I Have Written a Whole Bunch of Columns and Blog Posts About the California Special Election and its Aftermath: So let's collect most of it in one place, in reverse chronological order, shall we? Starting with tonight:

Blame the Voters, Pass the Buck: L.A. Times writers who bemoan "feel-good 'ballot box budgeting'" ignore the paper's longstanding support for bond-measure politics.

Why Long Beach Isn't Detroit: How Southern California survived the collapse of aircraft manufacturing without a bailout. (Not technically about the special election, but somehow relevant.)

Bailout Mentality 101: How Michael Hiltzik's Act or Die mindset is all too common among the people who are supposed to be explaining this stuff.

The $499,000 Pension and Other Tales of California Governance: Why discuss gold-plated retirements when you can bemoan budget cuts that will "reshape" California?

California's Silent Big Spenders: Political class refuses to explain why the state requires hysterical spending growth.

LAT Columnist: State Spending Problem a "Myth"...Unless You Count All State Spending: Michael Hiltzik's curious math.

Paul Krugman: If Only California Could Just Raise Taxes: Blaming tax restrictions, and a political minority, on a spending problem.

The California Scare Campaign: How "straight" news is tailored to maximally frighten your pants off.

Why Governments Are Lousy at Running Businesses, But Excellent at Scaring You About "Annihilating" Budget Cuts: In which "brutal budget cuts" mean 2 percent of the public sector workforce.

Union Chief, to the California He Helped Drive Into the Ditch: "I think democracy is an ugly thing": SEIU chief Andy Stern doesn't even try to defend his takeover of Golden State politics.

California's Political/Journalistic Class = Fail: Though that doesn't stop them from snarling at voters the morning after.

Defenders of Democracy Fail, Yet Again, to Convince the Polity: Featuring a handy and stunning chart of California newspaper editorial endorsements.

Some of this will surely be repetitive and so on, but I wanted to gather all the coverage in once place.

06/02/2009 07:07 PM  |  Reaction (0)

Why Facebook Is Fun For a 40-year-old, in a That Way it Can't Be for a 20-year-old: Because ha-ha, surprising old pictures you didn't know about and never expected to see!

For instance, not gay at all:

Also, not drunk:

Not a hippie:

Not looking down Bonnie Cooper's shirt:

And ... just not:

05/31/2009 06:37 PM  |  Reaction (3)

Five Morning-After Points About Manny Ramirez

05/08/2009 09:27 AM  |  Reaction (0)

"Ink-Stained Retch: The media's fawning coverage of State of Play will make you run screaming...from your newspaper"

04/15/2009 08:11 PM  |  Reaction (2)

Adenhart Bill Passes Committee

04/14/2009 08:56 PM  | 

MADD About Nick Adenhart

04/12/2009 07:37 PM  |  Reaction (1)

My 2009 Baseball Predictions:

AL West:
1) Angels 2) A's 3) Mariners 4) Rangers
Comment: Yeah, I know -- how can I pick the Rangers 2nd in my longshot picks yet 4th in their division? BECAUSE MY MIND IS VERY COMPLICATED, THAT'S WHY. And also, the Rangers are never quite the hitting team they (and others) think, due to the illusions of their launching pad of a park. They have a banjo-hitting 20-year-old shortstop, a bunch of indistinct humanity like David Murphy and Brandon Boggs, and Michael Young is losing effectiveness just as he's being moved to a position with more offensive expectations. These guys look poised to lose a lot of 7-4 games at Arlington.

As for the headline race, I expect it to be close and exciting, especially considering the likelihood that the Angels will stumble out of the gate a bit. It is both my hope and fear that the A's will win 90something games, be in first place for more than a month, push us until mid-September, and win the Wild Card. Why hope? I think the Angels need real competition in their division, in order to remove that deer-in-headlights problem with the annual October visit to Fenway.

AL Central:
1) Royals 2) Twins 3) White Sox 4) Tigers 5) Indians
Comment: Since it's not my money, I have decided this year to predict according to what I also think will be fun. And I think a Kansas City Miracle would be a fun storyline this year, and not altogether implausible, given how shitty this division is (especially if Joe Mauer is hurt). I covered most of this yesterday, but it's startling how quickly a strong division turned weak (though you could make the same case about the AL West last year).

AL East:
1) Red Sox 2) Rays 3) Yankees 4) Blue Jays 5) Orioles
Comment: I think the Red Sox are the only team here who'll win 90. If there is one bedrock belief I have about the American League this year, it's that the Yankees won't be a very good baseball team. Why?

Their defense, which has been awful most of this decade, will be that much worse, as the already range-less Derek Jeter ages another year (seriously, did you watch him in the World Baseball Classic? It was like seeing Willie Mays play center field for the Mets), a poor-fielding 37-year-old soaks up most of the innings behind the plate, and the great A-Rod misses at least half the season over at 3B. Throwing a couple hundred mil at pitchers with a hacktastic crew like that in back of 'em is going to make the new guys look much worse than they actually are, which in turn will put added New York pressure on them, which may make one or two crack. Meanwhile, the offense already wasn't really all that last year, coming 7th in the league in runs. With the new (taxpayer-lavished) park, the new Wall Street recession, the new hundred-millionaires, and the new A-Roids scandal, this situation looks marvelously poised to just blow the hell right up.

The Rays should backslide (few teams in history improve by 30+ games and then just stay there), and I'm guessing it's the pitching that craps out on them. Still, they've got enough great young talent (and a great manager!) to compete for the Wild Card. The O's had quite a few offensive spikes last year, and seem a depressed organization.

Playoffs:
Red Sox beat the Wild Card A's, Angels beat the upstart Royals, and then the Angels finally take their revenge on Planet Masshole.
Awards:
MVP Howie Kendrick, Cy Young Roy Halladay, Rookie of the Year David Price. Kendrick is healthy, taking a lot of walks this spring, and has a man-sized chip on his shoulder about last year's playoff debacle. Also, I really like him!

NL West:
1) Dodgers 2) Diamondbacks 3) Giants 4) Rockies 5) Padres
Comment: Honestly, this division just baffles me. The Dodgers have a wonderful offensive core, a terrible habit of filling their depth chart with the detritus left over after trading a dozen good young players, and one of the thinnest looking rotations I've ever seen. The D-backs just don't make any sense, really. The Giants might have a great rotation this year, and are otherwise depending way too much on people like Bengie Molina impersonating a cleanup hitter. The Rockies...didn't they make the World Series recently, or something like that? And the Padres are poised to be the very worst team in baseball this year -- I saw one of their exhibition games, and oh man, are they just brutal. How could you play 81 games in Petco, and staff your outfield with a third baseman, a plodding 31-year-old in center, and a baby rhinocerous in right? Jose Reyes might hit his 17 triples this year in Petco alone.

Anyway, it's a weird division, but Joe Torre seems to always make the playoffs, and so there.

NL Central:
1) Cardinals 2) Cubs 3) Reds 4) Brewers 5) Pirates 6) Astros
Comment: Khalil Greene looks set to be Comeback Player of the Year, and betting for very long against either Tony Larussa or Albert Pujols seems unwise. Meanwhile the Astros, with their b-r-u-t-a-l farm system, seem poised to be this year's Padres.

NL East:
1) Mets 2) Braves 3) Marlins 4) Phillies 5) Nationals
Comment: Figure it's the Mets' turn. Also, did you know that the Phillies' Opening Day starter tonight is Brett Tomko? That cannot possibly end well. Meanwhile, the ex-Angel mojo that has worked so well for the Cardinals and Rays will transfer this year to the Braves, where Casey Kotchman will blossom into an All-Star and Garret Anderson will somehow be given credit that is actually due an improved rotation. They're my pick for the Wild Card.

Playoffs:
Braves surprise the Dodgers, Mets steamroll the cardinals, then Mets win the right to watch Mike Scioscia's second championship.
Awards:
Since I don't really follow the National League, I'll play it safe: Pujols, Johan Santana, and Colby Rasmus. I don't really know who Rasmus is, but I like his name.

OK! Leave yer picks in the comments, and let's do that thing!

UPDATE: I see through Howard Owens that it's Myers, not Tomko, for the Phils tonight. Serves me right for believing D.C. sports radio.

04/05/2009 10:58 AM  |  Reaction (7)

My Longshot Bets to Win the World Series: It's a tradition I skipped last year, even though I was coming off at least one semi-good call in pointing out the 2007 Mariners had too much promise to be 90-1. And for you betters out there, never forget that my past picks have included the 100-1 payoff 2003 Florida Marlins. Onward and downward, with the arts!

3) Kansas City Royals, 80-1. Oh, I don't think the Royals are much more than a .500 team (a level of mediocrity they've reached -- barely -- just once in 14 years), but the AL Central has gone from great to brutal in a hurry. The White Sox are old, slow, and ready for collapse. The Twins are great but their should-been-MVP-twice-already is on the DL, and their diaper-wearing rotation is poised to turn back into a pumpkin. And speaking of flashes in the pan, the Indians benefited last year from the one-off luck of having the alien being of 1978 Ron Guidry inhabit Cliff freakin' Lee for a season, and yet still only managed to break even. The Tigers have serious pitching and defense issues, and will likely look to slash payroll as the season progresses.

What do the Royals have going for them? Not a ton. Zack Greinke looks like a fine young pitcher, Gil Meche has been one of the AL's best starters the past two years, and the rest of the rotation is young & has upside. The defense should be very good and improved, with the phenomenal Covelli Loyce Crisp coming over to play CF, and 38-year-old Mark Grudzielanek giving way at 2B to the speedy former Angel farmhand Alberto Callaspo. Mike Jacobs will hit a helluva lot more home runs than the awful Ross Gload.

If Coco at 29 can hit anywhere near as good as he did at 24-25; if Mark Teahen can do likewise at age 27, if Alex Gordon looks more like the next Howard Johnson than the next Darnell Coles, and if Mike Aviles really is a .325/.354/.480-hitting shotrstop ... then this team will surprise some people.

2) At 100-1, your Texas Rangers. According to the the odds I'm using, anyway, the following teams tie for least likely to win the World Series -- the Pirates, Padres, Nationals, Astros, and Rangers. One of these does not look like the others.

First of all, the American League West is, no matter how else you slice it, the only four-team division in the major leagues. The stubbornly awful Pirates and bare-cupboard Astros, by comparison, have to compete in a division of six. It really ain't fair, and I'm surprised more people don't squawk about it, but the fact remains that it's just an awful lot easier to luck into a division crown over in Ichiro's Beanie Sciosciaville. Since the most recent expansion a decade ago, just three of the six teams in the NL Central have won the division; all four of the AL West have taken turns on top.

Secondly, though the division has largely been a two-team dogfight since 2002, Oakland's rotation has more anonymous, green-around-the-ears 20somethings than Adams Morgan on a Friday night, and the Angels are starting the year with seemingly every starting pitcher in team history, including but not limited to Jack Lazorko, on the disabled list. Things could easily go pear-shaped on both clubs, and meanwhile Texas is broadly pointed in the right direction, with most of its good hitters 28 and younger, and if they could get any starting pitching they'd win some games.

1) Oakland A's, 40-1. Really? 40-1? A perenially contending and innovatively run team that everyone agrees has improved drastically in a division whose defending champeen outwon its Pythagorean projection by 12 games and then let a half-dozen Type A free agents walk? I know their rotation is suspect, but do you know how many different starting pitchers not named Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Haren, or Harden have given Billy Beane 20 starts of at least ERA+ 95 ball since 2000? Eleven. Not different seasons, but different men -- Kevin Appier, Gil Heredia, Cory Lidle, Ted Lilly, Mark Redman, Kirk Saarloos, Lenny DiNardo, Chad Gaudin, Joe Blanton, Justin Duchscherer, and Greg Smith. Beane is better than anyone in baseball at finding warm bodies to throw league-average innings for cheap in that sterilized cavern of his, and for the last half-decade has been putting a world-class defense behind them. And this year, for the first time in a while, this team will hit.

OK! Stay tuned for preseason picks tomorrow, and get ready to add yours in the comments. Happy baseballs!

04/04/2009 07:42 PM  |  Reaction (1)

Life of a Wife of a Relief Pitcher on the Major League Bubble in Late Spring Training: Totally compelling stuff, from Rich Thompson's wife Ashley.

I saw Rich pitch in my first-ever spring training game. He's got a ridiculous curve ball, which looked even nastier considering it was against a team of South Africans. [Link via the already indispensable 3 Days of Cryin'.]

03/24/2009 06:49 PM  |  Reaction (1)

My Blowback to the L.A. Times Editorial on Chas Freeman

03/13/2009 01:36 PM  |  Reaction (1)

"But we never smoked weed during the games" ... except for that one time: Leon "Daddy Wags" Wagner, original Angel, talks about his days with the late-'50s Giants and the early-'60s Angels:

Cepeda was playing bongo music all the time, smoking a little weed -- it was strong, then. But we never smoked weed during the games. You can't play drugged up. Every now and then we'd smoke weed after the game, or in the off-season. But you could not play drugged up, with all those people in the stands, playing for money, man. That was out. And we never smoked a lot of weed then. You couldn't drink a lot of whiskey then, either, and I was never a boozer. But, as I said, it was strong stuff, then -- two puffs [laughs].

I did try smoking weed, though, one time before playing in Boston. I took two puffs and I hadn't come down, and I'm out in left field and Yastrzemski hits a line drive to left. And I've got my hands on my knees and I watch that line drive sail over my head, with my hands still on my knees. I didn't feel like moving [laughs]. So I just trotted over real easy and retrieved it, and hummed itinto second base. And then I went back to my position, hands on knees, and relaxed. Rigney didn't say a word to me when I went back to the dugout. He didn't know. I was so glad to get that game over. I don't ever want to play that relaxed.

03/12/2009 06:55 PM  |  Reaction (1)

Me & Matthew Yglesias on Bloggingheads: This one's more interesting than usual, I think. Particularly if you think, like I think, that the whole Chas Freeman debate has been revealingly retarded.

UPDATE: If you get your news from L.A. Times editorials, the only issue on the table in the entire Freeman discussion was gradations of support for Israel. Jesus Christ.

Also, for what it's worth, and to the extent anyone should care, Andrew Sullivan's guesswork as to my "motivation" is wrong.

03/11/2009 08:11 PM  | 

Reason a Four-Time Finalist for the Maggie Awards

03/09/2009 02:21 PM  |  Reaction (1)

Hi! What are you doing down here?