Stick to baseball, 12/17/16.

My main piece for Insiders this week went up this morning, on the many lost opportunities in MLB’s new collective bargaining agreement, discussing money and rights the union may have left on the table, and why the agreement seemed to come together so late. I also wrote about the Dodgers’ two re-signings earlier in the week, and I held a Klawchat here on Thursday.

At Paste this week I ranked the ten best boardgames I saw in 2016. A few folks have asked why the highly-rated Scythe isn’t on the list; I think that game is too long and overly complicated, with playing times that can top two hours (and a retail price of $90). All ten games I listed are clearly better, in my opinion.

In case you missed it, my list of my 100 favorite songs of 2016 went up here on Wednesday night.

You can preorder my upcoming book, Smart Baseball, on amazon. Also, please sign up for my more-or-less weekly email newsletter.

And now, the links…

Comments

  1. Keith, I’ll be calling my reps in NC this week and thanking them. NC was in very rough financial shape before McCory. Abutting that can limit the damage a dem governor can do is a good thing.

    • Oh, please. If Democrats had done this, you’d be whining about how the Democrats were being tyrannical.

    • A Salty Scientist

      Welp, you just outed yourself as an semi-literate anti-democratic hack, so you have that going for you.

    • In addition to Pat and the Scientist’s comments, I’ll add that McCrory’s decision to push through the likely unconstitutional hate bill HB2 cost you and your fellow taxpayers about $400 million. Will you thank them for that too, in addition to thanking them for subverting the democratic process?

    • It may be petty, but I fail to see how it’s a coup d’etat. This is the legislature exercising its power and, in some cases, clawing back power previously granted to the executive. It’s reminiscent of the Federalists’ midnight appointments in 1801. Oh, and Governor-elect Cooper supported many of these things when he was a legislator: http://m.wbtv.com/wbtv/db_330726/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=F2ggO32Q. Again, I’m not saying these are right from a policy perspective (or invoking a tu quoque or two-wrongs fallacy), just that the moves are not illegitimate

  2. *anything

  3. *McCrory

  4. The Dude Abides

    I don’t think that the plan to get the electors to prevent Trump from taking office revolves around getting enough of them to vote for Clinton. I think it’s more like Clinton releasing the Dem electors to vote for an acceptable Republican, and getting enough GOP electors to switch to that same Republican. Anyway, there’s probably only about a 1% chance this happens.

    • Is there a Republican out there Dems would find acceptable? I’m not trying to be glib, I genuinely can’t think of a Republican that Democrat electors and 38 Republican electors would be able to agree on. And even if they could find someone palatable to both sides, I’m not sure that would be in the best interest of the country. Russia meddling in our elections is unacceptable. And the fact that their meddling helped get a misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic buffoon elected makes it even worse. However, I think that unless we can get hard evidence that a) Trump’s campaign was directly involved in coordinating the release of hacked information or b) the hacks were directly changing votes in voting machines, we unfortunately are stuck with Trump as the next President. I’m not sure this country could handle the fallout from the electors changing the result of the election.

    • More likely – but still 99%+ unlikely – is that the EC splits and the House picks someone other than Trump. That could get us a true policy conservative, someone more like Pence, but would rid us of Trump’s twin problems of conflicts of interest and apparent instability (or perhaps, more fair, unpredictability). Whether that’s a better outcome depends on what concerns you most about a Trump presidency.

    • Note that the House is not free to choose anyone they want–they have to pick from the top three finishers in the electoral vote tally.

      And I believe that, at this point, Democrats would accept nearly any Republican over Trump. However, the one that seems to have the most appeal is John Kasich.

    • huh, you sent me to the Constitution and I didn’t realize that the House vote would be by state:

      The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

    • You’re probably right about Kasich. Other than his positions on abortion, he is a fairly solid moderate. I’m still not sure that this country would accept the electors breaking with the voters like this.

    • Yes, I don’t know if you’re familiar with the “corrupt bargain” of 1824, but this fact was key to that controversy. Four candidates got EVs in that year; Andrew Jackson (99), JQ Adams (84), William Crawford (41), and Henry Clay (37). That left Clay out of the running, but as the sitting Speaker of the House, he was in excellent position to decide which of the three remaining candidates would secure the presidency. He swung it to Adams, and was rewarded–in an apparent quid pro quo–with the secretaryship of state. That was a big deal back then, since presidents 3, 4, 5, and 6 (e.g. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and JQ Adams) had all run the State Department prior to their election, and so the secretaryship was seen as a stepping-stone.

      Anyhow, this defeat caused Jackson to organize the modern Democratic Party (from the remains of the Democratic-Republican Party). It also helped kill the State Department as a stepping-stone to the presidency; since then, only two secretaries of state (Van Buren, Buchanan) have made the jump.

    • @Sam: You’re right, there would be riots–likely egged on by Trump–if he was denied victory.

      I, for one, would take that deal, though.

    • I’m fairly certain I would take that deal too. I’m just saying it’s a valid concern.

  5. Actually, if the dems did this I’d immediately realize that Republicans should try to win more statewide elections.

    • Yea, because they aren’t winning enough right now. You’re demonstrating that you’re not very bright.

  6. A college acquaintance of mine became a chiropractor and is very active on social media. I had no idea that so many in the field had such, what I consider strange, views. She’s on the extreme fringe of conspiracy and many of her posts have comments from other chiropractors agreeing. These include any political conspiracy you can think of, NWO, reptilian aliens, etc. She’s actually one of my favorite ‘friends’ now because I consider it entertainment, but it’s jarring that these people are medical professionals.

  7. Keith, Gary Taubes in the nutrition world is pretty close to an anti-vaxxer. Or he’s in the 2% of scientists who deny climate change. His alternative obesity theory – that carbs make you fat rather than a caloric surplus – has been debunked repeatedly. He’s basically a really good story teller, and can write books that seem, on their face, persuasive. But once you dig in, it’s pretty clear he’s simply in the business of writing books, regardless of whether his content reflects current evidence based positions (it often doesn’t).

    For a snippet of rebuttals that are out there to google: James Krieger did a whole series on taking down Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. Alan Aragon addressed fructose alarmism years ago.

    Long story short, as a man of science, my recommendation is to avoid citing Taubes or linking to articles talking about his work.

    • Thanks. What about RH Lustig? I’ve seen him pushing a similar hypothesis about “free” fructose, but some of his explanations (comparing human metabolism of sugar to the fermentation of sugar into alcohol by microorganisms) appear to be more aimed at convincing the lay reader than at providing a valid scientific explanation for anything.

    • I can’t say I’m up to speed with Lustig’s current positions, but I remember reading this encounter a ways back:

      http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/02/19/a-retrospective-of-the-fructose-alarmism-debate/

      Short version, Lustig is exposed for cherry-picking support for his narrative.

  8. “Toldya” – The saturated fat industry

    • Yeah. A lot of food (and thus farmers) got demonized for no clear public health benefit. This is one of my libertarian leanings – the government sucks at giving diet advice, and often just picks winners and losers due to lobbying and donations, so get the USDA/FDA the hell out of my kitchen.

  9. Keith, by “get the USDA/FDA the hell out of my kitchen,” I’m sure you’re not advocating the elimination of those agencies and everything they do, correct? I would hate to have the meat-packing industry go back to the unregulated era of “The Jungle,” so I assume you think the USDA plays a valuable role in establishing and monitoring food safety standards, or that the FDA has a role to play in ensuring the delivery of medications that adhere to safety standards.

    • No, I’m not advocating eliminating those agencies, and said nothing whatsoever about eliminating anything.

      There are two problems with those agencies. One is this mission creep, which is how we get this joke of a food pyramid and dietary guidelines that don’t reflect the current state of knowledge on nutrition and health. The other is that they’re not necessarily good at the specific jobs you describe – because they’re underfunded, or poorly run, or in some cases prohibited from doing something (the FDA can’t regulate supplements, for example) that might rightly fall within their mission.

  10. Thanks for clarifying your comments, Keith. One of the problems I see around the thinking of “some” people who call themselves Libertarians (as opposed to “small l”) is that they want to take hatchets to most of the current government because they fail to see the many benefits government does provide. I’m not naive about the inefficiencies of very large organizations (both public AND private sector), but I’d like the government-haters to keep a sense of reality and proportion.

    An aside: Thanks to you for coming back here and answering so many of the comments (yes, even the inane ones) submitted after your original post. We appreciate your commitment to an ongoing, reasonable dialogue.