gehringer_2

I don't have a problem with it. You are basically talking about what Michael Gerson coined as 'the soft bigotry of low expectation" style of liberal side racism.

The thing that is so weird to me is that back in pre-crazy times - I'm talking probably pre Gingrich, if a party had double crossed one of it's members as badly as the GOP has screwed Lankford, that would likely have driven a party switch. And that is the mechanism that did a lot to keep party radicals, which have always been around at the edges, from ever having much leverage - the fact that they could drive members to the other side. But we have this weird 'two completely different worlds' thing going now, where a GOP Senator cannot even construct a conceptual idea of himself in the other party, despite probably being in every other way from an identical culture in terms of wealth, education, lifestyle.

could be. Or could be she thinks she's now notable enough in her own right she doesn't have to advertise that she's a Ford to get people's attention?

So here is the argument to back off and just let Javy be Javy: He has put up an OPS greater than 800 three times in his career, he's averaged 170 Ks in those three seasons. IOW, the argument would be that Javy is his best self when he is swinging away with abandon and in *his* career there is zero evidence that he is better when he Ks less. But clearly, any fool can see he would be a better hitter if he were more selective and shorter to the ball. So what is the right answer?

It is silly that baseball has definitions that don't line up.

It won't help, but if Javy has the same season he had last yr (0.6 WAR) it's not going to be fatal by itself. The last time the Tigers went to the WS it was with only 1.1 WAR at shortstop (Peralta). And if he's any worse he'll likely be benched.

IDK about that last one. It's been sounding like he must be close to hiring a Soviet ex-pat video tech to start erasing Melania from past photos.....

I see a lot of upside surprise potential with the position players, way above average injury risk with the pitching staff, so yeah - they could end up anywhere.

Correct, he's not getting embryonic cells in his graft, but all the Science is one knowledge base. They probably wouldn't know how to make his autologous graft work without all the companion science that's been developed.

Well, if they kill him to get his vote, that will just put them one closer to losing the rest of them for the remainder of the session. 🤷‍♂️

A stem cell transplant could lay him pretty low for a while. BTW, I wonder how many times in his career he's voted against the stem-cell research that is now giving him his main chance to keep living?

I can't keep track of the various wireless protocols without a scorecard, but check the link below. The 1gbps is the rate capability at the router. You should get that on any CAT6 wired connection. 287bps is the protocol limit for 40mHz bandwidth single receiving antenna wireless at 2.4gHz under 802.11ax, which based on the rate you have appears to be how your phone is linking to the router. I've seen my wireless on the my newest laptop (early 2023 - non 6E) hit 600mbps but it's not very often, (that's 80 mHz bandwidth at 5 gHz/ 802.11AC). I get 400bps most of the time which is 802.11ac 40mHz bandwidth at 2.4gHz. You won't likely get a 5 gHz connection if there is more than one wall of any substance between you and the router. At 5gHz things are getting to be pretty much line-of-sight. If you believe your phone can go faster, then check to see if the 'AC' or maybe "6E" or maybe 'mimo" wireless protocols are enabled on the router's wireless settings. You may also need to be using WPA3 security to get an 'AC' connection but I'm unclear on that one way or the other. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000005725/wireless/legacy-intel-wireless-products.html

It's Irene Dunne, oft paired opposite Cary Grant in his younger days in movies I saw too many years ago to remember. So what brought her remembrance to your interest?

so if the NYT article has any truth to it, one of Trump's complaints about Rona is that she isn't making a big enough effort (as in spend more money) on election security issues. So if he puts someone in charge that will waste more resources on that wild goose chase, that's less resource for their candidates. Sounds good to me.

The reporting at NYT is he wants Michael Whatley - a big supporter of his in S. Carolina. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/us/politics/ronna-mcdaniel-rnc-trump.html

I cheated so I know who she is but am missing a current connection.

what a bunch of clowns. And totally meaningless. If they do get passed any articles will just go in Schumer's waste basket.

Correct. The Dems called the GOP's bluff by agreeing to immigration reforms the GOP had demanded thinking the DEMS would never agree to them and they would never see a bill. They have given the issue back to Biden on a silver platter. The Dems just have to not blow it, which is always a challenge for them.

Two questions of interest wrt the increasing number of players per season per position. 1) are overall injury rates also increasing 2) are more players being rotated through the 25 man per year? IOW, are the same players on the roster playing more positions on the field, or more players playing a given position just because rosters are churning more? And actually roster churn and injuries will correlate - you'd want to separate injury call-ups from call-ups that were the other side of a send down/trade/dfa

I honestly believe they missed the chance to find out they may have had a decent 3B by not giving him more of the time there that they gave to other players who clearly had less potential there than he showed in the time he got there. It was like they finally got around to looking at him there after they had exhausted ever other possibility (He didn't start getting many reps there in August). If the team is taking the position they want to looks at guys all over, at least don't miss what you do have. IDK, maybe he doesn't want to play 3B but I definitely think he should been looked there sooner.

Actually I've read the arm isn't bad, which is why they were hoping he might manage 3B. It's all the parts that come before the throw.

I think this is shared sentiment, but in practical terms it can't be done. Trump can't be 'slain' rhetorically because he doesn't admit your reality, so you really can't touch him. You can blow him to Kingdom Come logically and it will just be water off a duck's back, like arguing with a 2 yr old. Biden could probably make him mad enough that he would look bad through conventional eyes, but even some kind of outburst in poor taste on his part won't bother his supporters. But more fundamentally I don't think debates matter because, I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed in this cycle. All the dies are cast already. The only thing that matters in this election for the Dems is turn-out and I don't see debates as having any positive effect on that for the Dems. Turnout is about fear (hit Dobbs and 1/6) and ground game much more than debates.

I think a growing issue with Biden in a public speaking settings is that his brain is still faster than his mouth can go anymore, and the result is bad elocution. He needs the discipline to speak slower but that seem unlikely to appear at this point.

I think debating is grossly over rated and it's time competent managers push back against the idea that it's even an important skill. If I were Biden, my message would be "Talk is cheap and no-one makes it cheaper than my opponent. If there is anything America need less of it's grandstanding on podiums. It's time to judge people on what they have done, not what they talk about doing and fail to do. Here is my record. You can see my opponent's in the court records. Those are all the debating points I'm interested in making."

None the less, you can platoon bats, which is normally the greater need, without bouncing guys around positionally as much as the Tigers have.