I don't get that sense any more.

Second, insofar as the theme of the Dems' midterm (And 2012) campaigns is "choose us, we're the lesser of two evils", one is compelled to wonder what will happen when the Dems' working the insecurities of their base - i.e., fear of Wingnuts - stops working.  What new gambit will Obama come up with to try to motivate the Real Democrats he's spent the last near-2 years b*tchslapping?  Because, like a sports manager, working the insecurities of their base is what both parties have been doing, rather than positively building policy and the results that flow from policy (whatever that policy might be).

The core problem - as we've seen from the results - with the whole sports-derived "work the insecurities of your base" model of political (and economic/business) governance - is that neither government nor economies nor business are the dualistic universes set off to the side from the rest of the world, where the only thing which matters in the final result is that which happens between the lines.  Our sports games are descriptive of aspects of life, but ultimately their derivative, reductionist nature (which converts everything into overly simplistic, dualistic win-lose, score/be scored-upon, good-evil metrics) leads to leadership and managership which falls short.  Imagine, by comparison, a football team trying to make its way to score on a field where there's more than one other team (who don't necessarily play by the same, or any, rules), the lines on the field going every which way, and the goal line is somewhere over there.  Working the insecurities of your team members would not, in that context, be the most effective motivating strategy since walking off the field (or joining the other team, among other things) would be a rational response to that sort of leadership.  Operating from core principles toward objectives both of which benefit, not punish, the members of your team and make for making your team the largest, strongest possible is the way to go in that non-linear, non-dualistic world we are in.

Second, insofar as the theme of the Dems' midterm (And 2012) campaigns is "choose us, we're the lesser of two evils", one is compelled to wonder what will happen when the Dems' working the insecurities of their base - i.e., fear of Wingnuts - stops working.  What new gambit will Obama come up with to try to motivate the Real Democrats he's spent the last near-2 years b*tchslapping?  Because, like a sports manager, working the insecurities of their base is what both parties have been doing, rather than positively building policy and the results that flow from policy (whatever that policy might be).

The core problem - as we've seen from the results - with the whole sports-derived "work the insecurities of your base" model of political (and economic/business) governance - is that neither government nor economies nor business are the dualistic universes set off to the side from the rest of the world, where the only thing which matters in the final result is that which happens between the lines.  Our sports games are descriptive of aspects of life, but ultimately their derivative, reductionist nature (which converts everything into overly simplistic, dualistic win-lose, score/be scored-upon, good-evil metrics) leads to leadership and managership which falls short.  Imagine, by comparison, a football team trying to make its way to score on a field where there's more than one other team (who don't necessarily play by the same, or any, rules), the lines on the field going every which way, and the goal line is somewhere over there.  Working the insecurities of your team members would not, in that context, be the most effective motivating strategy since walking off the field (or joining the other team, among other things) would be a rational response to that sort of leadership.  Operating from core principles toward objectives both of which benefit, not punish, the members of your team and make for making your team the largest, strongest possible is the way to go in that non-linear, non-dualistic world we are in.

The article is quite interesting as it looks at the steroid abuse issue and points to the use of "greenies" aka amphetamines which apparently EVERYONE used.  Willie Mays, Hank Aaron tried them.  It was part of the culture.  

The point being about culture...trying to rise above the dirt does not always pay off.  And sometimes you don't even recognize dirt as dirt because functionally, it's not.  And yeah you can try to reform it but again, baseball, tell me why baseball players have twice the rate of adult ADHD as everyone else?

James Bond is just as ruthless as Blofeld, but he always wins.

So ruthlessness can be a positive quality when used for the sake of good, no?

But then again, maybe that is just in the movies...

Cheney bullied his way to the top, fixed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, and possibly was party to crimes against humanity that are not even considered because they are so horrid. Were his actions based on craven lust for power, or were they based on positive ideals?

I think he did it all because he thought it was good for America. Taking over an oil rich country by force because it is in America's strategic interest to do so is a bad thing?

Well he failed.. so it is a bad thing.

Bolton, Wolfowitz, Perle etc wanted to just nuke the place... that may have worked.... lol  

Anyway it looks like we are in for another round of the ruthless ones.  Obama is clearly not so good at gaming the system... nor is any Democrat these days.