Phil Nevin has the right

Let's talk some baseball, shall we? "Slugger" Phil Nevin has been traded from the San Diego Padres to the Baltimore Orioles for "pitcher" Sidney Ponson. Essentially, this is a trade between two teams that should be doing better than they are trying to rid themselves of two problems. (A disclaimer: I have owned Phil Nevin on my fantasy teams in years past, and he always got injured. For this reason, I hate the guy. Also, Sidney Ponson came and stunk it up for the Giants in a late season trade a few years ago, and for THIS reason, I hate him too.)



Phil Nevin has a no-trade clause, which lets him refuse a trade to any of eight teams he's specifically listed. Baltimore is on that list. (Why it's on that list is an interesting question, because it's a team with a beautiful park, and they pay their players good money. The reason I suspect it's on the list is one of the key reasons I think it's just fine for him to turn down the trade - they are in the AL East.) First things first - the Padres granted him this no-trade clause, and they well acknowledge that its in his right to refuse the trade. However, they've told him that if he exercises that right, he's going to be benched most of the time while staying in San Diego.

"I have a certain amount of time to make a decision, and I'm going to use that time," Nevin, 34, said. "I haven't had a chance to sit down with my family and kids and talk about these things face to face. This is a kind of life-changing decision."

I think it's in Nevin's best interest to go to Baltimore -- and it is looking more and more like he might do just that, but I think there are a few wholly justifiable reasons not to do so:

1) Family His family and home are in San Diego. Big whoop in the world of baseball, but Nevin is at the end of his career and probably wants to spend more time with them. San Diego is one of the nicest places in the world, and it's hard to find fault with someone who wants to settle down there permanently.

2) The AL East Look, the Orioles are only 3 1/2 games out of first place, so anything can happen. But for the Orioles to win a playoff spot, it means that either the Red Sox or the Yankees aren't going to the playoffs. Despite the problems those teams have, the O's have more. Lots more. I just can't see it happening. If one wants to use the "don't you want to be in the playoffs?" argument, Nevin has a much better chance of doing so while with the Padres.

3)Cause Why NOT?There's an adage that every player - because he has the luxury of playing sports for a living - has to work his hardest every day, enjoy the privilege of playing a game for a living, and do everything the RIGHT way. There is no other industry where there remains such disdain for the employee who really just wants to get his job done so he can go home to his family. Where the job doesn't HAVE to be the end-all, be-all definition of his life. Perhaps Phil Nevin has found some happiness in his current situation in San Diego and doesn't want to shake that up. Maybe he likes the routine he's gotten into. The guy's day to day routine can't be all wine and roses. The schedule for any MLB player is hard - aside from the games there is working out, exercise, an insane amount of travel and all the headaches that come with it (even luxury travel like they have), let alone the physical therapy someone with an injury history like Nevin must go through. Does it make him an evil person if he wants to minimize the rest of headaches in his life?

Again, I think Nevin will go to Baltimore, and I also think he should if for no other reason than to know he's playing for a team that wants him. But if he refuses the trade, he has every right to do so.

Funny

There's no reason for me to post this, except I really, really want to. Cause it's funny like that.

JFK

I've been reading Mark Kurlansky's 1968: The Year That Rocked The World - suprisingly, it has yet to mention anything about me being born in that year, which I personally find quite relevant -- but in talking about the political environment, it naturally goes back to JFK. I've been impressed that Kurlansky doesn't shy away from taking a few jabs at JFK (and Bobby, for that matter) for making some bad decisions. JFK is one of those guys who everyone thinks of in glowing terms, but there's no reason to ignore the Bay of Pigs or some other less enlightened decisions he made. (Only partisan hacks ignore both sides of things - such as Republicans who laud Reagan but scoff off Iran-Contra, the savings and loan crisis, etc.)

This quote, which I did not get from the book but from a post on Daily Kos, really sums up the reasons that it kills me that "liberal" has become a derisive word. I wouldn't call myself a liberal by the common definition - I don't believe in rent control, and I'm not against the death penalty (though I waver), among two areas that would disagree strongly with liberal thought. Hell, I drive an SUV. That should squash the label right there. But the below is pretty hard to disagree with, and spot fucking on:

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."

But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

London Calling

(I was going to use another Clash song, London's Burning, as the title of this post, but it seemed too morbid.)

In light of todays horrific and idiotic and sad London terrorist attack, two quotes stuck out for me. This one from the London News Review:

"What the fuck do you think you're doing? This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us. Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work. All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap. And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub. So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city."

And this one from a friend who I generally disagree with politically, but couldn't be more right:

Al-Qaeda has as much to do with Islam as the KKK does with Christianity.

Peace.

Fish on a Bicycle

Seriously, is it asking so much to think that the leader of the free world can ride a fucking bike? this is at least the THIRD time I can remember him falling and scraping himself while biking. And I'm about 99.9999% convinced he isn't mountain biking, just riding along.

That's retarded.

The President Can't Ride a Bike

I mean, maybe he isn't an idiot, maybe he is smarter than the nickname 'Chimpy' warrants, but five year olds can ride a bike better than he can.

At least he gets back on the thing. I suppose that's worth something. But seriously, why does he fall so much? Is he on some type of medication? Is he drinking again? Or is he just geniunely uncoordinated and/or unlucky? Somehow the latter explanation doesn't seem the most viable...

Little Man in a Dress

Somehow I don't think the guy who published this photo (on Yahoo News) is part of the 40% of folks who still approve of the way President Bush is handling things.

Gosh, that sure is a purty prom dress, Mr. President.

Asshole

Pat Oliphant rocks.