Dan Gould

The probability is fairly high. To the second question, Yes, yes and yes.

I concede a bit to you on the short term public shame part of it, but on the money side, for multi-millionnairre ball players, loss of 10 day or 30 day pay is nothing. Let's say we've got someone making 8 million a year. Its paid out over six months, which is 1.3 million dollars a month. You don't think a player will pay attention to that hit? I guarantee they'll feel that hit a heckuva lot worse than the slap on the wrist $50,000 fines MLB gives out for a little brawl.

Well, I agree that steroids are part of that picture but there is no way that you can ignore other factors: smaller parks diluted pitching players who work out year round (and aren't all juicing either) and are in better shape than the vast majority of the players of yesteryear. Which brings me to this, in today's NYT: Mike Schmidt Dismisses Steroids - HRs Link By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: March 6, 2005 Filed at 5:18 p.m. ET FORT MYERS, Fla. (AP) -- Mike Schmidt refused to blame steroids for the increase in home runs in the major leagues -- or for his diminishing stature on the career homer list. ``Leave steroids out of it,'' Schmidt said Sunday. ``There's a simple explanation why the home run totals are what they are, and the guys that are hitting would agree with me -- it's park size, hard baseballs and hard bats.'' Since the Hall of Fame third baseman retired in 1989 with the seventh-most home runs (548), he has been passed by four players -- Barry Bonds (703), Mark McGwire (583), Sammy Sosa (574) and Rafael Palmeiro (551). Several others could move ahead of Schmidt in the next five years. ``Guys are passing me like I was a car on the freeway,'' said Schmidt, a spring training instructor for the Philadelphia Phillies. Schmidt estimates the smaller ballparks and the equipment help elite power hitters add 10-12 home runs more per season than those of his generation -- or about 150 more career homers. But he's quick to note that he isn't bitter over the evolution of the longball. ``That's an honest answer. That's not a chip on the shoulder (or) an old timer whining about things,'' Schmidt said. ``We're not blaming the kids that are playing the game now. They are great hitters. They are further along fundamentally as hitters at this point in their careers than we were in the old days. Everything is better about the game now. They are bigger, stronger and they work out harder.'' Schmidt also insists these changes make it harder to compare players from different eras. ``We all know any discussion about whether Henry Aaron is a better hitter than Barry Bonds is ridiculous because of the conditions under which both played,'' he said. ``The environment in which they played is so totally different, you can't compare.'' **************************** Now, I would not go as far as Schmidt does, but to assert that the home run totals of the last ten years are entirely due to steroids is a bit much.

Ten day suspension, followed by a 30 day suspension is "very weak"? You've got to be kidding me. And do you think there will be no "public shame in getting caught"? There's no provision whereby those who are suspended for ten games get to make up a story about why they are not playing. There WILL BE a public announcement of a positive test result, and if you don't think that will result in some public shame .... as far as the NFL goes, I believe the first positive test results in NOTHING but "counseling". Its only with subsequent positive tests does anyone get suspended, starting with four games. So, at least MLB goes straight for the punishment, even if their punishment isn't quite so bad on the first positive test vs the second positive test for an NFL player.

Marty mentioning Alan's Jazzamataz site sent me over there for the first time this year, and I was stunned to see this listed: Joe Williams with Ben Webster - Havin' A Good Time (Hyena) Feb 22 — live date from 1964 discovered in the Hamilton College Jazz Archive; only known club performance of the two musicians; recorded at Pio's Lodge in Providence, RI, with the rhythm section of Junior Mance, Bob Cranshaw and Mickey Roker. Needless to say, I jumped all over this one. Anyone else wanting to hear Joe and Ben for the only known date they played together?

The Malo performance that gave me chills was during the Holiday program that ABC ran in December 2001. Him and his guitar, in post-9/11 New York City, singing, "New York, New York." Totally opposite to the bombast of Sinatra and big band, it had this amazing balance, between the gently strummed chords and almost mournful quality in his voice along side the core optimism of the song. Truly incredible.

I am not that sure about that. How does MLB's process compare to other leagues in U.S.A. and the Olympics, does anyone know? From what I read, the process may be adequate but the penalty is not damaging enough to discourage players from going the illegal steroid route. I am a bit suspicious when MLB has to negotiate with the Players Union to come up with this process. They have to come to an agreement with the Players Union because the Basic Agreement covers such things as drug tests. The fact is that the first positive test is a ten day suspension, which I view as pretty damn serious when you consider that the very worst baseball brawls hardly ever result in more than a five day suspension. The second is thirty days, and if you are a regular player, that is a devastating penalty to you and your team. Bear in mind that the suspensions are without pay - a month's worth of salary is a pretty huge hit when you consider that players only draw their gigantic paychecks over the six months of the season. I believe the third positive tests gets you a full season suspension and the fourth is banishment. No, that's not as strict as the Olympics testing which has a two year ban for a first positive result. But then again, for things like 100 meter sprints, that little tiny impact of red blood cells carrying more oxygen to the muscles can make all the difference in the world (see Ben Johnson). While there will always be a battle between drug tests and masking agents, etc., for those who are really intent on juicing, but I think the program is in place to severely restrict the number of players who will do it. With unannounced tests and ten or thirty day suspensions at stake, how long can they risk getting caught? And, the final piece of this puzzle comes from the minor leagues: MLB has total control over the working conditions of minor league players. They aren't members of the union til they make a major league roster. So, for several years now, MLB has had a stringent testing and penalty system in place, and I believe the percentage of positive tests is now no more than 1%. Its virtually a given that in the coming years, minor league players who reach the majors will be clean. That will go a long way toward keeping the majors clean in the future.

I own The Mavericks CD and I don't care what anyone has to say about it, its damn fine retro country. They even make a Bruce Springsteen song, "All That Heaven Will Allow" listenable.

I think its just recently been published. I think I'm going to order through Amazon and get Shaugnessey's "Curse Reverersed" book at the same time and get the free shipping deal. (Just to be clear, I don't think that's the verbatim title of Shaugnessey's book)

I haven't the foggiest idea.

I guess when your team is the defending World Champions, everyone gets on the bandwagon and wants to see them. There were three games in the south Florida area against the Orioles and the Marlins that I tried to get tickets for, we had plans to go to one game with my wife and another with her brother and two kids -- and I was only able to secure a single seat for myself for the March 24 game with the O's, despite being online the moment tickets went on sale. On the positive side, we do have plans to get to Boston in June and I was able to score two pairs of tickets for June 14 and 15. The seats for June 14 are something like these: And best of all, we got Green Monster seats, the coolest seats in baseball, for June 15. BTW, that is the interleague series against the Reds-what are the chances that Junior Griffey will be healthy and playing? It'd be nice to see a future Hall of Famer, but given his recent history, we're almost resigned to the assumption that he'll be hurt by the time June rolls around.

dan- you really don't have to write EVERY thought that pops into your head...... Perhaps, but do you have any other suggestion why ham was dropped from the menu?

Well, I may be more retro than you, but with EA and Hazeltine, if I saw that at Borders or was placing an order at Cadence, I wouldn't hesitate, myself. Bill Fenohr usually gets all Criss Cross releases, maybe he can shed light on it.

Interesting .... do you think its possible that Boston Market dropped ham in south Florida due to the relatively high proportion of Jews in the population? I had assumed that it was a chain-wide change, so if it wasn't, what would make them change it here? Maybe there was just less demand for ham in this area and therefore they just went ahead and dropped it. Of course, that doesn't explain dropping romaine lettuce from the sandwiches!

I also liked the mac and cheese and spinach, and I agree that the sandwiches weren't bad, what I never understood is why they dropped ham from the menu. I'd go to Boston Market about twice a month for lunch, but lately, the final straw was the changes they made to the sandwiches: shredded iceberg instead of the nice leafy romaine toasting it like they're trying to compete with that other, hipper brand. That, and the fact that the last sandwich I got came with not one but two slices of "tomato" which could hardly be called that: they were both lily white and utterly disgusting. How a restaurant could use them was totally beyond me.

Hi Dan, is it good Kharma if I take this.... Cheers, Tjobbe EDIT what I can additionally offer to the board is Along came Jones - New York Connexion (with Eubanks, Allen, Locke and more) Send me a PM with your address and its yours.

I'd be very interested in what else this article had to say about Hank during this period. I think I've heard on this board that Hank found the pickings pretty slim when he went to Europe, but I'd like to know more about this era. any chance we can prevail upon you to transcribe the article for us like Jim did himself not too long ago?

OK, that must have happened when I was buried in work two weeks ago and wasn't looking at Politics at all.

I was going to put this in the Offering section, but what the hey, I'll just Pay it Forward: Herb Ellis, Roll Call on Justice Records. Mel Rhyne on organ here, and fair warning: Johnny Frigo is on violin. But trust me when I say this is a very fine CD, with Ellis giving some of his nicest blues-oriented performances I've heard (and while I'm not a big violin fan, Frigo sounds perfectly fine to me). Its also the first time Ellis recorded with an organ. I talked myself into buying this yesterday and of course discovered that I already have it as soon as I got home. So my misfortune can be someone else's gain. That's how kharma works, right?

In lieu of a Hoffman Forum approved PM, I'd like to publicly point out that the correct phrase is "peace of mind."

In other words, Tom, you consider the Politics Forum to be something like the crazy aunt who lives in the attic, or the red-haired bastard stepchild: Something to be kept hidden from all casual acquaintances and only revealed to people who "join the tribe". Clearly you're quite proud about what goes on in the Political Forum, just like everyone loves their crazy aunts and their red-haired bastard step-children. As far as your other point about "politics" not being the focal point of the board, and by extension, Organissimo the group, that's just plain silly. Can you point to a single individual who has come to this board exclusively to post in politics? Even 1ngham, while posting in Politics at a rate to challenge Johnny for board leader, still manages to post about jazz elsewhere. And if you're point is really about what gets posted in Politics, and how opinions get expressed, well, doesn't that say a lot about the way the politically minded are arguing their points? And doesn't that say something about why politics might not really have a place in a jazz BB? You know, when I announced my departure from politics, it took some adjustment at first, but I quickly realized this was not something that was truly necessary to my enjoyment of the board. I think it would be a mighty interesting experiment to disable that forum for a couple of weeks or a month, and just let people deal. I wonder how many current political posters will discover that they really didn't have to post in politics. And really, what would the harm be? So you don't talk politics here for a couple of weeks. If the demand remains high, Politics goes back into action, and you guys have at it. There'll be as much politics to discuss a month from now as there is today.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but exactly what has really changed? Seems to me, the big effect here is that people who have asked to have the Politics forum disabled (like me) will no longer be able to log out and take a look at the forum. For me, I would do this a couple of times a week, and it worked well as a reinforcement that my decision to leave that forum behind was a good one. You know, see some ridiculous posting, but know that I can't post a response, not wasting time thinking what I'd like to say-the stupidities inundating that forum quickly became like water off a duck's back. So, aside from completely disabling the forum for all members who didn't want to see it in the first place, what have you done? Now lurkers won't see it? Big deal, people! They were lurkers to begin with. If they ever register as members, they'll see the political forum and see this board in all its, ahem, glory. If the Politics forum was that bad, I think Jim should disable it for everyone, add a pinned announcement to the Miscellenous Forum that Politics is not to be discussed here, and see what happens. The idea that Politics will inevitably infest other forums is completely bogus, if a no-politics policy is strictly enforced. Or is someone so addicted to political vitriol that they'd turn a discussion pie vs cake into a Bush-thrashing fest? Personally, I'd think it would be a very interesting experiment to disable politics and see what happens. There are certainly many people here on both sides of the issue. Would it really kill people to have to go find a, perish the thought, a BB devoted to politics to satisfy that need?

What I find annoying, FFA only touches on: The editing within scenes that, cumulatively allow one more thirty second spot. This is especially clear on Seinfeld episodes, where little bits and pieces have disappeared. Obviously it comes back to the almighty dollar, and considering the price paid for Seinfeld in syndication, I guess they've got to make their money back somewhere. But it still stinks.

Its two separate recordings that I happened to pair up on a single CDR.

Shawn, that's not Hardbop Chris Heaney. Different hardbop, and I don't think he's expressed a huge distaste of electric instruments. So there's no reason to assume he'd hate it.