From ECON 101

Over the past few months, Republican governors have been attacking public workers as if they were to blame for the prolonged recession. Their salaries, benefits or jobs must be slashed to balance budgets. The banks and Wall Street investors who promoted a real estate bubble and trashed the economy are apparently long forgotten. The most affluent Americans, who benefited disproportionately from the unsustainable growth -- and who are again back on their feet -- are not being asked to shoulder more of a burden. Indeed, they got renewed tax cuts when the "Bush" (now Obama) cuts were renewed.

Thus, it seems, only the local librarians, teachers, fire fighters, or police officers can be blamed and made to pay.

Many critics of public sector workers reference seemingly damning statistics from a January 2009 Forbes magazine piece by Stephane Fitch:

The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector's $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%.

That piece of information certainly makes it sound as if the public sector might be a place to make cuts when states are facing budgetary pressures.

However, the statistic is very misleading -- making a false comparison according to economists Robert Pollin and Jeffrey Thompson in the March 7-14, 2011, issue of The Nation:

What figures such as these fail to reflect is that state and local government workers are older and substantially better educated than private-sector workers. Forbes is therefore comparing apples and oranges. As John Schmitt of the Center for Economic Policy Research recently showed, when state and local government employees are matched against private sector workers of the same age and educational levels, the public workers earn, on average, about 4 percent less than their private counterparts. Moreover, the results of Schmitt’s apples-to-apples comparison are fully consistent with numerous studies examining this same question over the past twenty years.

Public sector employment should provide some job security -- workers earn less than their peers in the private sector.

Indeed, educated workers in the private sector should support them. If they are fired from their public sector jobs, then the employment market will be flooded with a larger number of more-educated workers. With a greater supply of workers chasing scarce jobs, salaries and benefits for private sector workers will go down. While the current recession has led to very high unemployment rates, the rate for college graduates has been at 5% or less. That's far too high, but the rate for all other job-seekers has been at least double that figure.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Pragmatic cosmopolitanism?

Now that the US has intervened in Libya, many political analysts have speculated about an "Obama Doctrine." Last night on MSNBC's "Hardball," Andrea Mitchell identifed a doctrine in response to host Chris Matthews' question:

MATTHEWS: Is there a doctrine? In the first segment of the show tonight, we had McDonough on trying to find out if there is a doctrine. Is there a vision—what did G.W.‘s father call it, a vision thing? Is there a vision thing here?

MITCHELL: Well, I think there is a vision. It‘s emerging, and I think people have questioned whether there‘s a strategy.

The president tried to outline that in answers to our own Savannah Guthrie last night at the news conference in El Salvador. And basically what he says is, when you have a catastrophe that you can avert and the benefits outweigh the costs, and you have international or multilateral support, go for it...

You cannot stand idly by. That‘s what I would call the Obama doctrine.

MATTHEWS: It has conditions, too. We have to have friends who will join us, and we have to have an enemy who we can go after.

MITCHELL: Exactly.

Video here.

On Twitter earlier today (yes, I've just started tweeting), I labeled this "pragmatic cosmopolitianism."

There have been prior efforts to describe an Obama Doctrine, such as the one offered by Katrina vanden Heuvel, which focused on the President's major speeches of 2009 (arguably leading to the Nobel Prize):

support for diplomacy and the UN; commitment to a nuclear-free world; a belief that democracy is strengthened not through US intervention but when people win for themselves their rights and liberties; and engagement and cooperation with, rather than antagonism toward, the Muslim world.

In March 2008, Spencer Ackerman outlined something similar:

Ackerman describes how Obama and his advisors support a "human dignity" agenda that would -- contra the current policy approach -- seek to "fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen."

I think "pragmatic cosmopolitanism" still works to describe all these ideas.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Hot Duck

Today, on the Duck of Minerva group IR blog, I posted "Libya: R2P or Regime Change?" R2P means responsibility to protect, a framing of the authorized intervention that is too rarely used by American media.

On Thursday, I posted "Nuclear Disarmament: Looking Back at Reykjavik." Nearly 25 years ago, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev both offered proposals to disarm offensive nuclear arsenals within 10 years. Declassified documents reveal that this aim was prevented by U.S. desire to research and potentially deploy anti-ballistic missile.



Visit this blog's homepage.

NCAA Hoops

As usual, I picked Kansas to win the NCAA tournament. The team is again a #1 seed -- and was again picked by President Obama to win the national championship. He correctly picked UNC in 2009, but had KU last year.

This is a typical 2011 bracket for me, though I picked a few extra upsets in a pool weighted towards rewarding them and made a few different tactical choices in a pool involving some local competitors.

Visit this blog's homepage.

Spring Break 2011: Hoops and Nukes

Most of my colleagues at the Duck of Minerva group IR blog are at the annual ISA convention in Montreal. Thus, I'm posting over there this week to provide fresh content. Of course, most of the readers are probably in Montreal too...

In any case, today, March 16, I posted "No Nukes: Arms Division" about the ongoing work by former Defense Secretary William Perry to achieve nuclear disarmament. Perry recently provided some scary details about a 1970s-era computer error in the Pentagon.

Tuesday, March 15, I blogged "Multiple Meltdowns?" about the ongoing crisis at the Japanese nuclear plants. I linked to some expert blogs to read and went out on a (short and sturdy) limb by predicting more political problems for the nuclear power industry.

While I'm pointing to Duck posts, I might as well link to my February 17 article on "A Truth Commission for Iraq." The piece calls for a U.S. inquiry in order to puncture the developing narrative about the success of counterinsurgency tactics (and "the surge") in Iraq.

Finally, I'll post my 2011 NCAA bracket on here tomorrow. If any old friends or colleagues want to participate in a private pool, just shoot me an email. Also, I am running the old Journolist private pool to see if Nate Silver can win for a third straight time. However, without the list, it is difficult to publicize the contest and only a portion of last year's entrants has submitted a bracket. So far, Silver is not among them.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Rumours

Saturday night, my family headed out to The Rud for dinner and to see a group of local musicians perform Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours" LP live from start-to-finish (plus a few other hits as encores). Show video here (yes, I'm in the front row for the early show).

The performers were danny flanigan, Kimmet Cantwell, Brigid Kaelin, Todd Johnson, Tim Halcomb, and Ray Rizzo. Rizzo and his beard were channeling Mick Fleetwood, Kaelin and Cantwell sang and looked a bit like Christine McVie and Stevie Nicks, bassist Halcomb played the role well of John McVie, and guitarist Johnson has an angular face and the look of eventual solo-artist Lindsey Buckingham. Old friend danny flanigan didn't really look like a member of Fleetwood Mac from the Rumours period (they had 5 members for that recording), but he could have been representing founding guitarist Peter Green -- or maybe eventual solo artist and former member Bob Welch.

The evening created a flood of old memories from the late 1970s. My long-time college roommate had the album on 8-track tape and I recall borrowing it before a big date my freshman year -- and playing it a lot.

Oh, and "Don't Stop" reminded me of the 1992 Clinton campaign. The song made me feel kind of depressed about promise lost.

In all, it was a fun evening and the music was very entertaining. Unfortunately, the Falls City Pale Ale I had during the show was not as good as other local brews.


Visit this blog's homepage.

ICC in Film

I viewed Roman Polanski's "The Ghost Writer" last weekend and thought it was a reasonably entertaining political thriller. It wasn't exactly "Chinatown," but that's a pretty high standard.

The story is pretty simple: A new ghost writer is brought on to an autobiography project for a former British Prime Minister, Adam Lang, who seems quite obviously modeled on Tony Blair. The film is based on a book by Robert Harris, who was apparently friendly with the Blair government until the Iraq war. In the story, the original ghostwriter, a long-time political confident of the PM, has died under mysterious circumstances. Some characters suspect foul play.

In the film, the Lang character is under investigation from the International Criminal Court for his alleged "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity." The charges do not stem from Iraq, but rather from the UK's cooperation with American rendition program involving terrorism suspects.

The ICC plotline is somewhat implausible given that the ICC is designed to be initially deferential to state investigations of alleged crimes. The ICC webpage:

In general, a case will be inadmissible if it has been or is being investigated or prosecuted by a State with jurisdiction.

Despite this shortcoming, it was nonetheless interesting to think about the ICC as if it was a meaningful player in these kinds of circumstances.

The film also accurately teaches viewers a simple lesson about world politics. Not all states are party to the Rome Convention and accept ICC jurisdiction, but the list of non-member states is somewhat embarrassing for the US. I couldn't find the script on-line, but this section of dialogue is pretty close to the scene from the movie:

While the Blair/Lang comparison is obvious, I could not help but think of Polanski's similar situation.

As is well-known, the infamous director pled guilty on the charge of statutory rape (the alleged victim was 13) and fled the US in 1978. Despite extradition attempts, the director continues to make movies. Indeed, he won an Oscar in 2003 for directing "The Pianist."

I won't spoil the film's ending by revealing what happens to Lang (and other characters). You might want to check it out for yourself (now on DVD and on Showtime, I think).


Visit this blog's homepage.

Outsourcing

Middlebury Political Scientist Allison Stanger was on "The Daily Show" earlier this week discussing her book about outsourcing in American foreign policy.

I just wanted to post a couple of items that suggest the issue is even bigger than she discussed on the show.

First, Stanger didn't emphasize the fact that even intelligence agencies are outsourcing their work for higher pay. Tim Shorrock in the September/October 2009 Mother Jones:

more than 70 percent of the US intelligence budget—estimated this year at more than $60 billion—is now spent on contractors. Nearly 40,000 private contractors work for intelligence agencies including the CIA and the NSA, according to Ronald Sanders, a human resources official in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; these contractors pull in salaries that average about $207,000 a year—almost double the pay of their cubicle mates employed by the government.

At the NSA, my sources estimate that at least half the jobs are contracted out. (The agency won't disclose the official breakdown.) At the National Reconnaissance Office, the top-secret agency that manages military spy satellites, a full 95 percent of personnel actually work for contractors.

Like Stanger, Shorrock wrote a book about this problem.

Second, though it is not "privatization," it is noteworthy that the US and other affluent states essentially outsource international peacekeeping to poorer countries. James Gibney, in the July/August 2009 The Atlantic:

the top 10 payers of peacekeeping dues (rich countries like the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, etc.) rely on the top 10 troop contributors (poor countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ghana, etc.) to do their dirty work...

Gibney calls it a mercenary system, which is what Stanger implies when she discusses privatization.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Not all deficit hawks are defense hawks

Many partisan deficit hawks are simply using the current political context to pursue policies that they have long supported for other reasons. Where were their deficit concerns when voting to renew the "Bush tax cuts" -- particularly since they insisted that tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were included in any final deal?

And many are happy to see Pentagon spending increase when other spending is facing significant reductions. As one Washington insider recently told The Nation, “When the Soviet Union disappeared...a lot of people on the right failed to notice.”

It may be that the circumstances are changing in Washington. The unnamed Washington insider I just quoted is Grover Norquist, a long-time conservative activist.

On November 30, a coalition of conservative groups signed a joint letter calling for defense cuts as part of any reductions in government spending (pdf here).

The Pentagon is slated to spend $6.5 trillion over the next ten years – equal to the current projected deficit spending in the same time period....True fiscal stewards cannot eschew real spending reform by protecting pet projects in the federal budget. Any such Department of Defense favoritism would signal that the new Congress is not serious about fiscal responsibility and not ready to lead.

The coalition includes a number of libertarians, including Christopher Preble and Ben Friedman of the Cato Institute.

Robert Dreyfuss in that February 14, 2011, issue of The Nation reported that a counter-coalition of conservatives who are hawkish on defense are leading the fight to preserve defense spending. The names are familiar from the Bush years: William Kristol, Thomas Donnelly, and Danielle Pletka.

Dreyfuss says that Kristol's Foreign Policy Initiative is an updated version of the Project for a New American Century. Indeed, FPI has been scolding the Obama administration for planned future defense cuts.

If the question was of less importance, I would suggest making some popcorn and watching the conservatives commit fratricide. Instead, it looks like the libertarians might need some help.

Good progressives may need to help Tom Coburn cut defense. What would such a Faustian bargain entail?

Corrections: Ben Friedman wrote to point out that he is not a libertarian even though he works at Cato. Also, I didn't mean to imply he's a signatory to the letter (he's not). Rather, Dreyfuss reported that Friedman and Preble gave a Capitol Hill forum calling for substantial defense cuts.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Breaking Bad

Since the holilday break in December, I've been watching the first three seasons of "Breaking Bad." Thanks to his naïveté, Walter White, the blue methamphetamine-producing chemistry teacher from Albuquerque played by actor Bryan Cranston, regularly runs afoul of various drug cartels -- including some from across the border.

Thanks to the show's multiple story-lines, the audience knows that White is taking even more life-threatening risks than he knows about. Moreover, his brother-in-law DEA agent also has good reason to exhibit fear.

These drug cartels will stop at nothing to have their way.

In the stack of materials I've meant to blog, I found a December 2009 Atlantic article by Philip Caputo that provides real-life background for the power of the Mexican drug cartels:

Dr. Edgardo Buscaglia, a law professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute in Mexico City and a senior legal and economic adviser to the UN and the World Bank, concluded in a recent report that 17 of Mexico’s 31 states have become virtual narco-republics, where organized crime has infiltrated government, the courts, and the police so extensively that there is almost no way they can be cleaned up. The drug gangs have acquired a “military capacity” that enables them to confront the army on an almost equal footing.

“This in itself does not prove that we are in a situation of a failed state today,” Buscaglia wrote. He seemed to be suggesting that the situation could change tomorrow—and not for the better.

While narco-republics on the southern U.S. border pose a very big problem, Caputo cites experts who believe that Mexico could become a failed state and thus pose an Af-Pak-like security problem::

In the past year, experts like General Barry McCaffrey (the drug czar in the Clinton administration) and political figures have warned that if the cartels are not contained, Mexico could become a failed state and the U.S. could find itself with an Afghanistan or a Pakistan on its southern border. Such forecasts are hyperbole, but the fact is that drug trafficking and its attendant corruption are a malignancy that has spread into Mexico’s lymph system.

** I'm only partway through season 3 -- AMC will run episodes 5 and 6 later this week, which my DVR will record -- as the network prepares to debut season 4 in July.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Small states

Journalist Kirkpatrick Sale recently made an observation that is rarely discussed in IR classes:

...there are 85 countries out of the 195 counted by the United Nations that are under 10,000 square miles—that is to say, the size of Vermont or smaller.

I double-checked this claim with the CIA World Factbook and want to note that Sale is exaggerating quite a bit.

By his reckoning, there are only 110 larger countries in the world larger than Vermont.

That claim is just wrong and it is easily disproven.

The CIA uses square kilometers, not square miles, so the first step is a conversion. Let's see -- Vermont is about 25,000 square km.

Macedonia is slightly larger than 25,000 square km and is ranked 149th among states. The 110th largest nation-state is Portugal (92,000 square km), more than three and a half times the size of Macedonia. Vermont's neighboring Maine is the U.S. state that is most similarly sized, though it is just a tiny bit smaller -- by about 400 square km.

Obviously, Portugal is a lot bigger than many smaller European nations:

Vermont is about the size of Belize, while Portugal is bigger than Austria and Jordan and just 1000 km smaller than Hungary.

Neo-Luddite Sale makes an argument he calls "the secession solution," which is a "data-based plan" to limit the size of political units.

I propose that, out of these figures and even more so out of the history of the world, results a Law of Government Size, and it goes like this: Economic and social misery increase in direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of a nation.

You can read the rest of the piece to sort through his other claims.


Visit this blog's homepage.

War frame

According to tricycle, Academy Award winning actor Jeff Bridges "helps fund the End Hunger Network of Los Angeles, dedicated to ending the hunger suffered by 16.7 million American children. On this subject, Bridges said:

“If we discovered that another country was doing this to our children, we would declare war.”

Then again, the U.S. did declare "war on poverty" nearly 50 years ago...


Visit this blog's homepage.

Crazy World

I've found more evidence supporting my paper on the legitimacy crisis affecting nuclear deterrence strategy. Journalist and MIT Political Science PhD Fred Kaplan quoted William Kaufmann, a special assistant to every Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1981. This is from Kaufmann's obituary in The Washington Post, December 17, 2008:

Reflecting on his career in 1983, Dr. Kaufmann criticized the defense policy world, likening it to a deep pit. "It was easy to get caught up in the whole nuclear business," he told Kaplan. "You could eat and breathe the stuff. . . . Then you move away from it for a while, look at it from a distance and think, 'God that's a crazy world.'"

Kaplan quoted the same words in a piece for Time on September 27, 2010.

Visit this blog's homepage.

Budget Priorities and Foreign Policy

This AP report from February 19 includes a line that adequately summarizes how the Defense Department makes out in the much-publicized new "fiscally conservative" House budget: "The Pentagon would receive a less than 2 percent increase ..."

Tough times, eh?

Foreign aid and other State Department programs, by contrast, could be in for very deep cuts. Hillary Clinton pointed out earlier this week that the House Appropriations Committee had recommended 16% spending cuts for her Department and AID. "Massive" cuts would be in line for humanitarian assistance:

She said the committee's proposed 2011 spending levels for the State Department and the US Agency for International Development will result in a 16 percent reduction from 2010 funding.

"The bill further proposes to cut our humanitarian assistance accounts by 41 percent from 2010 levels," Clinton said.

The Secretary told reporters, "The truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to America's national security." She specifically said the U.S. would have to make cuts in programs in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

About a year ago, Time reported that Defense Secretary Robert Gates was calling for a reordering of American priorities:

To his credit, Gates is mindful that the U.S.'s diplomatic assets pale in comparison to its military power. The Pentagon budget is still $660 billion, compared with State's $51 billion. To audiences, Gates often bemoans the fact that the State Department's foreign-service officers would barely crew one aircraft carrier. "We joke that Gates is the best surrogate for the State Department. He always makes the point that we are underfunded and underresourced," says a Clinton staffer.

Since the end of the cold war, Defense has constituted about half of U.S. discretionary spending.

"Security" discretionary spending is probably closer to 60% of the budget. These numbers are actually a couple of years old, but you get the idea:

These numbers explain why Andrew Bacevich and others think US foreign policy is overly militarized.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Malaria and World Politics

Over the years, I've mentioned malaria on this blog quite a number of times. It is a preventable disease, but also a human security issue (and affront to human dignity). It is responsible for killing almost 900,000 people per year -- and nearly 90% of the victims are children under age 5 (though infection rates have been "halved in nine African countries since 2000"). Scientists say that global warming contributes to the spread of the often-deadly infection.

Despite this prior coverage, I've never before noted the political history of malaria. Time had an excellent report in the June 21, 2010 issue:

The history of malaria is a long one. Originating in West Africa, it spread to half of humankind by the mid–19th century and has killed tens of millions and infected hundreds of millions more, including eight American Presidents. Malaria played a role in stopping Alexander the Great in India. It contributed to the fall of Rome, the relocation of the Vatican and the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.

In short, historically, great powers have not been immune to this disease.

Alex Perry, the author of the Time story, notes that the U.S. and other affluent countries have contributed billions to fighting malaria over the past half-decade. However, "bad government" commonly leads to failure in particular states.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Matthew Hoh in Louisville

Wednesday, Matthew Hoh was in town speaking to the Louisville Committee on Foreign Relations. A former marine, Hoh attained a measure of fame in September 2009 for becoming the first U.S. official to resign a policy position in response to America's Afghanistan policy. Hoh had been serving as the top civilian official from the State Department in Kabul Province.

LCFR events have long been "off the record," but Hoh didn't really talk about anything that hasn't been reflected in his public remarks and interviews.

Perhaps most importantly, Hoh talked about the publicly available findings of the Afghanistan Study Group, which in August 2010 produced A New Way Forward, Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan (pdf). Hoh served as the group's Director.

Prominent signatories (group members, presumably) include thinkers from across the political spectrum -- from noted peace studies scholar David Cortright, progressive economist James K. Galbraith, and historian/blogger Juan Cole to conservative journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave. A number of realist IR theorists are also on board, including Michael Desch, Bob Jervis, Bob Pape, Barry Posen, and Steve Walt.

As Hoh emphasized in Louisville, the report concludes with a 5 point plan:

1) Emphasize Power-Sharing and Political Reconciliation.
2) Scale Back and Eventually Suspend Combat Operations in the South and Reduce the U.S. Military Footprint
3) Keep the Focus on Al Qaeda and Domestic Security.
4) Promote Economic Development.
5) Engage Global and Regional Stakeholders.

Read the report to learn more about the Group's diagnosis of why America's strategy in Afghanistan is flawed -- and for more detail about these recommendations. I found the entire argument quite similar to my long-time and persistent criticism of the Iraq war. US troops make good targets and are viewed as foreign occupiers by much of the population. The insurgency gains by the US presence -- and none of the on-the-ground fighting has anything to do with the effort to prevent terrorist attacks against western targets since those are planned and executed by a loose network of individuals far from the battlegrounds.

I sat at Hoh's table at lunch and we talked briefly about his experiences in the 18 months since he resigned. My hand was still raised when the meeting adjourned, so I didn't get to ask a final question:

Just how seriously is official Washington taking the Afghan Study Group's recommendations?


Visit this blog's homepage.

Class warfare?

In the January/February Atlantic, business journalist Chrystia Freeland wrote about the rise of the global "super-elite":

Its members are hardworking, highly educated, jet-setting meritocrats who feel they are the deserving winners of a tough, worldwide economic competition—and many of them, as a result, have an ambivalent attitude toward those of us who didn’t succeed so spectacularly. Perhaps most noteworthy, they are becoming a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves.

Thanks to "free trade" and the information revolution, tremendous gains in productivity have mainly served to concentrate wealth -- reflected in skyrocketing executive pay and Wall Street bonuses, for example.

The rest of us have not done as well:

the vast majority of U.S. workers, however devoted and skilled at their jobs, have missed out on the windfalls of this winner-take-most economy—or worse, found their savings, employers, or professions ravaged by the same forces that have enriched the plutocratic elite. The result of these divergent trends is a jaw-dropping surge in U.S. income inequality. According to the economists Emmanuel Saez of Berkeley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, between 2002 and 2007, 65 percent of all income growth in the United States went to the top 1 percent of the population.

I've blogged before about income inequality in the US, and of course "two Americas" was a major theme of John Edwards in his campaigns for the presidency, but Freeland closes with a warning about open class warfare that few analysts have offered:

The real threat facing the super-elite, at home and abroad, isn’t modestly higher taxes, but rather the possibility that inchoate public rage could cohere into a more concrete populist agenda—that, for instance, middle-class Americans could conclude that the world economy isn’t working for them and decide that protectionism or truly punitive taxation is preferable to incremental measures such as the eventual repeal of the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts....The lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth. It is obvious which of these would be the better outcome for America, and the world. Let us hope the plutocrats aren’t already too isolated to recognize this.

Maybe it's time to reread Sinclair Lewis.


Visit this blog's homepage.

Hotstove 2011

As baseball season slowly approaches, I've been looking through the 2011 Bill James Handbook. Consider these oddities just from the letter G:

Rockies outfielder Carlos Gonzales (Cargo) hit 26 of his 34 homers in Coors Field.

By contrast, new Red Sox first baseman Adrian Gonzalez has been a power monster on the road for several seasons.

Cleveland infielder Mark Grudzielanek was 30 for 110 last year, but had ZERO extra base hits. That means his batting average and slugging percentage both weighed in at .273.

It seems less-and-less likely that either Alex Gordon or Zack Greinke is going to help "fix" the KC Royals franchise. Gordon's major league career has clearly stalled (despite another good season at AAA) and Greinke was traded to Milwaukee. Rany Jazayerli says the trade was OK, but I'm not going to let my imagination run away with me.

Incidentally, back in late 1994 and early 1995, I worked briefly with Rany to write Royals comments for the on-line DTs -- precursor to Baseball Prospectus.


Visit this blog's homepage.