Of course many stats are irrelevant. MaCarver is an ex-jock--he does not know to seek out relevant stats to educate and enlighten the viewer on what is important. MaCarver (and most former ball player Color commentators i.e Morgan, Darling, etc.) is good at explaining situational aspects of the game. The rest of the time, these guys come off as inarticulate bozos. I think MaCarver was trying to convey that it sucks for the Mets to have a hot streak interrupted by the All-Star game.

As for the ASG itself, I've always enjoyed watching it to see the good players I don't see often. Russell Martin is an awesome catcher, and it was fun to watch him excel. Because the ASG usually has a bunch of HOFers attending, I've always kind of viewed it as a game where the players are basically playing for these HOFers, kind of measuring themselves up, testing themselves (Dan Uggla failed on so many levels last night). How could they not with all those great ball players in attendance?

BTW, what about this controversy with Papalbon. I'm a Mets fan not a Red Sox fan, but it appears that the NY media really went after this guy unfairly. His pregnant wife was harassed at the parade. Way to stay classy NY! (Don't the Yanks and the Sox play in a week?)

This is just another clue pointing toward a larger political realignment. Traditional Right/Left dichotomy has for years now been essentially irrelevant in accurately describing political attitudes in the US. In addition to Right and Left designations there is also a perpendicular social dimension defined between the extremes of authoritarianism and libertarianism. Most people and politicians fall somewhere in this four grid schema (politicains almost exclusively in the upper right hand grid. It seems to me (maybe as a response to Bush's strong move further toward authoritarianism) that there is a marked movement toward libertarianism. This is (of course) most evident in the Republican party who has all but burned Bush in effigy. Ron Paul's campaign almost single handedly forced the Party to choose McCain (even when it was clear the the establishment wanted Romney). Huckabee's campaign made sure that authoritarians still had power--but Paul proved that many conservatives have had enough.

The Democrats are of course always on the verge of political realignment. The biggest problems the Dems face are essentially the same problems that have always plagued them:identity/niche politics. Yet there also seems to be a movement toward libertarianism. Consider that one of Obama's largest bases is the group that howled loudest when he cravenly capitulated on FISA. These are the people who cheered on Ron Paul even when 70% of what he was saying was batshit insane (the other 30% was that right). Clinton supporters have ironically morphed into the Huckabee (or Edwards) version of the Democratic party--i.e. firebreathing populism aimed at the lowest common denominator. Maybe they can get together with Lieberman and see what they all have in common. Yuck.

I just clicked onto GG's page, where he makes a case that political realignment is occurring. Interesting.

I literally just posted this post in "The War Room." I thought it would be interesting within the context of GG's post as well:

Political realignment--

This is just another clue pointing toward a larger political realignment. Traditional Right/Left dichotomy has for years now been essentially irrelevant in accurately describing political attitudes in the US. In addition to Right and Left designations there is also a perpendicular social dimension defined between the extremes of authoritarianism and libertarianism. Most people and politicians fall somewhere in this four grid schema (politicians almost exclusively in the upper right hand grid. It seems to me (maybe as a response to Bush's strong move further toward authoritarianism) that there is a marked movement toward libertarianism. This is (of course) most evident in the Republican party who has all but burned Bush in effigy. Ron Paul's campaign almost single handedly forced the Party to choose McCain (even when it was clear the the establishment wanted Romney). Huckabee's campaign made sure that authoritarians still had power--but Paul proved that many conservatives have had enough.

The Democrats are of course always on the verge of political realignment. The biggest problems the Dems face are essentially the same problems that have always plagued them:identity/niche politics. Yet there also seems to be a movement toward libertarianism. Consider that one of Obama's largest bases is the group that howled loudest when he cravenly capitulated on FISA. These are the people who cheered on Ron Paul even when 70% of what he was saying was batshit insane (the other 30% was that right).

Forget ABBA. They suck. Their arrangements are boring. Completely for the brain dead. What really needs to happen is a stage production (and accompanying film) of Rush's "2112" and Iron Maiden's "Number of the Beast". That would kick ass!

I remember being completely awed by the sheer elegance and beauty of Thomas Aquinas' theology. Aquinas synthesized Christian thought with Aristotelian philosophy. Summa Theologica is a masterpiece. He is in a large part responsible for the introduction of logic and reason to the Catholic Church. We still study and learn from Aristotle, even though his metaphysics have been thoroughly disproved. This is what Carse is arguing.

600 years after Aquinas' death his philosophy was named as the official philosophy of the Catholic church. If one is a Catholic, one (however tacitly) must accept Aquinas' philosophy.

On another note, I hate to break it to Prof. Carse, but he does have an organized religion: Unitarian Universalism! Go UU! lol.