for a couple of years at least, mostly because he lost his feel for the strike zone. Rewarding three good months by paying him four million a year for three years is nuts. I like the Phils and hope they contend next year but I wouldn't be surprised if the fans are screaming for Romero's head sometime in 2008, certainly by 2009.

:party:

Can't be his "soul justification", because despite his apparent affection for Gene Harris, Dan is quite short of soul. I'm outta here, and fuck you very much.

Naive I think in large measure this has already been accomplsihed. Surely you do not suggest that the ruling class are stupid enough to spell it out for you directly! You really will not have to live so very long. A normal lifespan should do it. If its already been accomplished in large measure, please spell out how. Please identify the people who are being prevented from becoming rich. Please explain how the super-rich are preventing the merely well-off from becoming affluent. Then I will point to Google's IPO, the number of extremely wealthy people it created, and say that you are the stupid one.

I have to admit I got a kick out of learning how she got her nickname.

Up for Clem, (especially since the 'Retha discussion died out) who never told me where he thinks Jimmy McCracklin fits in the soul genre. I'm also now curious about Little Junior Parker, as I just started listening to three different LP comps of his Duke recordings ... smooth but powerful vocals the way label-mate (and touring partner) Bobby Bland was - and really really great! Speaking of Bland, I also just found a Japanese CD of two of his Duke LPs - almost no overlap with "Two Steps From The Blues" but I'd never heard his cover (there's that word again) of Fulson's "Reconsider Baby" but it struck me as an all-time great recording.

Wait a minute. Have you ever known a rich person who has refused to get richer because his investment might make someone else rich, too? You agree that in the future, rich people will not use their money to make more money, because they will dilute their power? After all, according to Edward, This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum, but I can only say that I hope I live long enough to see the rise of the plutocracy because I can't wait to see how they are going to re-write the Constitution and most of the laws to ensure that no one else can get rich and powerful like them. There. Now I am done, and the rest of the liberals can make as much fun as they want. You think I have a fucked up view of the world, but like I said, we have a philosophic difference, and now I know that it is so immense that I cannot believe that I am communicating with intelligent, educated human beings, Edward's apparent knowledge of tax law notwithstanding. What are you talking about? How, exactly, are you attributing these ideas to me? It is right there directly below the spot in my post that you stopped quoting! I've bolded it above, but here it is again. You said it, pal. Plutocrats won't "share power with any newcomer" and therefore "people with big ideas won't find capital for their ventures". Plutocrats will sit on their money because they'd rather preserve their power than expand their fortunes.

Wait a minute. Have you ever known a rich person who has refused to get richer because his investment might make someone else rich, too? You agree that in the future, rich people will not use their money to make more money, because they will dilute their power? After all, according to Edward, This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum, but I can only say that I hope I live long enough to see the rise of the plutocracy because I can't wait to see how they are going to re-write the Constitution and most of the laws to ensure that no one else can get rich and powerful like them. There. Now I am done, and the rest of the liberals can make as much fun as they want. You think I have a fucked up view of the world, but like I said, we have a philosophic difference, and now I know that it is so immense that I cannot believe that I am communicating with intelligent, educated human beings, Edward's apparent knowledge of tax law notwithstanding.

I'm not going to get into it with you, and I should not have replied in the first place as any discussion of tax policy obviously belongs in the Political Forum, which I chose to ignore a long time ago. But I will leave you with this: On the one hand you continue to assert that it is the estate tax that keeps us from a "plutocracy" yet at the same time, you say that "estate planning and charitable contributions can be used to avoid paying any taxes to the government." The implications of your argument is that only stupid rich people pay anything in Estate Taxes, but its an estate tax that keeps us from a plutocracy. To which I can only say Jim, please move this thread, and Guy, please put a little more thought into where you post these articles.

Actually, they predict very well. Its called Trend Analysis, and "stat heads" who looked at Zito's post-2002 numbers used it to predict that he'd have a mediocre season. He's been trending in the wrong direction for years, and it continued. So statistics do predict pretty well. The only possible non-statistical element I can think of that an agent would use is how promotable special players are, such as A-Rod, David Ortiz, and other "face of the franchise" types. That is a value that a player has that is separate (though related) to his statistics. But its a lot more tangible and definable than "heart of a champion" or "determination". Actually, team W-L can be related to individual stats, and this relates to your statement above that "statistics ... don't predict well." You see, Baseball Prospectus used PECOTA, an acronym for Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm, to predict player as well as team performances. I am unable to find the page that predicted cumulative stats and W-L records for every team, but this page details the fact that PECOTA predicted that the Chicago White Sox would go 72-90 this season. What was their record again? Oh yeah. 72-90. So, individual stats can be related to team W-L records, and in point of fact, here is yet another example where statistics made damn good predictions.

I hardly give a shit what tax policy is in the rest of the developed world, which even now continues to lag behind the U.S. in economic growth. You on the other hand, I am sure would like to see a wholesale adoption of other country's tax policies, starting with gasoline tax (let's see how the economy runs on $8 a gallon gas instead of $3) and confiscatory taxes on the wealthy. And the wealthy paid an enormous amount of their "bounty" from the society and government in the taxes paid while they were making their fortunes. This is about taxing their fortunes AGAIN, after they've been earned and taxed before. We have a fundamental philosophic agreement. I don't believe that confiscatory taxes for the purposes of redistribution of wealth is good policy. Save me from the Krugman/Edwards warmed over pile of crap. Joining the "elite plutocracy" will be as hard as it is to come up with a big idea for something that people really want, or some service that is needed but is not provided. And what the hell does estate tax have to do with the ability of people to get rich, or for wealthy people to become super-wealthy? Or are the wealthy just waiting for the opportunity to have no worries about the estate tax, so that they can pull that drawbridge up behind them and "keep" other people from becoming wealthy? Then why does the estate tax matter? See your first statement - you can't have it both ways, either the estate tax is saving us from an "elite plutocracy" or the wealthy tax plan their way out of it anyway, in which case it has no impact anyway.

As for the weekend, nothing special planned, and no day off Monday either. I would like to start digging into recent blues LP purchases though. Got three different Junior Parker comps and a Guitar Slim (had no idea Brother Ray played and arranged one of his big hits). In between those it will be the FSU-VA Tech game on Saturday and the Dallas-Giants game on Sunday.

Isn't it great? Cool or even downright chilly nights, but gorgeous days around 70 or so. Keep in mind though that its still early November. Expect at least one more major heat wave in T-Town.

is to as is to is to 7/4 as dog shit is to a fly.

This is unbelievably stupid and nonsensical, when every agent, player and GM look at statistics to determine what player to attempt to sign, what to offer them, what to offer an arbitration-eligible player, what an arbitration-eligible player asks for. Do you think that those arbitration hearings turn on discussions of "champion's heart" and "determination" and other such bullcrap? NO. They are in depth discussions of how a particular player compares to his peers, and what those peers are being paid. It is ALL STATISTICS that determine a player's worth. No, let's put it another way. How about if YOU identify ANY PLAYER that the statheads get "wrong". ANYONE. This goes back to what you have refused to answer all along: Name the player who is "great" whom the stat-heads do NOT identify as "great". I suggested David Epstein, because he is someone who's press far outruns the talent he has for baseball. You laughed. So WHO IS IT? You assert that the "possibility exists" - I am asking you to PROVE that stat-heads have been wrong about SOME PLAYER. Just name him. PLEASE. No one claims that stats define the outcome of a future game. The game is played, and anything can happen then. No one has ever asserted otherwise. What is asserted is that statistical analysis is the sole way to determine who is great, terrible, and in between. Can a great player have a bad game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah. Can a terrible player have a great game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah, sometimes they do. Sometimes a terrible player comes up big in a big moment (hello, Bucky Bleeping Dent), to which stat-heads say "BFD". Anything can happen when a professional ballplayer steps up to the plate at a given time. It never changes in the least the fact that Bucky Bleeping Dent was a piece of shit shortstop. The simple bottom line is that these "numbers" reveal far more about a player's skill (or lack thereof) and the likelihood of his continued performance (or lack thereof) than any appeal to "heart" or "potential". Yes, the outcome of individual games cannot be predicted. No one ever said they were.

The fact is that a death tax is simply emblematic of a government dedicated to taking everything it can, whenever it can. Yeah, let's take away the billionaire's estate. His heirs have no right to it, and he has no right to control where it goes. Its not his, its the "people's" or "the government's". Its total bullshit. It is nothing less than legalized theft, because they didn't take enough away from the person during his life, take it now, its the last chance. Why don't the liberals be honest and just argue for confiscatory taxes while people are making their fortunes? Oh yeah, that's right - its a political loser.

Just when I think I might be breaking through, that we might have some common ground, you start saying more ridiculous things. Cloud the real reason for a player's given success? So we're back to the "heart of a champion" explaining David Ortiz' post-season record, instead of his BA, OBP or slugging. That is just plain stupid. And his "real reasons ... for future bargaining power"? Tell me, is Boras going to tell teams that A-Rod has tremendous determination, instead of reminding them that he is the youngest player to reach 500 home runs of all-time? Again, that is just plain stupid. The fact of the matter is that the "stat-heads" PREDICTED that Zito would CONTINUE his marked decline in performance which started immediately after his Cy Young season of 2002. Just because a stupid GM is foolish enough to offer him 140 million dollars (or whatever it was) doesn't make him anything other than the mediocre pitcher he has been for several years now. Fewest pitches over 90 MPH in all of baseball Less command of his curveball = fewer pitcher's counts, more of his 85 mph 'heater' and more hits. And where do you possibly get off saying that according to his stats, he should have had a great year???? His ERA was 4.53, and worse than league average. His WHIP was among the worst of his career. His ERA WAS the worst of his career. Fewest stikeouts of his career and worst strikeout-walk ratio of his career. What part of the story of his suck-itude do the numbers NOT tell? Here is a newsflash: Stat heads predicted that he'd continue his decline. His decline did continue. What part of that don't you understand? Guess he lost his "heart of a champion" and you know how a big contract effects player's "determination". I can't believe that you are incapable of wrapping your mind around this simple concept. WINS and LOSSES are a TEAM STATISTIC. That's why they determine a team's playoff spot. Just because WINS and LOSSES are assigned to PITCHERS under arcane and oftentimes ridiculous rules doesn't make them a valuable way to evaluate PITCHERS. Which pitcher do you want on your team, starting every fifth game? Pitcher A: Has the heart of a champion, but he lost his stuff about two seasons ago. Still has that great determination, though. 2007 record: 18-13. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement. Allows almost two batters to reach base per inning. Walks more hitters than he strikeouts. Scouting report: Pitcher A makes the most of what has become mediocre stuff. Often gets shelled but usually hangs around long enough to get the win if his team scores enough runs. Pitcher B: No known "intangibles". Likes to party, too. 2007 record: 10-16. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement. Allows just over 1 batter to reach base per inning. Strikes out 3 batters for every walk issued. Scouting report: Pitcher B has the proverbial million dollar arm and ten cent brain. Often makes hitters look foolish with his five pitch repertoire, but last season too many fly balls landed in the bleachers, and he also suffered from a lack of run support. Great stuff, doesn't seem to win very often though. Can you possibly get it through your thick skull that Pitcher B is the superior player?

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be remotely concerned if Matt Cain ever wins 20 games. Beyond that, informed opinion recognizes that traditional measures like W-L are not worthwhile measures of a pitcher's ability because they are virtually completely out of the control of a pitcher. A pitcher can't control whether his team gives him a lot of run support or very little. And no one would argue that one pitcher who goes 18-16 with an ERA of 5 is a better pitcher than one who went 6-17 with a an ERA of 3.35. The simple fact is that "statheads" recognize Cain as a fine young pitcher. His ERA is strongly above the league average, his WHIP is very good and his strikeout-to-walk ratio is outstanding. And the statheads don't have to appeal to "heart of a champion" or "determination" or even "bad luck" as an explanation for his lack of wins. They know that he was surrounded by a poor offense, and they don't hold it against him, because they are smart enough to recognize that wins aren't a decent measure of a pitcher's ability. Measures that a pitcher actually controls, like WHIP and strikeout ratios, are. Your other factors ("The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played") Tend to even out over the course of a season, and when we're talking about statistics we are talking about season and career numbers, not individual results in individual games.

Your "intangibles" are stupid cliches that apply more to games in which brute force is crucial (football), or a willingness to have your brains beaten in yet not give up (boxing) or extreme mental toughness (tennis). There is NOTHING about the "heart of a champion" or "determination" that makes a player great. "Determination" might apply to a drive to succeed, shown by, say, Manny Ramirez and the fact that he shows up to hit in the cage at 10 AM for a 7:05 start. But that work ethic means nothing until he performs in a game, where measures like OPS+ demonstrate that he is one of the premier hitters of his generation, a first ballot hall of famer. "Determination" isn't going to end up on his plaque, but I bet there will be a lengthy mention of his statistical achievements. And let's apply your intangibles CRAP to where it belongs: football. Did John Elway LACK the "heart of a champion" for all those years that Denver failed, but then he magically developed it and that's why he was able to completely transform his reputation? :rolleyes: NO. He PERFORMED better when it counted. No "heart of a champion" crap transformed him. He didn't eat Wheaties every day for a year either. And your "intangibles" "predict" outcomes? Who said a fucking thing about "predicting"? Numbers describe. Better numbers describe better. Tell me how "intangibles" do any predicting. Let's look deeper into your claim about "intangibles". For intangibles to make modern statistical analysis unusable or worthless or flawed, then these "intangibles" must be the defining characteristic of some set of players who are not identified as "great" by statistics. WHO ARE THEY?