Jeffrey D. Sachs
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sport
By RONALD BLUMNEW YORK (AP) -Replay ball!
Umpires will be allowed to check video on home run calls starting Thursday after Major League Baseball, guardian of America's most traditional sport, reversed its decades-long opposition to instant replay. "Like everything else in life, there are times that you have to make an adjustment," baseball commissioner Bud Selig said following Tuesday's announcement. "My opposition to unlimited instant replay is still very much in play. I really think that the game has prospered for well over a century now doing things the way we did it." The 74-year-old Selig, who described himself as "old fashioned" and an admirer of baseball's "human element," softened his opposition following a rash of blown calls this year.
For now, video will be used only on so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs. "Any time you try to change something in baseball, it's both emotional and difficult," Selig said. "There's been some concern that, well, if you start here, look what it's going to lead to. Not as long as I'm the commissioner." Replay will go into use with three series scheduled to open Thursday: Philadelphia at the Chicago Cubs, Minnesota at Oakland and Texas at the Los Angeles Angels. For other games, replays will be available to umpires starting Friday. Cubs manager Lou Piniella wondered whether a team could challenge a call. "I'd love to be able to throw a red hankie or a green hankie. Imagine being able to throw something on the field and not be ejected," he said. "I shouldn't say it's not going to work, but this could turn into a little bit of a fiasco initially."
The NFL first used replay to aid officials in 1986, the NHL in 1991 and the NBA in 2002. Even at stuffy old Wimbledon, technology has been used on line calls since 2006. Replay equipment to help determine calls was in place at this year's Little League World Series. Fan interference has been a big issue in baseball, with almost constant debate since Jeffrey Maier reached over the wall and gave Derek Jeter a home run during the 1996 AL championship series. Many blown calls have occurred at newer ballparks, where fans are closer to the field have the ability to reach over fences. "In this day and age, where all these ballparks are being built now where people can reach out over the outfield fence and catch balls, fan interference is becoming more and more of an issue," Atlanta Braves pitcher Tom Glavine said. Detroit pitcher Kenny Rogers called the decision "a slap in the face of umpires that have been here for a long time" and said the decision might have been made because Alex Rodriguez lost a home run on a blown call May 21.
"It overshot the mark by far just because, what, in a Yankee game someone didn't get a homer? Please. It's happened thousands of times," Rogers said. "That's part of the game. It's the beauty of the game. Mistakes are made." Baseball general managers voted 25-5 last November to recommend use the technology, and baseball's lawyers spent recent weeks finalizing agreements with the unions for umpires and for players. "I find it very strange that, with 30 games to go in the season, that they would start it now. I find that very peculiar," Baltimore Orioles manager Dave Trembley said. "If they wanted it so bad, what took them so long to get it going and why wait until this particular point in time?"
Baseball officials wanted to avoid having a situation in the postseason where fans with access to televisions and viewers at home knew what the correct call was but the umpires on the field did not. "Some people thought that we ought to wait until the postseason," Selig said. "I'd rather go into the postseason knowing that we've already used it." Video from available broadcast feeds - not every team televises every game - will be collected at the office of Major League Baseball Advanced Media in New York, where it will be monitored by a technician and either an umpire supervisor or a retired umpire. If the crew chief at a game decides replay needs to be checked, umpires will leave the field, technicians at MLBAM will show umpires the video and the crew chief will make the call, overturning the original decision only if there is "clear and convincing evidence."
Leaving the dugout to argue a call following a replay will result in an automatic ejection. Replays of the boundary calls will not be shown on stadium video boards, MLB executive vice president for baseball operations Jimmie Lee Solomon said. MLB said replay delays will be offset by fewer arguments. "So if the game is held up for a couple of minutes a couple of times a year, I think that's OK," New York Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina said. "It's certainly not going to be seen as often as it is in the NFL." Selig would consider refinements during the offseason but boldly said he never will allow replays to be used for other calls, such as determining whether a ball was caught or trapped. The use for safe/out calls hasn't been considered. "I believe that because of the configuration of ballparks, both new and old, that calling home runs is really much more difficult than it once was," Selig said. "I don't believe in the use of instant replay for other things." Players generally agreed. "I just don't want it to open up Pandora's box, with calls at home and calls at the bases and eventually behind the plate," Tampa Bay third baseman Evan Longoria said.
The players' association agreed to replay for the balance of the season but retained the right, through Dec. 10, to ask for additional bargaining for future years. If players don't, the replay agreement will run through 2011. Union head Donald Fehr doesn't anticipate an expansion of what calls replays can be used to determine. "We haven't talked about that. I think that that's unlikely over the term of this agreement," he said. "What we'll obviously do is look at it after the World Series. We're hopeful that we're going to say it was great." Umpire Gary Cederstrom said his crew had a training session Tuesday at Yankee Stadium. "We talked to the technicians and he explained what they're going to be doing," he said. "We just basically did a dry run."
---= AP Sports Writers Dave Ginsburg in Baltimore, Mike Fitzpatrick in New York and Alan Robinson in Pittsburgh, and AP freelance writers Mark Didtler in Tampa, Fla., Amy Jinkner-Lloyd in Atlanta and Paul Harris in Detroit contributed to this report.
Umpires will be allowed to check video on home run calls starting Thursday after Major League Baseball, guardian of America's most traditional sport, reversed its decades-long opposition to instant replay. "Like everything else in life, there are times that you have to make an adjustment," baseball commissioner Bud Selig said following Tuesday's announcement. "My opposition to unlimited instant replay is still very much in play. I really think that the game has prospered for well over a century now doing things the way we did it." The 74-year-old Selig, who described himself as "old fashioned" and an admirer of baseball's "human element," softened his opposition following a rash of blown calls this year.
For now, video will be used only on so-called "boundary calls," such as determining whether fly balls went over the fence, whether potential home runs were fair or foul and whether there was fan interference on potential home runs. "Any time you try to change something in baseball, it's both emotional and difficult," Selig said. "There's been some concern that, well, if you start here, look what it's going to lead to. Not as long as I'm the commissioner." Replay will go into use with three series scheduled to open Thursday: Philadelphia at the Chicago Cubs, Minnesota at Oakland and Texas at the Los Angeles Angels. For other games, replays will be available to umpires starting Friday. Cubs manager Lou Piniella wondered whether a team could challenge a call. "I'd love to be able to throw a red hankie or a green hankie. Imagine being able to throw something on the field and not be ejected," he said. "I shouldn't say it's not going to work, but this could turn into a little bit of a fiasco initially."
The NFL first used replay to aid officials in 1986, the NHL in 1991 and the NBA in 2002. Even at stuffy old Wimbledon, technology has been used on line calls since 2006. Replay equipment to help determine calls was in place at this year's Little League World Series. Fan interference has been a big issue in baseball, with almost constant debate since Jeffrey Maier reached over the wall and gave Derek Jeter a home run during the 1996 AL championship series. Many blown calls have occurred at newer ballparks, where fans are closer to the field have the ability to reach over fences. "In this day and age, where all these ballparks are being built now where people can reach out over the outfield fence and catch balls, fan interference is becoming more and more of an issue," Atlanta Braves pitcher Tom Glavine said. Detroit pitcher Kenny Rogers called the decision "a slap in the face of umpires that have been here for a long time" and said the decision might have been made because Alex Rodriguez lost a home run on a blown call May 21.
"It overshot the mark by far just because, what, in a Yankee game someone didn't get a homer? Please. It's happened thousands of times," Rogers said. "That's part of the game. It's the beauty of the game. Mistakes are made." Baseball general managers voted 25-5 last November to recommend use the technology, and baseball's lawyers spent recent weeks finalizing agreements with the unions for umpires and for players. "I find it very strange that, with 30 games to go in the season, that they would start it now. I find that very peculiar," Baltimore Orioles manager Dave Trembley said. "If they wanted it so bad, what took them so long to get it going and why wait until this particular point in time?"
Baseball officials wanted to avoid having a situation in the postseason where fans with access to televisions and viewers at home knew what the correct call was but the umpires on the field did not. "Some people thought that we ought to wait until the postseason," Selig said. "I'd rather go into the postseason knowing that we've already used it." Video from available broadcast feeds - not every team televises every game - will be collected at the office of Major League Baseball Advanced Media in New York, where it will be monitored by a technician and either an umpire supervisor or a retired umpire. If the crew chief at a game decides replay needs to be checked, umpires will leave the field, technicians at MLBAM will show umpires the video and the crew chief will make the call, overturning the original decision only if there is "clear and convincing evidence."
Leaving the dugout to argue a call following a replay will result in an automatic ejection. Replays of the boundary calls will not be shown on stadium video boards, MLB executive vice president for baseball operations Jimmie Lee Solomon said. MLB said replay delays will be offset by fewer arguments. "So if the game is held up for a couple of minutes a couple of times a year, I think that's OK," New York Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina said. "It's certainly not going to be seen as often as it is in the NFL." Selig would consider refinements during the offseason but boldly said he never will allow replays to be used for other calls, such as determining whether a ball was caught or trapped. The use for safe/out calls hasn't been considered. "I believe that because of the configuration of ballparks, both new and old, that calling home runs is really much more difficult than it once was," Selig said. "I don't believe in the use of instant replay for other things." Players generally agreed. "I just don't want it to open up Pandora's box, with calls at home and calls at the bases and eventually behind the plate," Tampa Bay third baseman Evan Longoria said.
The players' association agreed to replay for the balance of the season but retained the right, through Dec. 10, to ask for additional bargaining for future years. If players don't, the replay agreement will run through 2011. Union head Donald Fehr doesn't anticipate an expansion of what calls replays can be used to determine. "We haven't talked about that. I think that that's unlikely over the term of this agreement," he said. "What we'll obviously do is look at it after the World Series. We're hopeful that we're going to say it was great." Umpire Gary Cederstrom said his crew had a training session Tuesday at Yankee Stadium. "We talked to the technicians and he explained what they're going to be doing," he said. "We just basically did a dry run."
---= AP Sports Writers Dave Ginsburg in Baltimore, Mike Fitzpatrick in New York and Alan Robinson in Pittsburgh, and AP freelance writers Mark Didtler in Tampa, Fla., Amy Jinkner-Lloyd in Atlanta and Paul Harris in Detroit contributed to this report.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Final Four
Islam
www.leader.ir/langs/en/
Christian
www.vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm
Buddhism
www.dalailama.com
Hindu
http://pmindia.nic.in/
www.leader.ir/langs/en/
Christian
www.vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm
Buddhism
www.dalailama.com
Hindu
http://pmindia.nic.in/
Friday, August 15, 2008
Confession
Featured Writer
Mindy Wise
Peoria AZ
A: Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, has been sued by his own creationist category.
B: Hypocrisy abounds in their claims, which I will show you an excerpt of later.
C: AiG is painfully misinformed about many of their "findings" and have manipulated and conformed "evidence" to make it sound as if it supports their claims. For years they have gone on to misinform ignorant Christians and hopeful creationists. (For instance, their claim that human bones have been found with animal bones which they have since retracted subtly.)
D: The demeanor in which Ken Ham operates has been prone to being hysterical.
Take, for example, as this AiG member trying to form a rebuttal against a site that refuted their claim about human bone being found in cretaceous rock, and they instantly attack the site's credibility (to which, one can argue that AiG has been found to have little to none itself) and say: "One thing to realize about Talk Origins (the opposing website) is that it is not a site with technical peer-reviewed material. Many of their technical articles have never been peer-reviewed and even contain extensive amounts of speculation. Because of this, one needs to be discerning when reading their articles to divide facts (2 Timothy 2:15) from personal opinions/interpretations. Use these same facts and interpret them with the biblical presupposition as opposed to evolutionary presuppositions."
So, essentially what the last bit is saying is, "Don't be biased, just look at these "facts" as if you were a Christian trying to prove the Bible is geologically correct."
What? That's a confusing statement if there was any. In two sentences this AiG member has been able to contradict themselves more obviously than if the error were two inches from my pupils. Unfortunately for them, they have been found to talk in circles on many an occasion.
In short, so far I have found that their so-called "facts" have fallen apart in front of them time and time again. They have either quietly tried to dismiss these little details or have passionately opposed the solid facts which have been found and well-known for years when they should have suffered a great embarrassment for their erroneous claims. Not only this but if Ken Ham is being sued by other creationists, this casts his character in an ill light, and not to mention his behavior when having been deservedly cornered gives away the lack of ability to defend his own position. I'm very early in my research of this group but I am eager to find out more about their ludicrous stance. Creationists are among some of the most untruthful and ridiculous people in the world. Did I mention that there is a small group of people, now, who are trying to redefine and rename gravity as Intelligent Falling? No joke! More and more I am finding that creationists, though trying to hide behind the words "Intelligent Design", are really only providing ideas, opinions, weak theories, and more often than not, falsified evidence. It angers me that they propose that they are scientists with solid facts to back them up, and yet they have nothing more than opinions to offer. How very, very sad.
It makes me wonder why we continue this debate at all.
Mindy Wise
Peoria AZ
Answers in Genesis: A complete fake
As all of you well know, there has been heated debate and tension between the creationist and evolutionist sides. Obviously, I am for the side that holds its weight in evidence; evolution. When I was a Christian, I grew up on countless Christian talk shows that I was too impressionable and young to question. As I grew older, even then I did not think to research evolution and the facts behind it or the lack thereof on the creationists side. In fact, I didn't even know that I was a follower of creationism, considering I wasn't aware our beliefs had a particular name. I simply took it as truth, and nothing more. Among those talk shows my mother loved to immerse her household in was a creationist program with a heavy fundamentalist Christian background called "Answers in Genesis". I eagerly listened and mistakenly hung on their every word instead of listening to my teacher in science class. Now, as an atheist, it has been my pleasure to look into some of their claims and the controversies surrounding them. You should know that their favorite saying is, "Instead of trying to fit the bible into science, fit science into the bible!". This means that we shouldn't look to facts to draw a conclusion, but assume the conclusion is whatever is said in the bible and then find facts to support it. The information I have gathered on AiG has so far shown me in less than a half an hour that:A: Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis, has been sued by his own creationist category.
B: Hypocrisy abounds in their claims, which I will show you an excerpt of later.
C: AiG is painfully misinformed about many of their "findings" and have manipulated and conformed "evidence" to make it sound as if it supports their claims. For years they have gone on to misinform ignorant Christians and hopeful creationists. (For instance, their claim that human bones have been found with animal bones which they have since retracted subtly.)
D: The demeanor in which Ken Ham operates has been prone to being hysterical.
Take, for example, as this AiG member trying to form a rebuttal against a site that refuted their claim about human bone being found in cretaceous rock, and they instantly attack the site's credibility (to which, one can argue that AiG has been found to have little to none itself) and say: "One thing to realize about Talk Origins (the opposing website) is that it is not a site with technical peer-reviewed material. Many of their technical articles have never been peer-reviewed and even contain extensive amounts of speculation. Because of this, one needs to be discerning when reading their articles to divide facts (2 Timothy 2:15) from personal opinions/interpretations. Use these same facts and interpret them with the biblical presupposition as opposed to evolutionary presuppositions."
So, essentially what the last bit is saying is, "Don't be biased, just look at these "facts" as if you were a Christian trying to prove the Bible is geologically correct."
What? That's a confusing statement if there was any. In two sentences this AiG member has been able to contradict themselves more obviously than if the error were two inches from my pupils. Unfortunately for them, they have been found to talk in circles on many an occasion.
In short, so far I have found that their so-called "facts" have fallen apart in front of them time and time again. They have either quietly tried to dismiss these little details or have passionately opposed the solid facts which have been found and well-known for years when they should have suffered a great embarrassment for their erroneous claims. Not only this but if Ken Ham is being sued by other creationists, this casts his character in an ill light, and not to mention his behavior when having been deservedly cornered gives away the lack of ability to defend his own position. I'm very early in my research of this group but I am eager to find out more about their ludicrous stance. Creationists are among some of the most untruthful and ridiculous people in the world. Did I mention that there is a small group of people, now, who are trying to redefine and rename gravity as Intelligent Falling? No joke! More and more I am finding that creationists, though trying to hide behind the words "Intelligent Design", are really only providing ideas, opinions, weak theories, and more often than not, falsified evidence. It angers me that they propose that they are scientists with solid facts to back them up, and yet they have nothing more than opinions to offer. How very, very sad.
It makes me wonder why we continue this debate at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
