Jewish Fantasy Baseball 2012: The Promised Land, Finally?

The Sluggin' Semites are back for 2012, new, improved, more Jewish than ever!

The year 2011 was a rough one for the chosen team, my annual squad of Jewish major leaguers. While Ryan Braun won the MVP award, Ian Kinsler reached career highs in home runs and steals, and Sam Fuld entered the national consciousness with a stunning (and running) start to the season, injuries and ineffectiveness took their toll. Bear Jew Kevin Youkilis went down with back and hip injuries and a sports hernia. We lost Ike Davis to an ankle injury. Rookie Jason Kipnis blazed through 18 games, but strained his hamstring and didn't come back strong. Danny Valencia didn't produce like he did the year before. Ryan Zimmerman was out for extended periods with a torn abdominal and a strained hamstring and... well, the list goes on.

Despite all that, the 2011 Jew Crew finished in 6th place out of 12 teams, and earned a playoff berth for the first time. The team was aided by honorary Jews Derek Jeter, Mat Latos, Michael Pineda, Matt Garza and Yovanni Gallardo (I had to fill out my pitching staff somehow).

This year, I joined a CBS Fantasy Baseball league, "Omens of the Apocalypse." A solid draft landed me nearly everyone I wanted. The one player that didn't make it, however, leaves a gaping hole in my lineup I'm unsure how to fill:

C		Montero, Jesus (C) SEA	Well, Jesus was a Jew. Maybe not Jesus Montero. He keeps the seat warm for real Jew Ryan Lavarnway, Boston's rising minor leaguer.
1B		Berkman, Lance (1B,OF) STL	Not a Jew, but a longtime Homerin' Hebrews member, for his Jewish last name.
2B		Kinsler, Ian (2B) TEX	Love this nugget from Kinsler's wikipedia page: "Youkilis will always say something to me on the bases. 'Happy Passover,' he'll throw something at me."
3B		Youkilis, Kevin (3B) BOS	The clear Rebbe of this squad, Youk has been a staple since the early days of Jewish Fantasy Baseball. Can he have a comeback year?
SS		Lemmerman, Jake (SS) LAD	I wanted Derek Jeter. I missed him by 3 picks. Now I have Jake Lemmerman. Jake cuts the challah, but its doubtful he'll make the Dodgers' major league roster out of camp. He's blocked by Dee Gordon, whom I may pick up, simply to have some stats here. I never thought I'd pine for the days David Eckstein was SS-eligible.
OF		Braun, Ryan (OF) MIL	I never believed for a second that Ryan was doping. Good Jewish boys don't do that sort of stuff. His high testosterone levels were clearly due to him being a mensch.
OF		DeJesus, David (OF) CHC	See Montero, Jesus. Keeping the seat warm for outfield possibilities Ryan Kalish or Nate Schierholtz. Where's Gabe Kapler when you need him?
OF		Schafer, Jordan (OF) HOU	Is Schafer Jewish? Well, an unverified source says he is. I'll take their word until Sam Fuld regains a starting spot.
U		Zimmerman, Ryan (3B) WAS	A Jew in name only (JINO), but a longtime Jew crew member. If he stays healthy, can have a monster year.
Bench		Davis, Ike (1B) NYM	Ike, the Matzo Ball Met, is Jewish and getting better every year. Could take over the first base or utility slot of the Sluggin' Semites early on if he proves to be all the way back from injury.
Bench		Kipnis, Jason (2B) CLE	The Jewish Baseball News has disowned Kipnis, much like Tevya in Fiddler on the Roof tore his clothes when Chava married the Russian guy. But Jason's dad was Jewish, making him eligible to go on Birthright. So he's okay in my book.
Bench		Valencia, Danny (3B) MIN	Please, Minnesota. Move Danny to shortstop. I've got too many third basemen. But Danny is a Star of David on the rise.
Bench		Fuld, Sam (OF) TB	Fuld nearly returned humanity to the blissful peace of the Garden of Eden last year, before a rough second half brought everyone back to the real world. If he breaks out again, there's a spot for him in the Major League Jews lineup.

Pitchers
SP		Buchholz, Clay (SP) BOS	Not a Jew. But Buchholz sounds vaguely Jewish. Call his inclusion "Zimmermania."
SP		Scherzer, Max (SP) DET	Ditto. The strikeout JINO had looked spectacular in camp.
SP		Shields, James (SP) TB	Shields is an all-star pitcher. He's not Jewish, but he deserves a spot because of the antisemitism he's had to deal with.
SP		Strasburg, Stephen (SP) WAS	Despite the name, probably not a Jew, as this site divines. But I'm going to keep believing as long as the strikeouts keep coming.
SP		Zimmermann, Jordan (SP) WAS	The first thing that comes up when you Google, "Jordan Zimmermann" Jewish, is this blog, and I am definitely not a reliable source. May be another case of Zimmermania, but I'll allow it.
RP		Nathan, Joe (RP) TEX	The guy's name is Joe Nathan. He's got to be Jewish.According to the Oxford University Press, "[The name Nathan is] from the Biblical Hebrew personal name Natan ‘given’ (i.e. by God). As a modern surname it is most frequently Jewish. Also, I need saves.
RP		Putz, J.J. (RP) ARI	Such a putz. Arizona's closer, and necessary comic relief for the Kaddish Kids.
Bench		Wolf, Randy (SP) MIL	Wolf, a JINO, gets this spot by virtue of his guaranteed rotation spot for Milwaukee and decent strikeout rate. However, if Jason Marquis, real Jew, makes the Minnesota starting five, then I'll be forced to make a switch.

Can this team kick some "tuchis" this year and win a playoff game? Are they destined for more? We may need to juice these guys up with Jewish penicillin (and pray a Jewish shortstop drops from the sky), but I'm confident this biblical bunch can do our people proud.

Florida: A Fine Place To Get Shot And Killed

In Florida, a man shot and killed a teenager because he thought the kid looked suspicious. The boy was guilty of buying skittles and iced tea, and walking on the sidewalk in the gated community where his father lives.

The national media has picked up the story and run with it. "The guy was a racist," seems to be the prevailing opinion.

But the race of the boy (or the shooter, a hispanic man), is immaterial. The biggest issue is the law that let the shooter get away with murder.

In Florida, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone and kill them. You will not be charged with a crime. All you need to do is claim self-defense. And that's it. You're off, scot-free.

According to a state website explaining the law:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

The problem is... this is all pretty vague. "Serious bodily harm?" What is that?

The page cites an example of an altercation where Florida law wouldn't allow you to shoot someone dead:

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Now, Trayvon Martin didn't have a garden hose. He had a pack of skittles. Iced tea. The only weapon he had were his hands. The man who shot him outweighed him by several pounds and was much older.

We don't know for sure who physically attacked who first. What is clear is that George Zimmerman, the shooter, was following the boy with the intention of confronting him. If it hadn't been for Zimmerman's actions, no altercation would have taken place.

What we have then is a scenario quite different from the one imagined on Florida's government website. This is not two neighbors fighting with garden hoses. In this scenario, a man started a confrontation with a boy, and when the argument turned violent, that man whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the chest.

If this is allowed to happen, with no charges filed, no arrests made, then what precedent does it set?? If this is the way the police interpret Florida's self-defense law, then is anything preventing any of these scenarios:

1. Man decides he wants to kill somebody, anybody. Walks down the street, deliberately goads a stranger into a fight. Purposely loses the upper hand, whips out his pistol, fires. Stranger is dead.

2. Man decides he wants to kill his wife. He shoots her. Puts a kitchen knife in her hand. "It was her or me, officers," he says.

3. Man sees suspicious-looking youths loitering in front of his store. He calls them a derogatory cuss word, tells them to leave the sidewalk. The kids yell back. One youth approaches. The man whips out his pistol, shoots him, claiming he feared the boy had a gun.

In the first scenario, the guy is a deranged lunatic. But none of that matters, according to Florida's self-defense laws. There is no way to prove the man's intentions to kill. All the evidence we have is the encounter on the street. Witnesses who arrive late to the scene may never see what started to altercation. They only see a man being attacked. The killer walks.

In the second scenario, the guy is a calculated killer. But where is the evidence of his intentions? Maybe the wife confided in friends and relatives that she feared her husband. But if she didn't? All you have is a guy trying to protect himself from his knife-wielding wife. The killer walks.

In the third scenario, the guy is paranoid. He sees youths, possibly of a different race, and he assumes they're there to rob his store. He initiates the entire conflict with his paranoia and racism. But he was, after all, outnumbered, and its perfectly understandable that he thought he was going to be attacked. Does he walk?

My point is, the Florida law creates an enormous gray area, where the difference between murder and self-defense comes down to unknowable intentions and differing points-of-view. The law shouldn't be something that rests upon the nuances of a crime. It should rest on the facts. A sure sign that a law is no good is when it's seemingly applied at random.

Trayvon Martin is dead because of George Zimmerman. This is a fact. But the law that allows Zimmerman to remain free? That's based on nothing more than assumptions. What kind of legal system treats the facts of the case with contempt while giving priority to the paranoid feelings of a narcissistic neighborhood watch captain?

Well, the Florida legal system.

It's bad enough the state is known as a place where old people come to die. If shootings like this keep happening, it'll be known as a place where the young come to die as well.

UPDATE (3/20): Slate basically agrees with everything I wrote, in their article, which I read this morning. They provide a few real world examples beyond the Martin case.

UPDATE 2: The FBI and DOJ are now investigating the matter.

Apple Pays Its Shareholders, What About Its Workers?

On the same day that Apple was declared "World's Most Admired Company" by Fortune magazine, it launched its own internal investigation into the labor practices of Foxconn, the company in China responsible for assembling iPhone and iPad devices.

Currently, Apple has nearly a 100 billion--that's BILLION--dollars in its bank account. That's cold, hard cash. It's been well earned by Apple. They've given us a device that we care deeply about, can't live without. But at the same time, they earned it off the backs of the workers in the Foxcomm factory, and others like it. Workers who at the very least have been grossly underpaid, and at worst were treated like little more than slaves.

Did Apple know this? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Apple has a very easy solution to this troublesome problem.

Shareholders want Apple to issue a dividend, repay the investors for the shares they bought. UPDATE: Apple announced today that's exactly what they will do. But we all know if there's this much profit, there must be some hair in the soup. Someone's getting screwed. And in this case maybe its that assembly line worker. The point is, pay him. Pay him a decent wage. You'll still make billions. And maybe you'll change the world too. Because when those workers in China owe their jobs to an American business, the world gets that much more connected. And it becomes a little bit harder to tear us all apart.

Apple has a decision to make. Do they spend their money helping the rich get richer? Or do they use their enormous wealth to make the world a better place for everybody--beyond just giving us new devices on which to play Angry Birds?

Anatomy of a Hoax, or "How The Web Makes Journalism Lazy"

Yesterday, many news sources, beginning with the Huffington Post, reported that a banker left a 1% tip on a check at a restaurant to make some kind of point about his wealth and to insult lowly paid restaurant workers. This story raised ABSOLUTELY NO RED FLAGS among these news outlets.

Then the website Smoking Gun did incredible, undercover investigating reporting that required hours of research, tons of money and all the manpower they could muster. No, actually, all they did was CALL THE RESTAURANT. Using the information on the picture of the receipt that had been plastered all over the web. You know, like you'd expect A REPORTER TO DO.

It took all of a few minutes to discover the story was a hoax.

Sadly, this is how the media operates these days. In this fast-paced internet-driven world, a successful news story is only successful if it appears first or second. The drop off after that (in terms of the click thrus and page reads their article will get) is huge. So news organizations jump on interesting nuggets quickly, sometimes Twittering about things before they even know what's going on, just so they can claim they "scooped" the story.

This is how "new journalism" works, in 6 easy steps:

1. An interesting rumor or unverified story appears on Twitter or Reddit, lazy journalists' web sources of choice.

2. News organization writes a quick summary, links to the original post, and says something like, "this has not been verified yet, but isn't it cool? Share with your friends!"

3. News organization never attempts to verify the story, instead, spends the majority of its time pushing the story out through its various social media arms and adding the story to the evening's television news scripts.

4. Hours later, the story is debunked by a blogger, a site like Snopes or the Smoking Gun, or an enterprising three-year-old with Googling skills.

5. News organization issues an "update," while leaving the original story up because that way it still counts towards their readership metrics.

6. William Randolph Hearst chuckles, Edward R. Murrow rolls over.

The Modern Family Teen Sex Controversy

Family teen sex? That title will get me some hits from Google.

Huffington Post writer Ann Brenoff is mad at the Writer's Guild of America, ABC, and presumably the majority of teenagers in this country because last week's episode of "Modern Family" mentioned that a 17-year-old high school senior was sexually active-- AND THEY DIDN'T USE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TURN IT INTO A TV-MOVIE-OF-THE-WEEK TEACHING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF TEEN SEX!

The gist of it is, she wants "Modern Family," about life in the year 2012, to depict life in the 1950s.

By not making the loss of the teen girl's virginity (never depicted on screen, only alluded to) into THE BIGGEST DEAL IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, Ann says the writers are sending the message that "everybody is doing it." Because everybody is not, she says. She cites this data:

"30 percent -- of both male and female teens -- still haven't had intercourse by the time they turn 19."

Um. So, Ann, you're saying that 70 percent of teenagers have had sex by age 19??? ANN, WHY ARE YOU SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT EVERYBODY IS DOING IT!!!???

Somehow, in Ann's warped mind, the fact that, yeah, almost everybody is doing it, supports her argument. HOW DARE THE SHOW MENTION TEEN SEX WITHOUT GOING COMPLETELY CRAZY ABOUT IT!!!!

Perhaps Ann believes every TV show mentioning the fact that teens have sex should just copy the plot of "For Keeps?"

Great movie, by the way.

Ann actually cherry picks the 70% fact from a report that also mentions:

"On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17."

You mean... gasp... like the character on the show!?!?!

It goes on to say...

"The majority of sexually experienced teens (78% of females and 85% of males) used contraceptives the first time they had sex."

And...

"In 2006–2010, some 86% of female teens and 93% of male teens reported using contraceptives at last sex. These proportions represent a marked improvement since 1995."

And yet...

"Some 90% of publicly funded family planning clinics counseled clients younger than 18 about abstinence."

and oh...

"Only 5% of American high schools made condoms available to students."

Let's put it all together now, people:

Most American teens are having sex at age 17. Most are using condoms and birth control. The vast majority do not get pregnant and do not get STDs. The ones that do probably do because our society discourages the use of contraceptives.

Imagine if our country had a traffic safety committee getting mad about all the car crashes while at the same time yelling that there's no need to provide busy intersections with traffic light. ITS BEST TO JUST AVOID THAT INTERSECTION, KIDS!!! UNTIL YOU'RE OLDER!

Now, this "very special episode" of Modern Family doesn't mention whether the 17 year old is practicing safe sex. But the big moment in the episode is when the dad says to his daughter that he trusts her to make the right decisions. This approach-- creating a safe, non-judgmental relationship with one's teenager-- is a far better tactic than the reprimand-and-push-them-further-and-further-away-causing-them-to-star-in-the-next-season-of-Teen-Mom approach.

Perhaps if people like Ann didn't treat teen sex like an automatic disaster and blight on society, more parents would feel comfortable talking to their kids about safe sex. Maybe people would stop ignoring the power of hormones and start giving teens the tools they need to avoid tragic outcomes.

And maybe we should stop flipping out every time a TV show shows us something real, rather than insisting every plot be a morality play.

NYMag's Vulture blog might have the best take on this:

Phil is ready to have a “cool dad” moment with Haley — he looks at the camera and says everything he wants to say to us, the audience: that he realizes that sex is a natural part of life, and that he hopes that she’s being safe and that she feels free to talk to him about it. He manages to say none of this to Haley, and yet it’s enough, when she asks him whether he’d prefer a counter or a booth at the mall food court, he says, “Whatever seems right to you, I trust you.” Hug. No need for a heavy-duty Danny Tanner–style speech here, or a PSA. He’s said everything we wanted to hear to us, and he doesn’t need to say it again to Haley because she already knows. Haley, back on the couch at home, looks at the camera with a tear-stained face — not even a hint of sarcasm — and says, “I have a cool dad.” Such restraint, even more so than a grand emotional outpouring, is what makes this episode special.

Hmm. Maybe it is a "Very special episode" after all.