Giants C Drew Stiner Suspended 50 Games and Pippa Passes

Not a great way for a prospect to begin his tenure with an organization. Early return on Stiner were that he was a good defensive catcher with a solid arm. I believe he was Drew Bundy's catcher in HS. He's a long way off, so time is on his side once he makes his comeback.

"Better that it's amphetamines rather than steroids", right? I guess that comment describes where we are right now with the PED issue. God's in His heaven....

Pippa Passes, Robert Browning:

The year’s at the spring,
And day’s at the morn;
Morning’s at seven;
The hill-side’s dew-pearled;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven—
All’s right with the world!

Farmhand Suspended 50 Games:

San Francisco Giants catcher Drew Stiner has been suspended for 50 games under baseball's minor league drug program after testing positive for a banned amphetamine.

Stiner's suspension, announced Monday, was the second of the year under the program. Washington left-hander Zechry Zinicola was suspended for 50 games last week for a second violation for a drug of abuse.

Stiner is on the roster of San Francisco's Arizona League farm team. He was a 43rd-round draft pick last year from Owasso High School in Oklahoma.

There were 71 suspensions last year under the minor league drug program and two under the big league plan. In addition, Manny Ramirez plans to serve a suspension this year for a 2011 violation.

---
The Giants place CF Gary Brown at # 57. It looks like the Jesus Montera era in Yankee-land is scheduled to begin in 2012 with the announcement of Jorge Posada's retirement.

The Rays LHP Matt Moore and Nats OF Bryce Harper seem like safe early 2012 ROY calls. The Angels OF Mike Trout may have something to say as well.

Scout.com: 2012 Minor League Baseball Top Rankings

Scout.com: 2012 Minor League Baseball Top Rankings:

"Overall
Rank Rating Name Bat Thw Ht/Wt Current Team MLB Home
P 1 Matthew Moore L L 6-2/205 Durham (AAA) TAM Fort Walton Beach, FL
OF 2 Mike Trout R R 6-1/200 Arkansas (AA) LAA Millville, NJ
OF 3 Bryce Harper L R 6-3/225 Harrisburg (AA) WAS Las Vegas, NV
P 4 Julio Teheran L L 6-2/175 Gwinnett (AAA) ATL Colombia
C 5 Jesus Montero R R 6-4/230 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (AAA) NYY Venezuela
P 6 Shelby Miller R R 6-3/207 Springfield (AA) STL Brownwood, TX
SS 7 Jurickson Profar B R 5-11/165 Hickory (A) TEX Netherlands Antilles
SS 8 Manny Machado R R 6-3/185 Frederick (A) BAL Miami, FL
P 9 Manny Banuelos L L 5-11/185 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (AAA)"

----
Scout.com: Giants Notes & Quotes: Giants Choose Fontenot:

"QUOTE TO NOTE: "You have to make do with what the blueprint presents itself to be financially. That's what we're trying to do, we're trying to be creative within that." -- GM Brian Sabean on doing business with a $130 million payroll, knowing more than $30 million of it goes to ex-Giant Aaron Rowand and subpar pitcher Barry Zito."

Fw: THE BEGINNERS MIND

Some interesting concepts for coaches, teachers or parents to understand when dealing with the developmental stages athletes and students are navigating while learning new skills.

03.15.09 Beginner's Mind

"In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's there are few."  Shunryu Suzuki-Roshi

(Courtesy of Will Taylor, Chair, Department of Homeopathic Medicine, National College of Natural Medicine, Portland, Oregon, USA, March 2007.)

The Four Stages for Learning a New Skill
The Crossfit methodology continually challenges us to expand our capabilities in a variety of facets. I found this model very interesting as it can pertain to just about any skill. We often don't think about the progressions we naturally experience as we strive to suck less. Being aware of these stages helps us better accept that learning can sometimes be a slow and frequently uncomfortable process.

Stage 1 - Unconsciously unskilled or incompetent . We don't know what we don't know. We are inept and unaware of it. We don't know we suck...

Stage 2 - Consciously unskilled or incompetent.  We start to learn at this level when sudden awareness of how poorly we do something shows us how much we need to learn. We now know what we suck at...

Stage 3 - Consciously skilled or competent. Trying the skill out, experimenting, practicing. We now know how to do the skill the right way, but need to think and work hard to do it.

Stage 4 - Unconsciously skilled or competent. If we continue to practice and apply the new skills, eventually we arrive at a stage where they become easier, and given time, even natural. Firebreather!

---

http://www.petercoyote.com/zenmindcdx.jpg

Shunryu Suzuki (1905-1971) was a direct spiritual descendant of the great thirteenth-century Zen Master, Dogen. This inspiring work ranks with the great Zen classics, in a voice and language completely adapted to contemporary sensibilities. Suzuki's words breathe with the joy and simplicity that make a liberated life possible. As he reveals the actual practice of Zen as a discipline for daily life, one begins to understand what Zen is really about.

The practice of Zen mind is beginner's mind. The innocence of the first inquiry - what am I? - is needed throughout Zen practice. The mind of the beginner is empty, free of the habits of the expert, ready to accept, to doubt, and open to all the possibilities. It is the kind of mind that can see things as they are, which step by step and in a flash can realize the original nature of everything . This practice of Zen mind is found throughout the book. Directly or sometimes by inference, every section of the book concerns the question of how to maintain this attitude through your meditation and in your life. This is an ancient way of teaching, using the simplest language and the situations of everyday life.

---
The Beginner's Mind

By Peter Kaufman

http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/10/the-beginners-mind.html

In this book, Suzuki encourages us to have the beginner’s mind. What this means is that we should never feel as if we have something all figured out. We should always be hungry for more information and view ourselves as works in progress. I think one of the most basic ways to think about the beginner’s mind is to speak of intellectual curiosity—to have this insatiable desire to gain more knowledge and wisdom because we know there is so much more to learn. As Suzuki says, “In the beginner’s mind there is no thought, ‘I have attained something.’”

When most of us first entered school we epitomized the beginner’s mind. We were so excited to learn anything and everything. We had this unlimited intellectual curiosity. We were constantly asking questions such as: Why? How? When? Where? But after years of being told what we must learn, when we must learn, and how we must learn, much of this curiosity has been extinguished. And after years of memorizing the answers that teachers poured into our heads just so that we could regurgitate these answers on quarterly exams, many of us have actually come to dislike learning.

To make matters worse, we live in a hyper-competitive and hyper-individualistic culture where we are constantly vying to out-do each other and acting as if we know it all.

This makes many of us much more used to having an expert’s mind than a beginner’s mind. We have that “been there, done that” attitude. We feel as if once we’ve learned something or experienced something there is nothing more to be gained and we can move promptly onto the next topic. Or we think that just because we know someone’s characteristics—maybe their race, their gender, their sexuality, their social class or even their hobbies—we feel confident that we know what type of person they are and whether or not they are our kind of people.

These are all examples of the expert’s mind. At the very least, the expert’s mind results in narrow-mindedness and closed-mindedness where we shut others out and strengthen arbitrary borders instead of work together to build bridges. At the very worst, the expert’s mind results in prejudice, discrimination, fanaticism, and oppression—things we see all over the world each day.

CARPE DIEM: Tax Tip for Warren Buffett, and Wouldn't His 2010 Taxable Income Be only $100k To Pay 17.4% Rate?

from Tax Policy Center Blog:
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/08/23/was-buffett-right-do-workers-pay-more-tax-than-their-bosses/

Was Buffett Right? Do Workers Pay More Tax than Their Bosses?

Roberton Williams | Posted on August 23, 2011, 12:47 pm

Overall, Buffett’s story is correct, but he did get a couple of things wrong.

First, the 41 percent top tax rate he ascribed to his fellow workers appears to be a marginal rather than an average rate. That is, it’s the tax on an additional dollar of income rather than total tax measured as a percentage of total income. A single worker’s earnings must approach $500,000 before his combined income and payroll tax hits even 35 percent and the effective tax rate never tops 38 percent. For a married couple, total earnings have to near $1 million to hit those levels. Those are still very high rates, well above Buffett’s 17.4 percent, but they’re not as high as he asserted.

More importantly, because of progressive tax brackets and the many exclusions, exemptions, deductions, and tax credits, typical taxpayers actually pay effective tax rates well below the levels Buffett cites. And high-income taxpayers usually pay a higher effective rate than he does. The average household in the middle 20 percent of the income distribution (income between about $34,000 and $65,000) will pay combined income and payroll taxes equal to 12.0 percent of total income this year, compared with 19.6 percent for those in the top 20 percent (income over about $104,000) and 20.2 percent for those in the top 1 percent (income over roughly $533,000).

Warren Buffett may be right when he says that high-income taxpayers could pay more, especially given the extremely rapid rate of income growth at the top of the distribution. And he’s certainly correct when he says that the low tax rate on investment income cuts his tax bill well below that of many Americans. But he’s off base when he suggests that all high-income taxpayers pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than their middle-income coworkers.

---

from Carpe Diem blog:
CARPE DIEM: Tax Tip for Warren Buffett, and Wouldn't His 2010 Taxable Income Be only $100k To Pay 17.4% Rate?:

"Just a thought: If Warren Buffett is really serious about paying higher taxes, couldn't he simply take the standard deduction voluntarily ($11,400 for married taxpayers filing jointly in 2010) instead of itemizing his deductions?  That wouldn't require any change in tax policy, so he doesn't have to wait.  

After all, it must be all of his itemized deductions (e.g. charitable, etc.)  that reduce Buffett's income tax rate to only 17.4% on about $40 million income last year.  Except for about the first 1% of his income ($373,650) that would be taxed at lower rates, he should be paying a marginal tax rate of 35% on the other 99%.  Using the tax brackets below for 2010, how could Buffett claim that he paid an effective tax rate of only 17.4% unless his taxable income was only about $100,000?"

Married Filing Jointly 2010 Tax Brackets

Taxable Income Marginal Tax Rates
$0-$16,750..............................10%
$16,751-$68,000.........................15%
$68,001-$137,300........................25%
$137,301-$209,250.......................28%
$209,251-$373,650.......................33%
$373,651+...............................35%

---

MORE ON BUFFET AND TAXES

Last year, according to his own accounting, Mr. Buffett earned a “taxable income” of almost $40 million. It goes without saying that most of us will never see that kind of money in our lifetimes. Not by a long shot. You’d think, therefore, all would be “good in the hood” for one of America’s richest men.

But Buffett has a big problem: Taxes. He is unhappy with the amount he pays. It’s not enough, he says. Nor is the amount paid by his super wealthy friends. Earlier this week, Buffett’s odd desire to keep less of what he earns led him to pen an op-ed piece in The New York Times in which he decried Washington for “coddling the super- rich.” Perhaps you saw it.

“Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as ‘carried interest,’” he confessed, “thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long- term investors.”

In 2010, Buffett paid almost $7 million in taxes to the federal government, about 17.4 percent of that whopping “taxable income.” Despite his immense earnings, that percentage came in considerably less than the 20 other folks working in his office. “Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent,” he wrote.

----

The diagram below shows why Buffett pays a lower "total" tax rate and why this is an apples to oranges comparison.

http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_calculator.htm

Tax Calculator

Obviously, this very simple calculator can only give you an unofficial estimate - please don't try to file your taxes by mailing the IRS a screen shot of this thing stapled to a check. (Although it makes you think that Congress could probably simplify the heck out of the tax code if they really felt like it. They probably just don't feel like it, is all.)

(Adjusted gross income determines whether you are eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA. And don't forget to pay Social Security.)

How to Pay Less Taxes

As complicated as the tax code is, it's built around a philosophy that actually makes sense: the government will reward intelligent behavior with a tax break. A few obvious suggestions:

(1) Don't Churn Your Portfolio
You want to pay the long term capital gains rate, and pay that as infrequently as possible. (Many index funds are low-churn and tax efficient.)

(2) Open a Retirement Account
A deductible IRA gives you a negative adjustment, lowering your taxable income. (A Roth version gives you a tax break later.)

(3) Have "Good" Debt
Credit card debt is bad debt, but a long-term mortgage is very good debt - a fixed, low interest rate, plus a tax break that shows up as an itemized deduction.

(3a) Give to Charity
Another deduction, plus you'll make people think you're nice.

Tax Diagram: Which Rates Apply, and Where?

---

WARREN BUFFET RIDES TO BAC'S RESCUE: QUID PRO QUO CLARISSE?

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Hannibal Lecter: "Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center." Sounds charming.
Clarice Starling: That's only a part of the island. There's a very, very nice beach. Terns nest there. There's beautiful...
Hannibal Lecter: [cuts her off] Terns? Mmh. If I help you, Clarice, it will be "turns" with us too. Quid pro quo. I tell you things, you tell me things. Not about this case, though. About yourself. Quid pro quo. Yes or no?
[pause]
Hannibal Lecter: Yes or no, Clarice? Poor little Catherine is waiting.
Clarice Starling: Go, doctor.


Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice Starling: He kills women...
Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...
Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just...
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

"I've taken a look at recommending a BAC short several times over the past year," says our short specialist Dan Amoss, "with the idea that ‘fraudclosuregate' might transform it into a juicy target for class action lawyer piranhas.

"But I kept coming back to the bull thesis... that with good enough lawyers, BAC can string along this legal settlement process and mortgage-related losses forever. With Tim Geithner at Treasury, BAC also essentially has a lobbyist on its behalf.

"The suspension of mark-to-market accounting, an army of lawyers and lobbyists to fight mortgage put backs, and a very friendly Treasury Department will probably keep the stock muddling along for the next few years. I wouldn't buy it or sell it short. The Fed's ‘zero rates through 2013' policy is a guaranteed carry trade gift to BAC shareholders -- or a tax, if you're a depositor -- that will be measured in the billions."

In other words, in a fair and just world, BAC would have gone down in flames long ago. But it's not a fair and just world... and you can't invest on that assumption.

----

MORE ON DEBT AND DEFICITS:


Erskine Bowles on the proposed Obama Budget compromise:

"It is $4 trillion, however, over 12 years. It is heavily back-end loaded, so when you compare it to the Ryan plan and to the Commission’s plan, which also has $4 trillion in savings, it is probably more like $2.5 trillion. And in fairness, the way it is setup, according to our analysis, it really doesn’t stabilize the debt, and the debt as a percentage of GDP gets up to around 77 percent and it never gets to primary balance, which is about a deficit-to-GDP ratio of around 3 percent." -- Erskine Bowles re: Obama's $4T Budget "Savings"

On the other hand, he WAS against this type of behavior before he was FOR it. I guess this is just another example of the huge divide between candidate Obama and President Obama.

On the day before Independence Day 2008, Senator Barack Obama pronounced deficit spending "unpatriotic" at a campaign event. He would go on to rack up more debt in three years than his predecessor did in eight. Does he still think deficits are "unpatriotic," or is that the wrong word?

Sustained deficit spending is certainly irresponsible. Trillion-dollar deficits are an accepted fact of life in Washington, even after a big "deficit reduction deal." This means the government is willing to spend more money than it collects, in perpetuity.

Deficit spending is tyrannical. It's the ultimate form of taxation without representation, presenting children not yet born with bills they never had a chance to vote against. It establishes programs that become permanent financial obligations for future Congresses. It's a lie, because it offers the people subsidies and benefits, paid for with money that doesn't exist. When politicians speak of trillion-dollar "stimulus" programs, they're distorting the free market with false information, and wielding economic influence they don't really have.

Our massive national debt, built through decades of deficit spending, makes America weak. Increasing individual and corporate dependency on a rapidly growing government drains the vitality of the free market. Unfriendly creditor nations like China gain unhealthy amounts of economic leverage over us. Credit agencies like Standard & Poor's become major players in public policy debates. In the end, social chaos caused by the collapse of unsustainable entitlements will destroy civic order.

Does all of that add up to make deficit spending "unpatriotic?" Barack Obama claimed to think so, four trillion dollars ago. — John Hayward

In praise of Title IX and the positive effect of sports in women's lives

I meant to post this some time ago. One of the most remarkably successful, albeit controversial pieces of legislation in recent history. Born of the Nixon Administration, of all places. I submit to you: Title IX.-

Coaches are famous for saying "I don't want to hear about the labor pains, just show me the baby".

Now -- some firty years later -- we are able to look back on both the labor pains and the growth of the the child. Much of the change, as it was occurring, was accompanied by significant episodes of grinding and gnashing of teeth and a whole lot of sound and fury, which in the end, signified nothing.

Warts and all -- on balance and in hindsight -- I believe that Title IX has had more positive effects on society in general and on the movement to assimilate and advance women from the kitchen to the workplace specifically -- with far less of the deleterious negative social side-effects -- than the advancement of the radical feminist agenda.

There, I said it. And I'm not taking it back.

Thank you Title IX.
Thank you Sports.
Thank you former President Nixon.

I guess that whole "Sports as a metaphor for Life" mantra has some practical uses after all. ;)

Making Sports a Metaphor for Life
http://www.middlebury.edu/giving/difference/impact2/impact/Foote

Often during a team practice on Kohn Field, Missy Foote, head coach of the women's lacrosse team, will stop play for what she calls a "Green Mountain moment," a brief pause in practice to appreciate the dramatic backdrop just east of their field. Now into her 32nd year at Middlebury, Coach Foote has had numerous moments like these. She has forged lifelong bonds with many of the approximately 360 student-athletes she has mentored at the College during her tenure.

"As coaches, we try to make sports a metaphor for life," she explains. "Through athletics, we grow highly functioning, committed adults. For me, this maturation process is incredibly rewarding to see and play a part in."

Over the years, Foote has witnessed significant changes in the athletics program at Middlebury. These differences are most evident in the advancements in the athletic opportunities available to female students.

When Foote came to Middlebury, Title IX was still in its infancy. As she recalls, there was only one locker room for all women-the general public, students, and visiting teams alike. The facilities have improved and "the emphasis on athletics and the role it plays in a woman's life has changed remarkably," says Coach Foote. "Now well after Title IX, there is nothing holding back our females. They can achieve anything they want, which is a great transition to have witnessed."

Coach Foote weighs her success as a coach not in the number of titles her team achieves or her overall record, but rather in the role she plays in launching players into their lives beyond Middlebury.

The deep connections that develop on the field are the bonds that unite Middlebury athletes and keep them "invested in each other's joys and sorrows years after graduation," Foote explains. She regularly attends the weddings of her athletes and christenings of their children, and provides advice to many former students who are now coaching on their own. She also participates in marathons with her former athletes. "There's nothing like helping each other come into the finish to reaffirm the strong relationships we built at the College," Coach Foote says. "These are lifelong friendships and a support group that is ever expanding...bonds that define my coaching career at Middlebury."

That's what it's all about!!

---


from Wikipedia:

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a United States law, enacted on June 23, 1972.

In 2002 it was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of its principal author Congresswoman Mink, but is most commonly known simply as Title IX.

The law states that

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."
—United States Code Section 20, [1]

Hi Charles,

We would love to share with you an article that we just posted on our own blog! "9 Title IX Facts Every Athlete Should Know" (http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com/2011/08/07/9-title-ix-facts-every-athlete-should-know/) would be an interesting story for your readers to check out and discuss on your blog.

Either way, I hope you continue putting out great content through your blog. It has been a sincere pleasure to read.

Thanks

Larry Dignan  

--------

Created in 1972 as a way of providing equal opportunities for education and athletics regardless of gender, Title IX has gotten a lot of attention in recent years — both positive and negative — from teachers, students, administrators and parents. While most people probably have an opinion one way or another, many may not know the facts behind the act, nor really understand how it is applied to colleges and secondary schools. Many, even the student athletes whom it directly affects, may be quite surprised to learn more than a few of the facts we've collected here. Some may have to reconsider just how they look at what it's really doing to nurture equality in the higher education system.

1. Many schools still don't abide by the Title IX law

   While Title IX has helped women gain access to a wide range of athletic programs and scholarships, there are still many schools out there who don't abide — or try to skirt some of its policies. Perhaps more distressing is that schools violating Title IX often face little or no legal action. Investigations are often drug out over years, and rarely result in any kind of meaningful penalties. One investigation at USC has gone on for over 12 years now, with no sign of resolution in sight. Even more troubling? Investigations are often conducted by the schools themselves, giving them little to no incentive to report any problems they do find. Though to be fair, some are quite willing to fix issues if they are pointed out.

2. No school has ever lost federal funding for violating Title IX

   Since 1972, when Title IX was enacted, not a single case of discrimination against female (or male) athletes was referred to the justice department for further investigation or repercussions. Not one. That doesn't mean that there has been no discrimination — between 2002 and 2006 alone, there were 416 complaints filed with the Office for Civil Rights — just that there are few (if any) cases where schools have been forced into compliance. This brings into question its effectiveness at providing equality.

3. Women are not inherently less interested in playing sports than men

   Many who argue against Title IX claim that women are simply less interested in sports than their male counterparts. Since the act went into effect in 1972, female participation in college-level sports has increased 403%. Today, 43% of college athletes are women, and many more say they would participate if their schools offered programs in their sport of choice.

4. For every new dollar going into college athletics at the Division I and II levels of college athletics, male sports receive 65 cents. Female sports receive 35 cents

   Just as women only make 77 cents for every dollar men do, their sports haven't attained equal funding, either. Women's sports programs at Division I and II schools are given almost half of what men's programs are. This means half the money for facilities, programs, recruitment and scholarships. With women making up 56% of all undergrads in college and 43% of athletes, that's a pretty startling discrepancy.

5. Title IX hasn't radically changed how college athletic programs are managed

   While 53% of the students at Division I schools are women, female athletes in Division I receive just 32% of the funds to recruit new athletes, 37% of total athletics expenditures, 45% of total athletic scholarships and 44% of the opportunities to play intercollegiate sports. While that's far better than in 1972, it still doesn't adequately support many of the athletic programs underrepresented students are interested in. Big ticket sports like basketball and football still dominate the majority of resources in nearly every college athletics department — to the detriment of both female and male sports.

6. Title IX doesn't only apply to athletics or females

   Title IX actually applies to all aspects of federally-funded education programs and activities for both men and women. It prohibits sexual harassment, discrimination in admissions and housing and helps ensure that people of both sexes have access to higher education, career services, safe learning environments and appropriate technology. Athletics is only one facet of the act, which is much broader in its scope than most people are aware.

7. Title IX doesn't force schools to cut men's athletic programs

   While some schools may choose to cut men's athletic programs to comply with Title IX, the legislation does not require this kind of action. There are actually multiple ways that schools can meet its tenets, and not all require the proportionality test (matching the percentage of male and female students to the availability of athletic programs, scholarships and funding) to be strictly enforced. They can also comply through showing a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic programs in response to the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. Schools can also qualify if their present athletic programs are broad enough to meet the underrepresented sex's interests. Issues with Title IX are usually only investigated if there have been claims of denial of participation opportunities in athletics.

8. There are fewer female coaches today than there were in 1972

   Title IX hasn't spurred progress in gaining equality for every facet of athletics, as some might think. In 2008, only 43% of coaches of women's teams were women. In 1972, that number was over 90%. The problem is two-fold. On one hand, there simply aren't enough women going into coaching to fill all the available positions. On the other, those that do are often bullied and discriminated against, causing them to change careers or leave college coaching altogether. The Title IX legislation that's meant to protect them? It often doesn't do much at all. Just ask the female coaches at Ball State University.

9. The majority of Americans support Title IX

   Despite the large number of those who grumble about Title IX on the web or in the media, the majority of Americans still support this act. How many? Recent surveys put it at about 82% in favor, across all political parties, cultural and age groups. Only 14% believe that the law should be repealed. Whether or not everyone agrees that Title IX legislation is the best way to help women get into sports, it's clear that people today value female athletic participation. This makes it all the more important to help ladies get the equal opportunities they deserve to play.

----

At U of I, Title IX is toothless
BY DARREN SWAN AND EVAN SWAN
DEC 11, 2007
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=73245

Athletes feel wrath of Title IX fallout
On June 16, 2006, Fresno State University varsity wrestler Sean Carlson was living what he called the high life.

Having grown up in Fresno, he was used to the non-nirvana-like weather of central California.

Carlson was vigorously training during the unruly hot summer for his junior season on the team with a starting spot all but assured -- he had no worries.

Then, on that June day almost two years ago, just two days shy of 21st birthday, he got the call.

Carlson, who routinely puts himself through pain in a sport that requires hard work, discipline and toughness, began to cry. He was at the lowest point of his life.

His love, passion and craft were all taken away with that one phone call from a coach on the team. The Fresno State University wrestling program was cut.

“Effective immediately.”

Today, still feeling angry and depressed like many of his teammates, Carlson is able to recall exactly how he felt on that very day.

“Everyone was angry, depressed and pissed off because we didn’t get a reason of why we were cut,” said the former 125-and 133-pound wrestler. “The [athletic department] did it during the middle of summer, not considering the [incoming freshmen] or seniors who would have to go to other colleges to wrestle.”

The university promised to uphold its financial agreement with the students, with or without the program. Scholarships would be honored even if the students wrestled at a different college, Carlson said.

The Fresno State University wrestling team is just one example of the plethora of collegiate athletic programs across the country that get cut each year due to issues of compliance with Title IX, the law created to provide gender equity in education and athletics.

Nowadays the average college consists of 42 percent male and 58 percent female, the Department of Education reports.

Larry Kocher, president of the College Sports Council based in Chicago and head wrestling coach and professor at the University of Chicago, indicates much of the language in Title IX is questionable and unclear.

Title IX has three sections—known as prongs— that demonstrate how schools must comply. Universities are required to observe just one of the three prongs to be “in compliance with the law.”

Prong one mandates schools to provide athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment. Prong two orders schools to demonstrate a continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented gender. And prong three requires a school to provide full and effective accommodation of the interest and ability of the underrepresented gender.

Kocher says because prong two and three contain ambiguous language, many schools employ prong one not for feasibility, but more out of convenience.

Prong one specifically targets proportionality. As long as the enrollment is proportional to the number of athletes participating in a given sport, the school is in compliance with the law.

However, there’s just one problem: Experts believe prong one is being used as a loop hole, instead of its original intention—to provide gender equity in college athletics by gender.

Traccee Passeggi, a public policy officer at the Women’s Sports Foundation in New York—founded by Billy Jean King—elaborates on prong one as the most relied on form of testing for Title IX compliance.

“There has been strong criticism that the proportionality test has been used to mandate quotas in intercollegiate athletics,” she said.

Passeggi said this is “in direct violation of the true intent of Title IX.”

However, according to Kocher, the three-prong test has turned into a quota law. Other critics, like Jim McCarthy, spokesman for the College Sports Council in Chicago, said the DOE needs to provide a clearer and more provable way that school’s can comply with prong three.

But a greater problem exists, McCarthy said, “There’s no way to prove [compliance with prong three.]”

Without clear language establishing what schools need to do to be compliant with Title IX, problems will continue to arise.

Title IX does not instruct schools to cancel programs, the Department of Education states on its Web site, but it perpetuates an easy escape to compliance. If a school’s numbers are off and subtracting 30 student athletes from the participation pool will make it right, Kocher acknowledges, they cut.

More than 450 wrestling programs have been hacked since the inception of Title IX in 1972, according to USA Wrestling, the nation’s amateur wrestling governing body.

Gary Abbott, director of special projects at USA Wrestling, told the New York Times in 2003 there were 363 NCAA wrestling teams with 7,914 wrestlers in 1982. In 2001, there were only 229 teams with fewer than 6,000 wrestlers. Nonetheless, during that time period, the number of NCAA universities grew from 787 to 1,049.

On average 200 wrestlers every year since 1972 lost their program, equating to thousands of student-athletes over the last 35 years losing a chance to participate in college and, in some cases, an opportunity at higher education altogether.

Carlson is only one name among the thousands of wrestlers who lost their sport—and passion—since in the inception of Title IX, 35 years ago.

Though Carlson still lives in sunny California, where he’s currently finishing his degree at Fresno State University, only one thing crosses his mind every day.

“I just want to get the hell out of here,” he said.

However, not even success guarantees safety for a program.

In 1994, UCLA chose to drop its men’s swimming program. The program had produced more than a dozen Olympians, more than any other school, and maybe even the greatest swimmer of all-time in Mark Spitz. His seven gold medals at the 1972 Olympics is still a world record.

Would the University of North Carolina ever drop its men’s basketball program, which produced possibly the greatest basketball of all-time in Michael Jordan?

Bob Groseth, Northwestern University men’s swimming coach, has seen many of his athletes crowned as NCAA champions. His program is unquestionably dominant and his student athletes have been regularly commended by the Big Ten conference for their work in the classroom.

“Swimming is vulnerable with the current interpretation of Title IX,” he said. “One, it has large numbers. Two, the facilities are expensive and if a school has to reach proportionality with Title IX – it’s easier to cut a large team like men’s swimming to do so.”

Title IX does not protect programs. It gives specific discretion to the individual schools to handle their business how they see fit. Even though the most common way for schools to reach compliance is through cutting, Jocelyn Samuels, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center, said removing programs has never been the way of getting institutions to comply with the law.

In plain English, Samuels says cutting teams is the absolute wrong way to create equality in athletic programs. “The focus of the law is to ensure equal opportunities and by adding those opportunities.”

Easier said then done.

In its 55th and last year of existence, the Oregon wrestling program welcomed back 10 letter winners in 2007-08, seven of whom competed in the 2007 Pac-10 Championships.

Athletes, like Carlson, are experiencing program cuts from another Title IX factor: highly expensive revenue generating sports.

Debbie Yow, the University of Maryland's athletic director for the last 14 years and the Atlantic Coast Conference’s first ever female athletic director, offered a correlation between Title IX and the elimination of more than 400 men's college programs over the last 35 years.

“I think that there is a connection. Actually, this is -- the reason this is such a complex issue is because there is no simple answer,” said Yow in an interview with CNN, who was recently voted by the Chronicle of Higher Education as one of the 10 most powerful people in college sports. “Others will say to you that those teams could have been saved, if their -- the expenses for the revenue sports in college athletics, like football and men's basketball, were not so high.”

Athletes at James Madison University in Virginia and the University of Oregon are going through the same situation as Carlson and his teammates went through two years ago.

James Madison over the past year cut 10 programs (seven men’s and three women’s) and flatly blamed Title IX for doing so, according to an official university statement. All together 144 students and 11 coaches will not be participating in athletics for JMU this year.

The university stated at the time that adding programs was not the best course of action the university could take.

“Any solution that would require the addition of sports beyond the current 28 teams was deemed unacceptable.”

Oregon this past year chose to reinstate its baseball team, add a competitive cheerleading team and cast away its nationally-ranked wrestling team. University officials did not offer Title IX as the reason for the cut, but, in effect, keeping the wrestling team on board would have put the school not in compliance with the law.

The Oregon wrestlers have started a campaign to save their wrestling program. Donations are pouring in, but that may not even be enough, according to McCarthy, because regulations prohibit money being designated for specific teams, and any donations would have to be matched for a women’s team.

This makes it twice as hard to save a program during a time where student-athletes are fighting uphill without a paddle.


Myths and Facts
Because the written language, interpretation and implementation of Title IX is ambiguous, here are some common misnomers people and schools alike believe to be true but aren’t. The legislation’s goal was to provide gender equity for males and females in education and athletics. However, experts say, equity for men and women is collegiate athletics is still far from reality.

Myth: Title IX is only about athletics.

Fact: Although most people who know about Title IX think it only applies to sports, but Title IX applies to every aspect of federally funded education programs. In fact, athletics is only one of 10 major areas addressed by the law. These other areas are: access to higher education, career education, education for pregnant and parenting students, employment, learning environment, math and science, sexual harassment, standardized testing, and technology.

Myth: Title IX applies only to females.

Fact: Both male and female students are protected by Title IX.

Myth: Title IX forces schools to cut men's sports.

Fact: Title IX doesn’t require a school to cut a men's sports program. The Department of Education states clearly, “Nothing in Title IX requires the cutting or reduction of teams in order to demonstrate compliance." All federal courts that have considered the question have agreed. Some schools have decided on their own to eliminate certain men's sports, but the law is flexible. There are many other ways to comply. Some schools have cut sports, like gymnastics and wrestling, rather than attempt to control bloated football and basketball budgets, which consume a whopping 72 percent of the average Division I-A school's total men's athletic operating budget. For example, San Diego State University decided to address its $2 million budget deficit by cutting its men's volleyball team instead of looking for any of the money within its $5 million football budget.

Myth: Women just aren't interested in sports.

Fact: After Title IX’s implementation, women's participation in intercollegiate sports has skyrocketed. Before Title IX, fewer than 32,000 women participated in college sports; today that number exceeds 150,000--nearly five times the pre-Title IX rate.

Myth: Title IX requires quotas against men.

Fact:Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, which means female students must have equal opportunities to participate in educational programs, including athletics. Because Title IX allows sports teams to be segregated by gender, schools themselves decide how many participation opportunities they will give female, as compared to male, students. Title IX does not in any way require quotas; it requires that schools allocate participation opportunities for both genders in nondiscriminatory ways.

A school can meet this requirement if it can demonstrate any one of the following ways:

-The percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled; or

-If the school has a history and continuing practice of expanding athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex; or

-If the school’s athletics program fully and effectively accommodates the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex.

That being said, it’s probably clearer why this is such a cloudy and misunderstood piece of legislation, providing loop holes where discrimination does occur.

*Information courtesy of Title IX.info

----

FROM THE NATIONAL REVIEW:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225402/olympian-political-correctness/todd-gallagher

August 22, 2008, 0:00 p.m.

Olympian Political Correctness
In all the Olympic hype, you won't hear about performance differences between Venus and Mars.

By Todd Gallagher

‘Can Jamaica’s Sprinters Fight Crime?” That’s the tongue-in-cheek headline of a recent Time magazine article celebrating the remarkable Olympics performances of track stars from that Caribbean nation. In the space of a few days, Usain Bolt smashed world records in the men’s 100 and 200 meters, while three Jamaican sprinters swept the medals in the women’s 100 meters.

Time’s question is amusing, but for me, the incredible accomplishments of the Jamaican track team call to mind another question that isn’t so funny to a lot of people — as I learned the hard way.

You see, I wrote a book in which I worked with professional athletes and Olympic medalists to settle a series of long-running sports debates. The questions I heard most often had to do with gender: How big is the gap between the top male and female athletes?

One of my initial findings was jarring: the women’s Olympic record in the 100 meters, set in 1988 by superstar Florence Griffith-Joyner, is virtually identical to the U.S. record for 14-year-old boys — also set in 1988, by the less heralded Curtis Johnson. The winning time of 2008 women’s gold medalist Shelly-Ann Fraser? Well over a tenth of a second slower than Johnson’s.

Nor is the 100 meters an aberration. In sport after sport, evidence shows that the top female professional athletes in the world are on par with the best American 14- and 15-year-old boys. Nearly every female Olympic record in speed, strength, and endurance events falls between the records set by the best American 14- and 15-year-old boys:

Speed/Endurance Record Times:
Distance Men’s Boys’ 14 Women’s Boys’ 15
100M 9.69 10.64 10.62 10.42
200M 19.30 21.49 21.34 20.97
400M 43.49 47.16 48.25 46.55
800M 1:42.58 1:55.9 1:53.43 1:51.03
1500M 3:32.07 4:04.1 3:53.96 3:51.5
5000M 13:05.59 15:46.8 14:40.79 14:32.8
10000M 27:05.10 32:48.0 30:17.49 31:43.2


Leaping Records (in meters):
Event Men’s Boys’ 14 Women’s Boys’ 15
High Jump 2.39 2.04 2.06 2.18
Long Jump 8.90 7.21 7.40 7.49
Pole Vault 5.95 4.72 4.91 5.33
Triple Jump 18.09 14.74 15.33 14.98

Direct competition between women and boys tends to confirm the gap: the women’s Olympic hockey team has lost to boys’ high school junior-varsity teams; the women’s Olympic soccer team has lost to club teams of 15-year-old boys, the Colorado Silver Bullets professional baseball team has lost to American Legion squads — the list goes on and on.

I was surprised that this information had never been disseminated widely, since the data I researched and the interviews I conducted didn’t take long to put together. Obviously, I’m not suggesting that any slob off the street could outrun Shelly-Ann Fraser; but if she can’t beat the time that a 14-year-old boy set 20 years ago, surely that fact should inform a number of gender-and-sports discussions: Has Title IX done enough to level the playing field for female athletes — or has it actually penalized male athletes? Should golfers like Michelle Wie receive sponsors’ exemptions to compete against men in PGA tournaments? Should Wimbledon award men and women tennis players the same prize money?

Experts in the field of gender differences in sports emphatically argue that men’s superior performance is due primarily to societal factors — if they’re even willing to concede men’s superior performance, that is.

For example, in October 2007, Eileen McDonagh of Northeastern University and Laura Pappano of Wellesley College published Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports. “The premise of this book, and our work,” McDonagh says, “is that sex segregation does not reflect sex differences between men and women, rather it constructs them.”

I laid out the results of my research for Pappano and asked why male athletes outpace female athletes starting at 14 and 15. She answered: “Women are told around that time that they are athletically inferior to men and that they should start acting like ladies. That’s why we see the boys making such stunning gains at that age and the girls begin to suffer.”

While no one can deny that societal factors play some role, the research makes it pretty clear that there was a simpler explanation for the gap: puberty. The Centers for Disease Control publishes growth charts for the U.S. population which reveal that boys hit their major growth spurt between the ages of 14 and 15 — precisely when the best boy athletes begin to outperform the top adult female athletes.

My interviews with female professionals and others in the world of women’s sports confirmed the importance of boys’ physical development at that age. Aaron Heifitz, the publicist for the U.S. national women’s soccer team, described how the women’s squad performs against the best youth club players in Southern California: “The boys’ 13s we can handle pretty consistently, but when the boys start really developing at 14, and especially 15, that’s when you start to see real separation and they pass even the best women’s players. They’re just bigger, stronger, and faster.”

Eileen McDonagh has suggested that gender differences don’t matter in skill-based games that don’t place a premium on size, strength, and speed — pointedly asking, during a speech at Wellesley, “Why on earth are pool and ping-pong sex segregated?” Here again, even a little research reveals that the best female performers can’t compete consistently with the best males. Ping-pong actually relies heavily on physical attributes, and the difference between male and female competitors is almost as severe as it is in tennis — where the 203rd-ranked male player soundly defeated both Serena and Venus Williams in separate exhibition sets (6-1 and 6-2, respectively). In pool, Jean Balukas — possibly the greatest female player of all time — finished in the middle of the pack in men’s events in the 1980s; and Jeanette “The Black Widow” Lee — formerly the world’s Number One female player — told me, “You would not believe the amount of men, in my world, who can wax me.”

Cathy Young, the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, suggests that that failure to discuss research findings openly and honestly reflects a larger feminist agenda of “bio-denial” to promote the idea that there are no natural differences between the genders. “There’s a whole establishment that’s invested in perpetuating the notion that there are not inborn differences between the genders athletically, and that any differences can only be attributable to sociological circumstances and societal oppression. They have a clear agenda to empower women through a distorted notion of equality but these people are saying things that are completely out of touch with biological reality.”

Kurt Fischer, director of the Mind, Brain, and Education Program at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education, has seen this firsthand. “I’ve been at faculty meetings where the notion that there are differences in the genders is ridiculed,” Fischer says. He adds, “[T]he first woman dean at Harvard was my dean when she got here, and when I would try to bring up studies that showed inborn gender differences she wouldn’t even allow it.”

Anyone who saw what happened to Harvard president Lawrence Summers — for even suggesting that there could be inborn gender differences — might conclude that challenging the claims of the Laura Pappanos of the world is an unnecessary headache. “When you have a large group of people with a vested interest in maintaining an agenda,” Fischer observes, “they’re going to find ways to attack anyone or anything that threatens their existence.”

The media have also obscured the facts in this debate. Young suggests a reason for this: “At most newspapers, Title IX is gospel at this point. And anything that could be seen as an argument against it is going to be ignored, attacked, or ridiculed.”

Professor Fischer was not surprised when I told him of my difficulties getting traction with my own data. “I have a colleague here in town that has a biologically based view of gender differences. She’s done a whole lot of research that shows fairly large, important differences between boys and girls in their socio-relationships at an early age. And she was prevented from publishing that at several points from people who just didn’t want to hear that point of view, regardless of the evidence.”

We almost certainly won’t hear anyone discussing controversial gender issues in all the hype surrounding the closing days of these Olympic Games. But maybe if we keep laying out the data in a calm and rational manner, we can advance the discussion beyond the biased, politically correct, opinionated nonsense that passes for serious intellectual debate on this subject.

— Todd Gallagher is the author of Andy Roddick Beat Me with a Frying Pan: Taking the Field with Pro Athletes and Olympic Legends to Settle Sports Fans’ Greatest Debates.

Tebow continues to confound his critics (ie: the experts)

"WE'LL NEVER LET TEBOW BEAT US PASSING THE BALL" - FABLED PITTSBURGH STEELER DEFENSIVE COORDINATOR, DICK LEBEAU, BEFORE THE DENVER BRONCO/PITTSBURGH STEELER PLAYOFF GAME

Never say never, Chief. You may have to eat your words.

Strangely enough, this article from the Wall Street Journal (the Wall Street Journal has a sports section?) does as good a job as any of focusing on the central issue to explain the success of Tim Tebow. It focuses more on the things that Tebow CAN do and less on the things he presumably CANNOT do.

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577151071688443732.html

Clearly he poses a dilemma for defenses around the league.

The Steelers were the #1 defense coming in. All of a sudden they were a band of walking wounded who couldn't stop the most abysmal passer in NFL history afterward.

Dick Lebeau didn't go from one of the most highly regarded defensive coaches in the league to a dunce-cap overnight. Only Romeo Crennel and the Lions have short-circuited the Tebow train and it seems like he has adjusted to each challenge. Who would have thought that a guy with his make-up would be able to respond to adversity? ;)

The Broncos KNOW what Tebow CAN do (see his teammates quotes below). Others are coming around slowly but surely. Then again, that's the problem with experts. They can't account for something that doesn't fit into their preconceived "expert" notions.

Maybe it's time to turn the tables on the experts, and put them under the same microscope.

EXPERT BIAS:
http://thoughtrefuse.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/study-supports-expert-bias/

One of the more common logical mistakes we make is to turn to the expert bias, also known as the logical fallacy arguing from authority. The logical error is committed by espousing expert credentials for sound logic, in order to make a logical argument. A logical argument is founded on logic alone. No amount of degrees or experience can supplant concrete logic.

Recently, a study was done on how expert advice affects the decision making part of the human brain, and lends physiological evidence that we are predisposed to experts over logic. This has long been the contention of logical proponents, the most well known being Nicholas Nassim Taleb, who detailed in his New York Times best selling book, The Black Swan, just how detrimental and pervasive the expert bias can be.

The real problem is, with painful acuteness, in dividing the non-expert “experts” from the expert “experts”. Or, put in another way, how do we know the advice your getting is good advice? That often depends on the particular area of advice sought. The advice of a plumber is quite different then that from a market analyst, in terms of accuracy.

What delineates good advice from bad advice, as the study alludes to, is the level of uncertainty within the realm of the expert. The higher level of randomness found within a field respectively increases the chance any advice given from an expert in said field will be wrong. This all boils down to the number of variables the expert must account for. Just compare what a plumber has to account for and what a market analyst has to. Quite often we feel adequately capable of tackling that leaking faucet in the kitchen, but when trying to plan our retirement investments feel vastly inferior to it’s daunting complexity.

With justification, we approach the expert economist for investment advice without hesitation. We simply don’t know much about that sort of thing. But how much does the expert really know? Considerably more then you do, but the massive degree of randomness in financial markets cannot mean that expert economist can know everything there is to know. His advice has to be approached with a level of skepticism.

The expert bias problem becomes exceedingly dangerous when we remove that layer of skepticism and take the advice as ad hoc certainty. The expert is hardly beyond fallibility, and those decisions you blindly had over to the expert can and do result in disaster. Case in point, the current financial meltdown fueled by poor housing market predictions and the creation of a little understood mortgage-backed security market.

Time for the critics / experts  to regroup and change their narrative. AGAIN. How many times has that been done during the continuing football odyssey that is Tim Tebow?



And I don't want to hear for a moment the argument that the supporters of Tim Tebow are operating on blind faith and not logic. My logic for supporting Tebow has centered on the FACT that this kid has succeeded / dominated on every level he has played at. On the FACT that the QB position in the NFL is in FACT one of the most misunderstood and most poorly evaluated positions in sports. Do I need to bring up the Peyton Manning versus Ryan Leaf debate again? And on the FACT that all this kid has ever done is LEAD his team and WIN games and that given time and patience with the right organization, he would do the same thing in the NFL.

The only place where my logic and my argument has failed is, I didn't think he would do it this soon. Way to go, Timmy!!!

----
Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Denver Broncos - Recap - January 08, 2012 - ESPN New York:

"Tebow's passer rating of 125.6 was the highest in Broncos postseason history.
“
They say (Tebow) couldn't throw. They said we wouldn't be able to run the ball on them. We did that. I wonder what they're going to say next week.
”
-- Broncos CB Champ Bailey
responding to critics


"He showed he's a quarterback in the NFL, case closed," McGahee said. "They say he couldn't throw. They said we wouldn't be able to run the ball on them. We did that. I wonder what they're going to say next week.""

---

It seems like they will say the only thing they have left to throw at a second year QB -- he hasn't won a Super Bowl. Of course, my wife had to jinx that for this year by asking me who I would root for in a Giants - Broncos Super Bowl. Very tough question though. Very tough.

GIANTS CONTINUE TO ROLL:

2012 NFL playoffs -- Jason Pierre-Paul says New York Giants 'gonna win' game vs. Green Bay Packers - ESPN New York:

""We gonna win ... we gonna win," Pierre-Paul later added."

Let's just say I would be very happy regardless of the result and who would have thought that I would say I could even be anything but miserable after a Giants Super Bowl loss. Thanks Timmy Boy!!!

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt.

Lincecum Playing Hardball In Negotiations

Ruh-Roh, Raggy!! This decision ( and a similar one with Matt Cain ) will determine the direction of the franchise for the next decade. Can you keep both pitchers happy from a salary standpoint while at the same time keep the rest of the roster strong enough to compete for divisional titles and championships.

Both Lincecum and Cain seem poised and savvy enough to make the transition from power pitcher to finesse pitcher. Both should remain top of the rotation guys through the low to mid thirties at least.

Then do you rinse, lather and repeat the same exercise with Bumgarner in a couple of years.

Interesting time for the Giants front office. I would like to see both Lincecum and Cain in Giants uniforms for a LONG, LONG time, FWIW.

Lincecum Playing Hardball In Negotiations:

The Giants and Tim Lincecum are trying to work out a long-term deal for the two-time Cy Young Award winner, but there is a sizable gap in what the team is offering and what Lincecum is willing to accept, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reported Wednesday.


The sides appear to have significant differences on the number of years of the contract, and they are tens of millions of dollars apart on the salary.

The Giants had made signing Lincecum and Matt Cain to long-term contracts a high priority this off-season. Lincecum’s current contract expires after the 2013 season, and Cain’s ends after the 2012 season.

CBSSports.com reported that the Giants apparently raised an earlier offer to Lincecum that was for four years and about $80 million, but Lincecum is looking for an eight-year deal.

The two sides are also considering a one-year or two-year deal if they can’t agree on a long-term deal.

A long-term deal for Lincecum probably would cost the Giants more than $100 million, according to CBSSports.com, but they want to avoid arbitration as well. Lincecum made $14 million in 2011, and he could make around $20 million in an arbitration settlement for 2012 and perhaps $25 million or more in 2013.

Can a Christian be a libertarian? - ZIONICA.com

I hope so, because I'm sure I am both. This article perhaps explains some of the reasons why better than I could do it myself, so here it goes.

Viva la Revolution. Good Luck in Iowa RP. Shock the World!!

Can a Christian be a libertarian? - ZIONICA.com:

"Can a Christian be a libertarian?

Christians in American politics have argued for years that God endorses the political agenda of Republicans or Democrats, but is there a third way to think about the relationship between God and government?

Christians from the left and the right are increasingly turning to libertarianism not because it is a “middle ground,” but because it is an entirely different way of thinking about government and power."

The core of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle: that the initiation of force against person and property is immoral, and it is in many respects a kind of political corollary to the Golden Rule. Thus, Christian libertarians think that government power should be limited, sound money and truly free markets should return, aggressive war must cease and civil liberties must be preserved. Despite objections raised by other Christians, many Christian libertarians have found a friend in Texas congressional representative, presidential candidate, and lifelong Christian Dr. Ron Paul, because he also believes in these important principles.

Libertarianism treats man’s sinful nature realistically. James Madison famously quipped that if men were angels no government would be necessary. Christian libertarians take this a step further, saying that it is precisely because men are not angels that government must have extraordinarily limited powers. God does not show favoritism nor does he give special privileges of position. Everyone is accountable to the moral law in the same way. When governments and politicians extend their power so that they can abridge people’s natural rights with impunity, they have crossed the line into immorality. Rep. Paul’s message is that the United States government has been far across this line for decades and the remedy is to follow the Constitution. The Founders created the boldest attempt in history to limit state power, yet presidents and congresses, both Republican and Democratic, have repeatedly refused to adhere to their own rules. True, lasting change can only be found in reducing the power of the federal government.

Libertarians talk a lot about economics, and rightfully so. Money is central to a healthy economy. Christians are also concerned about money; in fact God talks frequently about money in the Bible. God’s warning against unjust “weights and measures” in Leviticus 19 is a warning not to tamper with the market ecosystem of money and trade. Rep. Paul acknowledges the Bible’s concern for honest money as well in End the Fed : “The Bible is clear that altering the quality of money is an immoral act… It is dishonesty in money that has been a major source of evil throughout history.” If the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, as 1 Timothy 6:10 says, how much more seriously ought we to take how our society views the control over the supply of money? If it is true, as many libertarians contend, that the Federal Reserve is the primary cause of the economic crisis we have today, then the only solution is to restore honest, sound commodity money, free from political machinations and special interests.

It is truly unfortunate that modern American churches seem to think the state’s means of “spreading democracy” through aggressive war is more important than spreading the peaceful message of the Gospel of Christ. Jesus came to bring “peace on earth, good will to men,” and by extension the Christian’s goal ought to be the same. Rep. Paul wrote in Liberty Defined : “It’s a far stretch and a great distortion to use Christianity in any way to justify aggression and violence.” War kills the innocent, destroys property, and bankrupts nations. Christian libertarians believe that a non-interventionist foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship is more consistent with how God expects us to interact with world neighbors.

Libertarians think that everyone should be free to do as they will provided they do not infringe upon the rights of others. Christians can recognize the importance of this principle by simply observing history, recognizing how often that other Christians have been prevented from practicing their religion as their conscience requires of them. If we do not afford others the freedom to live their lives as they choose, how can we expect to receive the same freedom to do as we choose? Rep. Paul explains that government does not make people good in The Revolution: “The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous… God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.” God created us to be free to carry out the dictates of conscience. We cannot continue to demand state control to restrict people’s personal activity and yet assume our liberty is safe.

Through libertarianism, many Christians have found a way to move past their previous beliefs about politics and embrace a more consistent, more biblical political philosophy. The message of abolishing government power is powerful on its own. In Ron Paul, many Christian libertarians see a leader who points to principles that conservatives and liberals have long forgotten: “A system of government without limit, if unchecked, will destroy production and impoverish the nation. The only answer is to better understand economics and monetary systems, as well as social and foreign policies, with the hope that they will change once it becomes clear that government policies are a threat to all of us.” Libertarianism is not going away, and it surely will take an increasingly prominent place in the political discussion of Christians for years to come.

Norman Horn is the founder and editor of LibertarianChristians.com.

Michael Cuddyer, Colorado Rockies reach multiyear agreement - ESPN

Cuddyer would have been a good fit for the Giants. The article makes it seem like the Rox overpaid, but for the price of an Aubrey Huff you get a more versatile RH power bat. A swing and a miss.

Michael Cuddyer, Colorado Rockies reach multiyear agreement - ESPN:

"The Colorado Rockies have reached a three-year agreement with free-agent outfielder Michael Cuddyer.

The contract is reportedly worth about $30 million.

Michael Cuddyer is a nice player, can play right field or first base or second or third in a pinch, has some power and is apparently a great guy. But he's hardly the fix the Rockies need, Cuddyer, 32, is a career .272 hitter in 11 seasons with the Minnesota Twins. He hit .284 with 20 homers in 2011.

He brings a big bat and a veteran presence to Colorado, where general manager Dan O'Dowd has talked about changing the clubhouse culture after a disappointing 2011 season."