Why I should be the next Manager of The Boston Red Sox

I would like to interrupt this election season - and my normal blogging topics to throw my hat into the ring to be the next skipper of my beloved Boston Red Sox.  This is not a joke.  I really believe Sox management should hire me without interviewing anyone else for the job. 

 

Let's look at it. 

 

First, this season the Red Sox finished in last place with something like 60 or so wins.   It was their worst performance since 1965.

 

This from a team that fired their manager, Terry Francona the year before.

 

In case you missed it, Francona managed the team to its first World Series championship in 86 years!  For crying out loud, that means World War I was ending as the Red Sox last won anything.  In 2004 Francona found his team down three games to zero to the Yankees in the American League Championship Series.  In game three the Yankees scored 19 runs!  It looked like the Sox were done, but no.

 

Miraculously, Boston won the next four games in a row, two of which came in New York and went on to win four more in a row vs. St. Louis.

 

I have been a Boston fan since 1978.  Rick, "The Rooster" Burleson was my favorite player.  I cried, literally, when Boston lost in 1986 (Bob Stanley's fault).  That means I waited 36 years to see my team win it all.  That is nothing compared to how long others waited or how much they suffered.

 

Then, as if one title was not enough, Francona led Boston to another World Series championship in 2007! 

 

O.K., forgive me for hyperbole here, but if you manage two Red Sox teams to World Series titles, you not only are named manager of the team for life but you get to be emperor of the city of Boston as well.

 

For this, four years later, the geniuses who run the Red Sox fired Francona after his teams underperformed in the playoffs or narrowly missed them.

 

This year, Bobby Valentine - who is by many accounts, shall we say, difficult to play for, was hired to lead Boston.  He did.  Right into last place with a July player mutiny to boot.

 

Now the Red Sox need a new leader, which brings me to why they should give me the job.

 

First, as I mentioned, I have a long history of devotion to the Sox.

 

Second, I know the game of baseball.  I played college and semi-pro baseball and managed a semi-pro team made up largely of former professional (including major leaguers) baseball players to two championship series.

 

When I started managing my sons we had teams appear in three championship games out of four seasons and last year my team....wait for it.....THE RED SOX won the Winter Garden Little League Championship.

 

So, that is six seasons of playing for the title - in both mens and kids baseball. 

 

Are you listening, Red Sox management?

 

Then there is this.  Valencia has a sabbatical program which would allow me to leave for a year with no pay, so I am available.

 

When it comes to compensation, I would take the helm of the Red Sox for half of whatever anyone else would do it for, a huge savings there.

 

As for entertainment value, imagine a five foot six and three-quarters inch economics professor arguing with umpires.  My wife claims that my sarcastic facial expressions alone would be worth t.v. ratings gold.

 

Finally, and this is the best part - if I am hired and Boston finishes in last place that would mean that I was no worse than Bobby Valentine, but would be cheaper, funnier to watch and worth millions of Twitter and Facebook rants by people who want to kill Red Sox management for hiring some Little League manager from Central Florida.  You can't buy that kind of publicity.

 

It is up to you, Boston.....make the case for me to run our team. 

 

It can't get any worse than it is....

7.8% Unemployment Illustrates the Failure of Obamanomics

After remaining stubbornly above 8% for over 3 1/2 years, the nations unemployment rate finally dipped to 7.8% last month. 

 

President Obama hailed this milestone in his presidency to claim that the American economy is finally growing as a result of his policies that saved us from Great Depression II, starvation, locusts and famine.

 

Mr. President, with all due respect, we are no where near where we could have been at this point because of your failed economic theories.

 

To wit - you told us in 2009 that if your stimulus bill passed we would see strong economic growth and unemployment in the 5-6% range by now.  You borrowed $862,000,000,000 from China and other sources, spent the money on wind-energy companies, corporate subsidies, municipalities (for teachers and firefighters) and other Keynesian-inspired projects.  You told us that without this spending, if the government did nothing, unemployment would remain above 8%.

 

Nine months after your bill passed the unemployment rate was still 9.8%.  Three years and six months after your bill passed the unemployment rate was still above 8%.  That means if we had not spent the money, according to your projections, we would have ended up exactly where we are now, but without the massive debt my children and their children's children will be forced to pay for.

 

You told us that 'Cash for Clunkers' would be a huge boost to the economy.  Look at the analysis of this program.  All it did was encourage people to purchase cars earlier than they would have otherwise, while reducing the supply of functional used cars, which caused used car prices to rise for poorer people whom you claim to care about.

 

As a result of the lack of transparency created by Obamacare and your carbon-tax plans, businesses are refusing to hire new workers while they sort out how much they will owe in fines, taxes or rising health care premiums in the years to come.  Meanwhile, I have had my premiums increase by over $200 per month because your health law added burdensome regulations to insurance companies.  That is $200 less I have to spend in the economy you claim to be saving.

 

Since you took office, over 75,000 pages of new regulations have been added to the Federal Register.  Regulations now cost American families over $10,000 per year in higher prices - more than we pay in taxes.

 

You are telling us that in 2013 our income, dividend, capital gains and estate taxes will all rise.

 

Mr. President, to show joy that one month before the election our unemployment rate is now below 8%, while failing to mention that the underemployment rate is nearly 18% (when counting people who have simply left the labor force because they can't find a job, or who are sweeping the floors at a Burger King 17 hours per week because they cannot find a full-time job), is pathetic.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal ran an article that shows most economists expect another recession next year as a result of your tax plans.

Enjoy your 7.8% unemployment rate while you can, Mr. President, because it may be a long time before you see it that low again.

Why Mitt Romney won the First Debate

I just finished watching the first debate on economic issues between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

 

If this had been a heavyweight prize fight it would have looked somewhat like the Buster Douglas - Mike Tyson fight from long ago.

 

In short, Mitt Romney knocked out Barack Obama.

 

For those of you who are new to my blog I must first let you know that I am a registered Libertarian and rarely vote for Republicans who are running for president.

 

You should also know that I have been sharply critical of Mitt Romney in public speeches, lectures to my students and on this blog.  He is no Ronald Reagan.  He has flaws in his persepective on health care, energy and trade with China.

 

Yet, tonight he illustrated why President Obama's presidency was a wonderfully impossible fulfillment of what America could be if we looked at a man without race in mind but ended up a dismal failure by any measure.

 

Mr. Romney was masterful in pointing out what should be painfully obvious to any American who has even an inkling of common sense.  That is that under President Obama we have seen the economy remain stagnant, government debt explode and the promise of achieving the American Dream die for millions of young people. 

 

Mr. Romney clearly illustrated that he understands the fundamental principles that create economic growth - leaving people and their wallets largely alone so they can chart the course of their own lives - while government largely remains on the sidelines.

 

He was not perfect and as I said, I have some serious concerns about some of his economics.  But...I have been an economist for 24 years now.   In those 24 years I have watched as George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush took us on a path that violated the principles of free markets and limited government.  I have watch President Obama make things even worse by arrogantly claiming that business people - of which I am one - did not create our businesses and that "Obamacare" (a phrase he loves) must be imposed on unwillingly emancipated adult human beings.

 

Mitt Romney gave a performance tonight that reminded me of what I felt when I watched the Reagan-Carter debates in 1980.  I was only a kid then but I knew Reagan was on to something.  So is Mitt Romney, if he can keep it up.

Watching Football as a Father

I am having a rough start to what is normally my favorite time of the year.  From the end of the Super Bowl each season until the start of the new football season in September I go through the sports-viewing equivalent of hell as seven months of NASCAR, golf, tennis, 6-hour long baseball games, lacrosse and every other boring event is put out for my viewing displeasure.

 

I must say, I would rather read the vomit bag during a flight to Afghanistan than read the sports pages during this miserable 210-day ordeal.

 

So, this month should mean great joy for me.  College and NFL football is in full swing and the temperature here in Central Florida has fallen to a downright crisp 90 degrees.

 

And yet, I am not happy.  In fact, my stomach hurts and some of my thoughts about football are going through a painful evolution.

 

This is because, for the first time, one of my sons is playing organized football.    This is not his first time playing football, but for the past several years it has been confined to the backyard or some other field where he and his friends play a friendly game of tackle football.

 

Now he is the starting quarterback for his school's junior varsity team.  He is still playing on real grass.  He is still playing tackle football.  But....it is not very friendly.  In fact, it is often downright ugly.

 

Some of you might be thinking, "What a wimp you are!"  After all, football is supposed to be violent.  I know this.  I played six years back in Oklahoma and was good enough to get a couple of small college scholarship offers.  I was a running back and I loved the contact - all of it - even when it was brutal.

 

Yet, yesterday I stood there watching my son take a helmet-to-helmet shot that caused his arms to go numb.  He laid on the ground for what seemed like an hour before wobbling back to the bench.    He did not tell his coach about the hit to the head so the next thing I know he is back in the game.  I was not about to be one of "those parents" and yell to pull him out.  He had told me on the sidelines that he felt "o.k" and I figured he was done for the day. 

 

Three plays later he is on the ground again with an injured ankle.

 

Meanwhile, the other players during the game against a ......hold on to your seat....Christian school  were repeatedly flagged (and sometimes not) for late hits, unsportsmanlike conduct, facemask penalties and more.  They celebrated these late hits and then had the nerve to pray after the game.  Perhaps they were praying that they would not be struck down by lightening for being hypocrites.

 

Anyway, that night I was out in my game room flipping back and forth between the Ravens - Browns NFL game and the Stanford-Washington college game. 

 

More than once I saw huge hits - players getting "blown up" and the crowd went wild.

 

For the first time in my life I found myself looking at these fans and saying, "What are you celebrating?"

 

Maybe this is a bit of an overreaction but in some ways I wonder if we are not much different from the people who sat in the stands watching lions eating some unlucky fellow.

 

I welcome your thoughts...

Say it again, Mitt!!!!

In case you missed it, today Mitt Romney is in trouble for something he said about Obama supporters.  The clip is provided below.

Now that this video is out there for all to see, today's newspapers are filled with Mr. Romney's crawfishing.  He is now attempting to argue that his words were not well thought out or were not "elegant" - whatever that means.

To that I say, "Please stop it!"

Mr. Romney, it is time for you to realize that you are most likely going to lose in November.  In football language, it is fourth and 21, you are at your own 13 yard-line with 8 seconds to go and you are losing by 7 points.  It is time to throw a Hail Mary and see if you can pull out a miracle.

The miracle in this case will be convincing Independents out there that your words, captured in this Youtube clip, are what you believe. 

To be honest with you, as a Libertarian, I needed to hear these words.  I have not been excited about your candidacy for one minute.  Now, if what you said here is what you believe, and if it suggests a manner in which you would run the country, I am more inclined to vote for you instead of writing down "Ron Paul" once again.

So, on behalf of those of us who are not excited about you, please keep saying this.  Do not apologize.  In fact, you need to say it more, say it louder and say it in a way that people like me will actively support you and try to convince others to do the same.

Remember, Mr. Romney, you told the truth so do not apologize for this. 

Embrace it and throw the Hail Mary!

Obama worshippers need a history lesson on economics

I thought you might enjoy my Op-Ed from the September 15th Orlando Sentinel

____

On Thursday, Rollins College adjunct professor of international affairs Stephen W. Day informed us in his Sentinel guest column why we cannot ask the question, "Am I better off today than I was four years ago?"

 

Day joined the long list of liberal apologists who teach in America's colleges and universities by selling the flawed notion that President Obama inherited an economy that he could not possibly save in just four years and that our president is doing great things to ensure long-run prosperity if he can only finish the job we allowed him to start in 2009.

 

Incredibly, Day compounded this flawed argument by lecturing Sentinel readers on the dangers of American selfishness. In his words, "Voters today understand that we endure the Great Recession together, so we must find our way out of this mess together. ... We must stand as a nation, united behind a president who has an effective economic plan…"

Hogwash.

Like Day, my fall classes began a couple of weeks ago. Unlike Day, my students are hearing something completely different.

I disagree with Day's reasoning that we have gone through such a horrific economic crisis that no president could turn things around in four years. Must we be constantly reminded that the period from 1973 to 1980 was worse than the recent Great Recession? During that time, oil supply shocks, income-tax rates as high as 70 percent and growing government spending and regulations led to a new word — stagflation — in the economics dictionary.

Stagflation, the combination of unemployment and inflation, is the worst reality any economy can face. During the post-Arab oil embargo through 1980, the U.S. experienced near 20 percent stagflation rates. For 1979-80 it was more than 20 percent. At the height of the recent 2007-2009 recession, we never came close to 15 percent.

In 1981, President Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act, which lowered income taxes up and down the income scale by nearly 30 percent. At the same time, Reagan supported Fed Chairman Paul Volcker in his efforts to fight inflation as Volcker pushed interest rates to historically high levels.

After a severe recession in 1982, caused by a prime interest rate of more than 21 percent, Reagan's major income-tax reform, combined with accelerated deregulation of American industry, the American economy roared back to life. It grew by historically high rates from November 1982 until the fall of 1990. At that time, this was the longest peacetime recovery in our history.
It should be noted that Reagan's policies were similar to those taken by John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s and Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Kennedy's income and corporate tax cuts remain, as a percentage of the GDP, the largest in history and were followed by a booming economy in the 1960s.

I show my students that the last six years of Bill Clinton's presidency — with large cuts in capital gains taxes, the creation of tax-friendly investment vehicles, welfare reform, controlled government spending and brilliant international trade polices — helped the 1990s become the most prosperous decade in our history.

Day fails to understand that we did not go into the Great Recession together. We went into it as individuals. My personal economic picture has nothing to do with him. Changes in my income, alterations in the value of my home and the decisions I have to make to help guide my family through tough economic times are all personal decisions. I do not belong to a group that must share in good and bad times. I am not compelled to work with my fellow man. I am only obligated to serve my fellow man. If I serve him well, my personal economic fortunes will reflect that. If I fail, it is not on Day to pull me out of what I created.

 

I would invite Day to explore further the real evidence of Obama's economic policies and those of his predecessors who were successful in guiding meaningful and substantial economic growth.
The facts are clear. When you ask the men and women of America why they are not creating more jobs, you will not find anyone saying, "Well, this has just been too big of a recession to end quickly." You will find them saying that Obama's plans to increase personal and investment income taxes, his costly health-care legislation and the rising tide of regulations have made it nearly impossible to make any plans that include job creation.

The sooner we all learn this, the faster we can make the necessary changes in Washington, D.C.

Will any Democrat be in Heaven?

In case you missed it (video provided below), Senator Richard Durbin was asked in an interview with Fox News why the word "God" was left out of the 2012 Democratic platform.   

I am not sure if Fox News was trying to show up the Democratic Party or not by interviewing Durbin on this subject. 

Yet, the interview did make me wonder, will we see any Democrats in heaven?

Lets take a look at what modern Democrats believe to be true and what policies they support.

First, Democrats support abortion rights.  O.K., so do many Libertarians.  Libertarians and Democrats who support abortion "rights" argue that a women owns her own body and has the right to put an end to an unwanted pregnancy.

Tell me please - has the scientific community come to a consensus on when life begins?  No, it has not.  Therefore, it is possible - not from a religious point of view, but strictly from the standpoint of biology - that life begins at conception.

If it is possible that life begins at conception, it is possible that ending a pregnancy is ending a life.  If that is the case it is called killing a living human being - something covered in the Old and New Testaments.    Even if you do not believe in God, you can argue that since our Constitution protects the right to life, every abortion is a violation of a person's natural, rather than God-given right to life, and therefore is a criminal act.

Second, Democrats support using the law to take money away from one person to give it to another.  I have seen countless "Christian" Democrats argue that Jesus taught us to be our brother's keeper and therefore welfare payments satisfy Christian doctrine. 

Tell me please, where did Jesus say it was o.k. to use force to gain the resources that are funneled to "charitable" acts?  He never said it was morally right to steal (using force to take property from someone) in order to pay for the care of our brothers.  Stealing is also covered in Holy Scriptures and it is not justified anywhere.

Third, Democrats support forcing children to go to schools they are zoned for.  Zones are artificial borders created by force (law) that prevents free, emancipated adult human beings (parents) from sending their child to the school they choose. 

Take a look at the worst schools in America.  They are not Catholic, secular private or home schools.  All of the worst schools are in areas where children are forced to go to the local monopoly for an "education".  This increases - dramatically - the odds that those children will become poor as adults.  Once they become poor as adults they are invited to become slaves to the welfare state that was also largely created by Democrats (see FDR and LBJ).  They might also end up in prison as a result of being poor.  Come to think of it, most of America's prison population is made up of men with no father at home.  The fatherless men trend accelerated after the welfare state was created.

Ending human life, theft, educational slavery, destroyed families....

How do you get to heaven on that foundation?