No doubt he's a great player, and I hope he hits 800 HRs so that the all-time HR record is clean again.

But at less than half the price, I'll take Mike Lowell. Sure, he's likely to not be as good over the next 3 years that he was this year, but I still think he's a better value.

I generally don't place too much stock in players' post-season performance as an indicator of anything (small sample size), but I'll make an exception for A-Rod, as his Octobers are pretty consistently bad or mediocre, and he's so clearly a head case.

Finally, I can't get past how well Seattle and Texas did the year after he left each team. I am relieved he's staying with the Yankees; I feared what they could have done without him.

Fair points, all.

But Boston does have a finite budget, and I am a Red Sox fan, so my value comments hold- money spent on A-Rod would have had an opportunity cost.

Of course, A-Rod to Boston became a happily moot proposition rather quickly.

The A-Rod Jeter stat comparisons are interesting. I would be curious (but am too lazy/time constrained to look) to see how the stats break down by RISP, etc. All I can say is that, viscerally, I get clammy when Jeter is up in a key spot in October, less so than A-Rod. I think, if memory serves, Game 3 of the 2003 ALCS and Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS have something to do with that (in both games, Jeter with hits off Pedro to tie/take the lead, despite otherwise doing little- Baseball Reference says he was 1-7 in Game 5/2004, but that 1 hit turned a 1-2 deficit into a 4-2 lead).

Finally, I realize the Yankees have fewer constraints that Seattle and Texas. But remember that A-Rod was making $5M a year with the Mariners- they weren't exactly constrained because of his salary. I realize it's pretty hard to argue with a straight face that A-Rod is such a clubhouse cancer that it more than offsets what he does with a bat, but given the comments that came out of Texas after he left, I'll argue just that.

I'm a Red Sox fan. Not a huge one; I didn't name my latest son (born in September) Clay, Dustin, Curt, or Jacoby (and my previous efforts to have another child named 'Pedro Nomar' failed miserably). But I can honestly say that I cried in '78 and '86, and was frickin' jubilant in 2004 (this year was good, too).

I'm also not a Romney fan. I happened to be friendly with one of his sons (Matt) in High School; he was an absolutely great kid. I couldn't say enough good things about him. But I don't like his Dad's politics, and wasn't a big fan of his tenure as governor.

But I'm getting way off-topic. I agree with those who say 'no big deal.' Sure, maybe this shows Romney to be a fraud, but can we please stick to the important stuff? At least the legal status of Romney's lawn care crew is sort of relevant to national issues...

Having a frivolous investigation into your life sucks, but if nothing's there, it should go away and you can move along. It sucks but don't let it eat you up. Not many things are worse than insinuations that you are a bad parent, but what's done is done.

I had DSS (Dept of Social Services) in my house when I was a kid. My dad had died when I was six, and my mom has some pretty interesting mental health issues. My sister (who bore the brunt of our situation) acted out as stressed kids are wont to do, and next thing you know, hello DSS.

It was a GOOD thing. We ended up staying with my mom, but we had the courts, a therapist, and a good lawyer looking after us. My sister still needs therapy but is generally doing well; I'm doing great. I did well in school, have a good job, and I have a wonderful wife and kids for whom I am determined not to F- things up (though like anyone I could always do a better job!).

So my point is that it's not so terrible to have DSS investigate things. Lord knows they aren't perfect, and it's clear that sometimes the innocent are declared guilty and vice versa. But I can honestly say that I would be much worse off if DSS had not investigated my family.

As a side note, I did pass out once while sitting and holding one of my baby twins (long story as to why, but the short story is that I felt the faint coming and should've frickin put the baby down first! Idiot!). My wife called 911 and the next thing you know there are about 20 people in our house. Apparently her call met the profile of a 'domestic situation' so we had firefighters, cops, the whole show. Our boy was fine and it was clear that nobody was beating anybody, so we took me and the boy to the emergency room for observation while everyone else packed up. Although friends and neighbors still tease me about it, I'd rather there be a little too much (good) investigation than too little.

However, that is one seriously lame ad.

And France is already killing us on per capita energy use (and even moreso on per capita emissions, thanks to the nukes).

This is certainly one way to internalize external costs.

I tend to prefer policies aimed at consumption itself rather than potential consumption (what if you drive your Prius 300k a year for fun? What if you have a Hummer but only use it sparingly?). On the other hand, it's kind of nice to get the pricing more directly incorporated into the purchase decision.

It's also nice that this is a 'feebate'. It's harder to argue economic hardship when a policy makes certain types of vehicles more affordable.