Yankees Prop Up Nation's Economy

Undeterred by their failure to even make the playoffs in 2008 despite their league-high team payroll ($207 million) that was one-and-a-half times the combined total of that of the World Series finalists (Phillies-$95M; Rays-$43M), the New York Yankees decided that it would be best to double-down on their failed "strategy" of spending vast quantities of money to sign up the most high profile free agents. Their off-season spending spree continued today with the Yankees signing coveted free agent, Mark Texeira for the bargain-basement price of $180M over 8 years. The account of how the deal was completed contains this illuminating nugget:

Early Tuesday, after midnight New York time, Cashman received a telephone call from Boras stating that Teixeira’s preference was to play for the Yankees, the person said. While the Boston Red Sox had also pursued Teixeira, offering an eight-year deal worth about $170 million, New York is closer to the player’s family in Maryland.

Goes to show that Scott Boras (Texeira's agent) is a negotiating genius. The same dude who was responsible for the quarter-billion dollar Alex Rodriguez contract monstrosity with the Texas Rangers in 2001--a contract offer that by many accounts far exceeded the next best offer--managed to get the Swankees to pay $10M more than the next best offer after telling them that Texeira preferred to play in New York. That's some negotiating; as anyone who's dealt with a used car salesman knows...don't act too interested if you want the best deal. But, in the land of Boras, all nutty things are possible.

With this signing, the Yankees have now committed to shelling out $185M in 2009 to just 16 players on their 40-man roster; proof of their staunch belief in those timeless words:

'Tis better to have paid and lost
Than never to have paid at all.

Struggling Private Jet Manufacturers Request Bailout

In an economy largely fueled by spending, the fuss over the auto execs' recent use of corporate jets to travel to Washington seems ironic. Now comes more breathless "news" by the Associated Press that, horror of horrors, Wall Street executives are "still" flying by company-owned jets. This excellent and timely piece of journalism simultaneously points out that the use of corporate jets is a "coveted executive perk" and that the "jets serve as airborne offices, time-savers for executives for whom time is money - lots of money." The article goes on to say:

After years of railing against such costs, billionaire investor and Berkshire Hathaway Inc. CEO Warren Buffet broke down in 1989 and bought a Gulfstream IV-SP using $9.7 million in company funds. He named the aircraft "The Indefensible."

Yes, the WB-oracle himself, that champion of fiscal prudence, found it necessary to use a jet, presumably for reasons of efficiency. Now, I recognize that the use of jets is bad optics in this time of hat-in-hand-begging-for-money. Still, anyone who has traveled commercial knows how much time is wasted in waiting for planes and connections. That is a trade-off that is worth most people's time, but is probably not a prudent choice for everyone. The President, for example.

But, there you go. Here's your pyrrhic victory:

Many U.S. companies are giving up the perk. The inventory of used private jets was up 52 percent as of September, according to recent JPMorgan data on the health of the private aircraft industry.

How long do we have before private jet execs start asking for help and be harangued by the public for traveling by their own jets? This is what we get for mandating behavior instead of demanding results.

Freedom of Difference

The hullabaloo over Obama's selection of Rick Warren to lead the invocation at the Inauguration has exposed the limits to which progressives are willing to embrace "post-partisan politics." While I can understand their disdain for a man who rejects gay marriage and supported Prop 8, those who protest his selection make the critical error of perpetuating the mentality that one must only associate with those that agree on everything. For all his faults--and there are enough--Rick Warren is hardly a Pat Robertson or James Dobson, those luminaries who blamed 9/11 and Katrina on the presence of gays in this country. Moreover, Warren has consistently tried to move evangelical Christians toward social causes such as poverty-alleviation, an important service for which the nation ought to be grateful. If for nothing else, Warren ought to be embraced for his attempt to change the evangelicals' dismaying record of being one-trick ponies, for their willingness to ignore social injustice so long as "higher values" such as a public expression of faith are allowed. In this context, Obama's invitation to Warren ought to be commended because someone evangelicals admire will now publicly lead them in praying for the new president and his leadership. If you think this is a meaningless gesture, then you are no more interested in having a government for all Americans than were the cast of characters who "led" for the past eight years. Warren's presence at the Inaugural stage ought to be more disconcerting to the Christian right than for the progressive left. This is a splendid opportunity to engage the two parts of the country that do not care to acknowledge each other, let alone tolerate their differences in views. The fight over gay marriage will continue as it should in popular culture, values, and in government--including in the courts. That should not prevent collaboration in other important areas, particularly in tackling poverty. An acknowledgment of the other might be a good first step toward increasing collaboration. And, who knows, it might actually lead to greater dialogue and the chance for persuasion, as opposed to legal coercion.

Mad Guy Loses Remaining Bearings

Zimbabwe is now accusing the West of waging biological warfare against that country by deliberately introducing cholera, which has killed nearly 800 people since August. The country's information minister, Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, called it a "genocidal onslaught" and a "calculated racist attack" aimed at paving the way for an invasion. As an example of how Mugabe's craziness continues to astound even the most jaded observers, the Associated Press stoically suggests that "Experts, however, blame the epidemic on Zimbabwe's economic collapse." U.S. Ambassador James McGee warned that the country was "turning into a failed state."

Yes...Zimbabwe is "turning" into a failed state. If the deterioration continues much longer, Zimbabweans might begin to starve or die of epidemics, and crime might explode.

A Zimbabwean friend of mine once suggested that they should argue that Al-Qaeda has taken root in Zimbabwe so that the West does actually invade and put Mugabe out of his misery.