Dodgers Have Easy Path to Playoffs

This place should be home to baseball well into October.

The Dodgers should have every reason to expect to win the National League West. They have by far the easiest path there.

The Dodgers have three games against the Rockies to end the season and six games against the Giants in September. Meanwhile they are four games up on Colorado and seven up on San Francisco. Neither the Rockies or Giants could overtake the Dodgers just by sweeping them. They need help. And later I’ll show you why that’s unlikely to happen.

The Giants have the toughest route. They have 12 games against the Dodgers and Rockies and three against the NL-Central leading Cardinals, and four against the Cubs, who have a tough path to the wild card spot, but do have a winning record.

The Rockies have nine against the other two teams and three against NL-East-leading Phillies.

The Dodgers have nine against the other two contenders. The other 25 are against the five worst teams in the National League. If the Dodgers don’t make it to the post-season, it will be a gift to Dodger fans, because they would have to be so bad that a trip to the playoffs would be nothing but an embarrassment.

Taking a Bold Stance Against Hitler

Does this picture mean I shouldn’t embrace children anymore?

After Thanksgiving dinner in 1990 I boarded plane to Denver to work a weekend conference of a company whose employ I’ve long regretted. The incident I recall isn’t one of those that I would put in a list of reasons why the company failed, but maybe I should.

The company sent people tickets to a business seminar and promised a free gift of accounting software and some basic business and motivational books. I had been with the company a year and obviously had never read the books, because when a guest at one of the events pointed out a quote, I had to admit I’d never seen it. I don’t remember the quote, but I do remember the author — Adolf Hitler.

Most people would agree that an American motivational book should not include a quote by Hitler, no matter how true it might be. What I do recall about the comment was had it been said by someone else who wasn’t one of history’s greatest murderers, it would have fit just fine.

Now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that anti-health-care reform protesters had swastikas on their signs. While she has been denounced as a liar by some, I thought I had seen pictures of it and in looking around the Web tonight, I verified that I had.

On one level, though, so what? Liberals did it to Bush, too. You can’t judge all health care opponents for what a few crazies do.

What if they’re not crazy? The yellers on the left likened Bush to Hitler in reference to totalinarianism, which you might argue is valid. With Obama the yellers on the right might be referring to Germany’s socialism under the Nazis, which many argue is valid.

In a National Review column Andrew McCarthy argues that likening health care reform to the Nazis is appropriate, because the Nazis were socialists and that extended to health care. “The wisdom vel non of policies adopted during over a decade of Nazi socialism cannot be off the table simply because, in the end, the Nazis were monsters,” he wrote.

Well, actually, I disagree with McCarthy. For me it goes back to Godwin’s Law specifically and more generally the “slippery slope” argument we often hear. We won’t legalize something we might approve of because it could lead to us legalizing something we don’t. I hate that argument. You draw a line and you leave it there. In the 1970s we decided 18-year-olds should be able to vote. Have we since decided it should be OK for kids old enough to drive? We let 21-year-olds drink alcohol. We draw lines all the time. Sometimes we move them, but it’s not usually just because we moved them closer years before.

Besides, and this is where it gets dicey for me, it would be foolish to assume that even the most vile, evil, ungodly person in the world was capable of doing nothing good or worth emulating. I’m not saying we should emulate Hitler’s hospitals. But even an article on an Anti-Defamation League site points out that Nazi scientists may have been the first to discover that tobacco is bad for the body.

Here are things Hitler reportedly said. I can’t verify that he really said these things, but I saw it on a Web site, so it must be true. Tell me which ones you disagree with.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

“How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.”

“The man who has no sense of history, is like a man who has no ears or eyes”

“The day of individual happiness has passed”

“I love you Mommy”

I have no proof he said the last one, but Hitler was close to his mother, so it’s not inconceivable that he did. And I think the first one was actually his propaganda guy, but Hitler surely embraced the idea even if he didn’t say the actual quote.

Regardless, my main point is that you don’t use Hitler to support your case or to dismiss someone else’s. Health writer Tinker Ready agrees.

Where McCarthy might have a point that sells is when he writes of “a trajectory of socialism,” but again I feel he’s relying on the slippery slope model:

“There is a trajectory of socialism, regardless of the good intentions of many socialists. As he framed it, you take things such as health care, things that are traditionally understood as within the ambit of individual liberty and free choice; you move such things into the ambit of state responsibility as the welfare state emerges and grows, on the theory that it is government’s responsibility to provide for everyone’s needs (by redistributing resources); as more things are moved from private to public control, the state by definition becomes totalitarian; and, inexorably, the totalitarian state gets bad leaders and the society comes to reflect the policy choices of those leaders.”

This suggests that elements of our government are not socialist already. When did government decide it was a good idea to take roads out of the ambit of individual liberty and into state responsibility? How about wars and parks? Dictators and capitalists have both employed slavery. Do we rid ourselves of both? Are all the countries that have adopted some form of socialized medical system on an inevitable path to having their own versions of Hitler?

In the same ADL article mentioned earlier, Penn State history of science professor Robert N. Proctor draws the line pointing where German science failed:

“There is nothing inherently evil about physicians working and cooperating with their government. The moral failure of the German medical profession was its willingness to collaborate with the Nazi state, its willingness to serve Nazi values. There is nothing wrong with physicians working to preserve the health of a larger community; that, after all, is the essence of responsible public health. What differentiated National Socialist public health from genuine public health in a reasonably civilized society was the exclusive nature of what the Nazis considered “the community.” Nazi values excluded Jews and others deemed racially or genetically unfit from the völkisch community. It bears repeating: Most German physicians in the Reich failed to challenge the rotten substance of Nazi values, the murderous directions of Nazi initiatives.”

Opponents and supporters of health care both have solid arguments to make for their cases. Maybe the public option will end up being a Trojan Horse for universal coverage. Maybe insurance companies are driving medical costs up. Maybe Medicare’s doing it. Those are all worth discussing. But as soon as you bring up “Nazi” or “Hitler,” you’ve lost me.

These Go to 11

tenyearsafterFor a couple of years I thought about Friday.

More than a year ago following another round of layoffs I wondered whether it was time to get out of the journalism business. I thought at the time, rightly as it turns out, that as long as I didn’t pull off a major blunder I could probably make it to Friday. So I opted to put off any thoughts of making a career change, until I hit the 10-year mark in journalism.

A couple of months ago I learned of an opening in a position that seemed would be the next logical, and more stable, place to go. The only problem I saw was that it would likely begin before the 10-year anniversary I had committed myself to.

On July 31, 1999 the culmination of months of work resulted in an orientation at The Daily Herald in Provo. I wanted to be in the Northwest, but I guessed the newspaper there would be a step.

The irony now is that the same force that made it possible for me to get a job is the one that’s making it difficult for me and others to hang on now. In the late 1990s the Internet was creating new opportunities for writers, not reducing them. With venture capitalists unwisely throwing money at any start-up Internet venture, the online community was flush with opportunity, including online news sites. That meant many traditional journalists were leaving newspapers for online sites. The plus for me was newspapers had openings. The Daily Herald, after some unknowingly clever angling on my part, offered me a job as a religion reporter, which a few months later turned into a city government/higher education job.
Continue reading