saangels

I'm on your side, mt...but I have a couple of questions. First, in the cops' defense: why isn't there an orange tip on that toy gun? Second, in the kid's defense: why couldn't the cops have shot him once in the leg, if they truly feared that he might be a threat? If the kid had been a 25 year old grown man, and ignored the orders to drop the gun, then I'd have had no problem with them blowing him away. But he was 13. That changes everything. The cops f*cked up.

I really enjoyed that. Thanks, notherhalo.

Fascism.

Joe Buck doesn't offer the greatest insights in the world, but aesthetically speaking I think he has a very strong voice that fits well within the dynamics of a playoff atmostphere. I don't think i'd enjoy listening to him for 162 games a year, but for a few games in October I don't mind him at all. Tim McCarver is horrible.

I would definitely take a flyer on him for all the reasons you mentioned, agalloch. He's still young (only 27) and has a live arm; he's versatile, in that he can start or come out of the bullpen; and he wouldn't cost us a draft pick. He's local, too. His record at Yankee Stadium last year was 1-10; his ERA over 6. On the road his record was 3-4; ERA 3.88. What do we have to lose?

I thought USC's quarterback made some really nice throws in the forth quarter. Some of them got caught, some of them didn't. The ones that got dropped probably cost USC the game. All they needed was one score; that backup QB for Notre Dame was terrible.

Very true, unfortunately.

http://youtu.be/qKRAHf-MRuo

They're both great players, but I would go with Trout, mainly because I think he has a better head on his shoulders. Puig gives me the impression that he has the potential to become a clubhouse cancer.

The only thing we have to fear is fear-mongering itself.

Please don't make broad generalizations about any large group of individuals, regardless of what their common link might be. I'm a Laker fan, but that doesn't mean that my brain was pieced together on a production line. Everybody is different. I don't hate the Clippers, but I do find it kinda funny how so many of their fans materialized out of thin air once they started playing well. But the same thing happened with Angel fans after they won the world series. Did it not?

I rooted for the Dodgers because I have friends who are Dodger fans and I wanted them to be happy. I could give a rats a$$ if that bothers anybody on this message board. I've been a die hard Angel fan since I was five years old. I was too young to remember Donnie Moore, but I suffered through some hellish years and stuck by the team when scarcely 20,000 fans came out to watch the games. Never have I once considered becoming a fan of any other team. After 2002, all of the sudden everybody became a passionate Angels fan. A lot of these same "fans" have poked fun at me for my lukewarm desire to see the Dodgers win it all this year, calling into question my loyalty toward the Angels. I watched one Dodger playoff game, and that was only because my friend was at the game; it was the first playoff game he'd ever attended. The Dodgers won. I was happy that he was happy. When the Dodgers lost game six (a game that I didn't watch), it hurt about as bad as I'd expect my arm to hurt if it were to be grazed by a wiffle ball. I yawned, shrugged my shoulders, and went about my business. Why some Angel fans choose to act as though I'd taken sides against them in a holy war, I can only imagine. My fellow students at UCLA used to get on my case for not hating USC, too. My dad went to USC. I like my dad. I want him to be happy. So while I don't necessarily root for USC, I choose not to hate them. I guess that makes me a shitty UCLA fan too.

Hundley had no pass protection.

Positives: Defense played great. Brendel didn't f*** up any snaps. No major injuries. Negatives: Penalties continue to be a problem. Running game wasn't very impressive. (Get well soon Jordan James.)

Thank you, Nate.

Nate: you're right. Two companies is hardly a competition. On the contrary, two companies is one company away from a monopoly. My question is: assuming that we had a public option, wouldn't that lower the cost of health care across the board and consequently allow for more private insurance groups to compete? If not, could you explain to me your rational? If the public option is catering to the poor, I don't see how it could possibly be more expensive than regular health insurance. However, you're the expert here. I don't claim to have all the answers. I'm just trying to explore different avenues and learn something. Please, teach me. MtAngelsfan: I understand your concern. My objective isn't to defend the public option inasmuch as I'd like to point out its benefits in relation to Obamacare. Adam: Interesting point. There is definitely some truth to that.

"The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, was a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency which would compete with other health insurance companies within the United States of America." Per Wikipedia. [italics mine] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option

Dodgers.

Taylor, I found the article you posted very insightful. Mr. Funk impressed me with his ingenuity and open-mindedness. I completely agree with him on almost everything he said--even partially in regards to his concern over government regulation of the private sector. Nothing could be dumber or more racist than hiring people based on the color of their skin. I can see why employers are "living in a state of fear" when it is so easy for the EEOC board to point the finger with one hand and wag the discrimination card with the other. But this whole issue is two-fold, and I think the article misses an important point. The reason that Obamacare is good for Mr. Funk's business and bad for America is, according to the article, because "ObamaCare imposes new mandates and penalties on companies with more than 50 full-time employees—and even those working 30 hours a week are considered full-time." So in essence businesses are now more inclined to prefer temporary workers to permanent full-time employees to avoid paying penalties. But the penalties aren't intended to strike fear into the souls of business owners, like the article would lead us to believe. The penalties were put into legislation because the United States is the only industrialized country that doesn't offer its populace universal health care. It had always been--until recently--understood that a worker would receive health coverage in exchange for full-time work: but over the last decade or so many of these benefits have been getting cut. More and more full-time workers are losing their benefits. Consequently, the businessmen aren't the only ones "living in a state of fear." It's a two way street. Is Obamacare the best way to solve the problem? Hell no. But we live in a democracy, where diametrically opposing forces dictate the terms of our laws. I'm not thrilled about the bill either; I'm sure there are a million scandalous riders and flaws in the wording of it; but as a hard-working, uninsured--yet full-time employed--worker myself with a screwed up knee, I'm glad to know that one day I'll be able to have surgery without having to take out a $20,000 loan. In short, I can see both perspectives. Government intervention is not always the right way to go. In this case, however, I think it is the lesser of two evils, because most employers aren't as generous as Mr. Funk. Something clearly needed to be done. There's no excuse for 47,000 uninsured citizens to die every year in the richest country in the world--even if it means cutting into the sacred pie and redistributing a little wealth.

Huh?

I stand corrected, jsnpritchett. Thank you for doing the research that I clearly should have done myself before opening my big fat yapper.

Absolutely not. He plays in a little league stadium. Granted, he's a really good player, but there's no way he will put up the same numbers in Anaheim that he has over his career in New York. The only thing the Angels would prove if they sign Cano is that they haven't learned anything.

If you haven't ever had the honor, let me be the first to tell you that, as a fan, it's a strange feeling when your childhood baseball hero gets tagged with a 7-15 year sentence for fondling minors. I used to idolize Chad Curtis when I was in the 3rd or 4th grade. In fact, I still vividly remember going to Angels Stadium for a team autograph session where he signed and handed me his baseball card. The card had a bible verse written on the back. I thought: "wow, how do these professional athletes stay so humble and down to earth?" Needless to say, I'm very disappointed. http://keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/10/03/former-mlb-outfielder-chad-curtis-sentenced-for-sexual-abuse/

Very interesting. They don't have a minimum wage, but you could argue that they are the epitome of a welfare state, if they are planning to hand out a 2,500 franc basic income for every adult, employed or not. Isn't that essentially a minimum wage for doing nothing? I'm not sure I like that, but some of the other proposals they are making are intriguing, e.g., the 1:12 initiative, making public employees shareholders, etc.

You're absolutely right, mtangelsfan. I worry that, because I am pro-labor rights and pro-minimum wage, people will deduce that, by default, I must be pro-government. I am not. I can't stand our government. If anything, I am pro-checks and balances. I don't believe that a full-time, hard working employee deserves to struggle uninsured, earning below the poverty line, in the richest country in the world. And I fear that, based on my knowledge of history and human nature, that without a minimum wage, not only would he continue to struggle, it would get worse. I could be wrong. But again, look at England in the 1830s. That is your prototype.