Mt. Abe offering new path to students, Addison County Independent, 06/03/10
Nothing to add … the news article covers it quite well.
About Last Night
You've probably never heard me say this before, and I really don't like saying it at all, so I'm only going to say it once: Bud Selig was right.
You know what I'm talking about. It's the same thing everybody's talking about today.
Let's get a couple of things out front right away.
First, Joyce's call was wrong. No question about it. He said it, the runner said it, everybody knows it.
Second, it was a lot closer than anyone is letting on. Look at all the replays, from multiple angles, and it's clear that it was really pretty close, and the ball appears to be bouncing around in Galarraga's glove for a period, and he doesn't have control of the ball until he stops bobbling it. From Joyce's angle, in real time, I don't doubt that he looked safe.
Third, if you watch enough baseball, what you see is that the umpires are right almost all the time. It's small consolation on that one occasion when they blow a big one, but they almost always get the right answer at a very hard job under a lot of pressure.
So what should have happened? Is there some principled way that Selig could have done what almost the whole world wanted? I don't think so.
A philosophy professor I had once defined a game as an activity in which an arbitrarily selected goal is pursued by arbitrarily restricted means.
In other words, in a very real sense, the game is the rules.
From the Official Rules:
9.02 (a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final.
Final. That's what the rule says, and that's what it means.
Even the most casual observer is familiar with the concept of playing a game under protest, but that doesn't offer an out here, because a somewhat less casual observer knows that a protest is not available for judgment calls:
Even if it is held that the protested decision violated the rules, no replay of the game will be ordered unless in the opinion of the League President the violation adversely affected the protesting team’s chances of winning the game.
But wait, some will say, what about the Pine Tar Incident? That was actually not at all a counterexample. The Pine Tar Incident was a routine protest of a call, in which the decision of the umpire under protest was not a judgment call (e.g. how high up the barrel of George Brett's bat the pine tar went) but what the consequence of that determination should have been.
So it's clear that a protest would have been unavailable to change the result. Is there any other basis to reverse Joyce's decision? Many commentators have referred to the “best interests clause” of baseball's Constitution as a panacea, but I think that this is misguided.
First off, it's very hard to find out what the best interests clause actually says. People who know it exists understand that it gives the commissioner broad power, but they don't really know what it says. I went to some effort to find it, and here's what it says:
Art. II, Sec. 2. The functions of the Commissioner shall include:
(b) To investigate, either upon complaint or upon the Commisioner's own initiative, any act, transaction or practice charged, alleged, or suspected to be not in the best interests of the national game of Baseball, with authrotiy to summon person and to order the production of documents, and, in case of refusal to appear or produce, to impose such penalties as are hereinafter provded.
(c) To determine, after investigation, what preventive, remedical or punitive action is appropriate in the premises, and to take such action either against Major League Clubs or individuals, as the case may be.
I haven't been able to find any instances where the commissioner has interfered with the outcome of a game or play call by an umpire using this provision, and it doesn't appear to me that such a step is contemplated by the Clause. It's ordinarily used to stop owners from doing things, like when they didn't let Charlie O. Finley from his wholesale giveaway of the Athletics. It has arguably been getting broader under Bud Lite, but I still don't see how it applies to forcing umpires to change their decisions, even an umpire who desperately wishes he could.
Any other ideas? I saw a suggestion earlier today that “In 1991, a panel headed by then-commissioner Fay Vincent took a look at the record book and decided to throw out 50 no-hitters for various reasons.”
This is true. The records have been amended for various reasons at various times. For instance, I think (it may have been part of Vincent's review) they went through all the box scores and awarded Hack Wilson two additional RBI, bringing his season record to 192.
Still, this isn't the same thing. In 1991 the Committee on Statistical Accuracy decertified a number of no-hitters based on a rule change that the pitcher must pitch at least nine complete innings to be credited with a no-hitter. That change was based on the application of a new rule to the play on the field and the decisions made by the umpires on the field.
Like it or not, the game is governed by what happens on the field. From the perspective of a lifelong fan, I think it's very important that the games be conducted according to the rules. That's why Selig was way off base when he called the All-Star game a tie a few years back, and why he was right today. Joyce could have changed the call or asked one of the other umpires to tell him what he saw, but the call was his and I think that should be the end of it.
One other thing: people have been suggesting that in a situation like this every umpire would, and should, give the pitcher the “benefit of the doubt”, by which I assume they mean they should have called the runner out even if they had some doubt, or just because it was a close play and it meant giving him a perfect game. I think this is completely wrong. Obviously he would, and should, have had a perfect game. On the other hand, the umpire's job, and obligation, is to call the game, and every play in the game, honestly. Once you say they should start shading their judgment because of how they want things to turn out you're on very shaky ground. It's exactly what the Supreme Court did in Bush v. Gore, and we saw how ugly that turned out.
The decision today, and the stoic acceptance of the decision both last night and this morning by Armando Galarraga, is a statement in favor of the Rule of Law, and I praise everyone involved in today's decision.
Even Bud Lite.
Obama and the Oil: More Foxes in the Henhouse?
Remember Dubya's approach to regulation? More specifically, how he'd appoint former industry insiders to positions in charge of regulating their former industries? Many of us bitched about it, and rightly so. Time to start bitchin' again:
To shape the government's long-term response to the Gulf oil calamity, President Obama recently formed an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the origins of the leak and BP's efforts to control it. Yet one of the commission's two co-directors, former EPA chief William K. Reilly, sits on the board of directors of the oil giant ConocoPhillips and the chemical company Dupont, which supplies goods and services to the oil industry.
Now, putting aside the fact that Obama still hasn't gotten rid of a lot of the abysmal Bush appointees, is there something really wrong with this picture? And it's not the first time he's done this:
Now, Reilly is not the first Obama appointee with direct ties to the oil industry. Indeed, two former BP execs now occupy high posts within, respectively, the Department of Energy and the Minerals Management Service. In March 2009, the president named BP's chief scientist, Steve Koonin, to the post of undersecretary of science to the Department of Energy. The pick drew little criticism within green circles at the time — perhaps because at BP, Koonin's role was evidently to take the oil giant "beyond petroleum."
Then there's Sylvia V. Baca, whom Obama tapped last summer to serve as deputy administrator for land and minerals management at the now-infamous Minerals Management Service. As Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard reported last week, Baca had spent her previous eight years as a BP exec.
So we have the man in charge of BP's greenwashing campaign in an upper lever position at the DOE, a former BB exec at the MMS, and now this. A quick peek around left-blogistan reveals nothing but the sound of crickets. This is really getting tiresome, and in light of the oil disaster, downright dangerous. Where’s the accountability?
Peter Shumlin’s New Video
(GMD has a policy of promoting all diaries from our statewide candidates. – promoted by Jack McCullough)
Check out Peter’s new video! See why Peter wants to be Vermont’s next Governor and why he is the candidate that can get tough things done and beat Brian Dubie in November!
Clean energy ad attacks Leahy by name
What do you guys think. Is this a fair ad?
This is how they protect us???
Today’s pop quiz:
What do you do at 6:30pm when police and fire department personnel inspect an apartment at 10am for malfeasance, find reason for concern and secure the building?
Your pictorial answer below the fold …
(Suspected meth lab raided, Barre/Montpelier Times Argus, 06/03/10)
That’s right … put on a huge show of force against an empty building!
By the way, according to the second paragraph of the above mentioned article “Late Wednesday, officials said that nothing volatile was found.”
I suppose this is to be expected when one arms and psychologically preps the local police departments as if they’re going into combat against an army.
A Few Words About Madagascar
Sometimes it’s good to be cautious–and other times it’s better to go with your gut.
People told us not to visit Madagascar, that political conflict made the country unsafe for tourists.
But we decided to go anyway because if we had listened to those voices, we’d never have gone to Nairobi, Kampala, or Kigali.
We are cautious when we travel, but aware that our best and most eye-opening experiences are places well off the beaten path.
And, Anantanrivo, Madagascar’s capital city, is a place we fell in love with.
The narrow streets, alleyways, cobblestone roads, and historic buildings remind you, at times, of parts of Western Europe. At the same time the markets, the noise, the traffic, the energy, the goats and livestock walking along the highways, were all quintessentially African.
Our journey started as we did a field visit to RTM. RTM is an Italian NGO, working with farmers to provide alternatives to slash and burn agriculture–which is practiced in many rural areas as a way to provide nutrients to the soil. Unfortunately, the nutrients don’t last more than a season or two, forcing farmers to burn more forest.
Afterwards we met with Xavier Rakotonjanahary, Rice Breeding Coordinator, National Center of Applied Research for Rural Development. Xavier works with rural rice farmers, helping develop different breeds of rice that will help reduce labor, fertilizer, and other inputs.
We spent Danielle’s birthday trekking in the rainforest in search of lemurs in the national rainforest of Antanarivo. Lemurs are only found in Madagascar (with the exception of the island of Comoros) largely because their ancestors were displaced everywhere else due to monkeys and apes.
In Madagascar, 90 percent of the country’s original forest has been destroyed and lemurs are presently endangered due to deforestation and hunting. Additionally several species of lemurs are extinct, especially the larger species. The smaller lemurs are nocturnal and all we could see was their amazing red eyes on a night trek. We also saw large chameleons, turtles and giant snails.
During the day we saw lemurs playing (they travel as families) and eating flowers, leaves and fruits. In our video below you will see them playing, and can listen to a brief explanation about lemurs from our tour guide. They are pretty incredible animals with deposable thumbs and long tails that they use to balance themselves between trees.
In summary, if you are considering a visit to Madagascar, go. You won’t regret it!
Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved:
1. Comment on our daily posts — we check for comments everyday and want to have a regular ongoing discussion with you.
2. Receive regular updates–Join the weekly BorderJumpers newsletter by clicking here.
3. Help keep our research going–If you know of any great projects or contacts in West Africa please connect us connect us by emailing, commenting or sending us a message on facebook.
Something’s Rotten in Cabot
You may remember that a small group of concerned neighbors to the Agrimark facility in Cabot (Whey to Go) tried unsuccessfully last fall and winter to dissuade the ANR from issuing a permit to increase the amount of waste the plant could disperse in the area. They raised questions about the composition of the waste, anecdotal evidence that some components posed a risk of toxicity; and asked why the wastewater facility that Agrimark was supposed to build had never materialized.
Now, a new twist has been added to the story. It seems that Agrimark has indirectly applied to the ANR for permits to drill wells in several locations on the property. When adjacent landowners were notified of the application, they were puzzled why Agrimark’s representatives would only now be asking for permits for what appear to be already existing wells. Whey to Go Spokesman, Jill Alexander contacted me about this more than a week ago, but I was waiting for clarification she had requested from the ANR before posting about this story.
Today, I received the following from Jill:
To my fellow petition signers,
First, thank you for signing our petition and sharing your concerns regarding Agri-Mark’s, (DBA Cabot Creamery) waste water spraying. We need your help again.
The Agency of Natural Resources recently discovered that, for the past 20 years, Agri–Mark, DBA Cabot Creamery has unlawfully withdrawn tens of thousands of gallons of water each day from their unpermitted wells. Instead of reprimanding Agri-Mark, or investigating whether this has depleted Cabot’s water supply, ANR intends to permit Agri-Mark’s water wells!
We need you to voice your concern by requesting a public hearing before the June 10th deadline.
Agri-Mark’s plan is to pull 15,000 gallons of water per day from these water wells, but the company has no plan to assess how this would affect others in the area. Plus, ANR would count on Agri-Mark to report its own water withdrawal. Agri-Mark has chalked up a long list of permit violations. Why should they be trusted with our water?
Here’s how to weigh in and request a public hearing: (Application PID N-2049-07.0 under 10 VSA, Section 1675 (c).)
1. Email Rodney Pingree at the Water Supply Division, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, Vt. 05671 @ rodney.pingree@state.vt.us. and also Scott Stewart @ Scott.Stewart@state.vt.us. who is also at the Water Supply Division of ANR.
2. Please cc: sandra.noyes@yahoo and Jill Alexander @ 4reiki@fairpoint.net so we can keep track.
She reports that:
we have unearthed some very disturbing information about what is happening with this well issue. My overflow has gone dry as well as my neighbor’s overflow so this is urgent before we potentially have our water drained by Agri-Mark.
Sounds as if Agrimark and ANR have some explaining to do. How about that public hearing, ANR?
Here is a convenient link to the original diary I posted on November 9, 2009
Barre Investigating Possible Lauzon Connection to Monday’s Fire?
My apologies if this one ends up as mere rumor rather than story, but I was just told by someone who claims their cousin is a Barre firefighter that the BFD is investigating Mayor Lauzon’s possible connections to the “suspicious” fire that burnt the historic Aldrich Block on Monday. Lauzon had just purchased the building. Allegedly, there was no electricity on in the vacant building, and the third floor (where the fire appears to have started) was- again, allegedly- entirely empty. I’m sure there will be more to come, if my source is credible (which, to be clear, I’m not sure of).
Vermonters mourn the dead of the Memorial Day Massacre on Aid Flotilla to Gaza
BURLINGTON- If you weren’t on Church Street yesterday, you missed this demonstration and memorial to the nine humanitarian activists who were murdered by cowardly Israeli commandos this weekend. The attacks have spurred worldwide condemnation including Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Women’s Initiative, Russia, Turkey, India, China, Brazil, France, and Spain. Obama expressed “deep regret at the loss of life.”
The Turkish Mavi Mamara was delivering humanitarian aid and miscellaneous supplies to Gaza. Gaza cannot receive the aid due to the Israeli naval blockade, claiming it will help Hamas (which is rubbish). More flotillas are headed to Gaza and the Turkish parliament approved military escorts to ensure their safe arrival. An Israeli naval commander said “next time [we] will use more force.” There’s more to the story. There’s so much late breaking and developing news. For a good rundown click here. Glenn Greenwald also has a full recap.
In the meantime, here’s the YouTube from yesterday’s actions in Burlington. There will be another demonstration tomorrow. If I have any further information, I’ll post it here.