Laws Of Human Behavior

About four days ago, Penn Jillette was a guest on the Lawrence O'Donnell show.  After the two of them watched a video clip from Michelle Bachmann's pre-political Fundamentalist days, where she ridiculously preaches that "God wants you to be a fox" (meaning sexy, although she tried to spin it into a spiritual context), they both laughed, and Penn reacted by quoting Poe's Law.  Poe's Law (for those who don't know about it) was invented by the internet debater and blogger, Nathan Poe (no relation to Edgar Allen), and goes something like this:

"Unless it is blatantly labeled as humor, no one can create a parody of Fundamentalism without someone mistaking it for the real thing."

What a brilliant thought! It illustrates so economically how religion makes one so incredibly blind to the ridiculousness of itself.  At a stroke, it describes how wild-eyed religion is a joke that its followers don't get!

It is precisely Poe's Law which explains the success of shows like The Colbert Report.  Stephen Colbert simply acts like a Fundamentalist Conservative, and it's automatically a joke! It also explains the view that some conservatives have regarding the hyper-homophobic preacher, Fred Phelps, who is seen by them as being a "deep undercover" liberal, out to discredit the fight against homosexuality by parodying it.

This leads to my corollary of Poe's Law, which goes like this:  "Unless it is blatantly labeled the real thing, no one can display Fundamentalism without someone mistaking it for a joke."

Classic example of this: Bibleman! The battle-armor-wearing superhero, portrayed by actor Willie Ames (formerly of Eight is Enough and Charles in Charge), is so face-slappingly insulting to Christians that one can't help but wonder if it wasn't invented by a bunch of atheists who were simply trying to make fun of Evangelicals.

So here's where my pondering of Poe's Law has me at a loss: It seems that one can come to the realization that certain beliefs one was raised on are silly, but it's a difficult process. It requires effort, courage, and enough receptiveness to new ideas to be able to change. In other words, you might finally get the joke, but when you do, you won't be laughing! I, for one, broke free of Fundamentalism, even when being so firmly committed to it as to want to enter the ministry and "save the world for God." But I managed to wiggle out of it when it stopped making sense. I broke my chains.

Why do I seem to be the only one?

I suppose I could try to pat myself on the back, assert to everyone that I'm of exceptional intelligence, and take all the credit. But while it's true that I happen to be a Mensa member, and probably am a little bit above average in the I.Q. department as a result, I refuse to be so narcissistic as to pass off my own liberation as "being gifted." No, I'm not a Mensa member because I'm especially gifted. I'm a member of this elite class of smart-cookies only because I kept pounding on the door of educational establishments until they finally let me in. I never declared my education "done." (And I never will.) If intelligence were likened to speed, I'm not a hare, I'm a tortoise. But I won the race, only because I refused to give up!

But even with that firm commitment to self-improvement, I still could very easily have remained a Fundamentalist.  Suppose I'd married some nice, Christian girl, and become a father? I would have found myself in a situation where leaving the faith would have meant a messy divorce, or worse. And even if I'd done so, I would still have needed to put in extra work to pay for child support, and watch the kids on alternating weeks. It would have been so much easier for me to simply remain inside the faith, even if I felt it were stupid, just for the sake of the kids, and to avoid a bad situation.

The extra time I would have been able to devote to learning, would have been gone.

And here's where I sadly realize why I seem to be one of the lucky few to have escaped the confines of my childhood indoctrination: With no spousal ties to religion, I was free to explore, and to change my mind with few consequences. With no children, I was free to spend my free time furthering my education, both in college and in private study. I avoided the "two kids and a mortgage pitfall," and so was able to dig myself out of the hole that tradition and religious upbringing threw me down into at birth.

Okay, technically, I'm not the "only one." And there are plenty of people who, with kids and mortgage both, have freed themselves of their religious limitations to be able to think freely. To them, I'll grant the title of "gifted," for gifted they indeed are. But how insufficient their numbers are to make a difference! What a small percentage they make of the overall population! This leads me to another of my own new laws, somewhat a corollary of Poe's Law, but mutually exclusive of it.  I call it the law of general stupidity.  It goes like this:

"Humanity will always be doomed to general stupidity, because the most important years of cognitive exploration, one's 20's and 30's, are wasted on child-rearing."

By the time one has sufficient time to explore the complex issue of this world, one typically is in one's mid-40's or 50's, and by that time, the limitations of the human brain simply make it un-receptive to new ideas or radical changes in thinking.  Any cognitive talents such a person has would then be spent, not embracing new truths, but defending old falsehoods. What a sad state to be in with this modern world, so full of science, and yet so populated with people ignorant of science.  We are all trapped in a tomb of our own making, committed to populating a world already overpopulated, and consigning ourselves to ignorance as we do so.

It is a testament to the evolutionary power of the sex-drive.

To those reading this with kids and mortgage, let me not leave you depressed. My "law" is not necessarily a law at all. I strongly feel that by realizing this state more fully, we can likely circumvent it. The more we realize we are the prisoners of our own upbringing, the better prepared we are to break free.  Explore the issues freely with your children! You will set the example of free inquiry to those who need it most.  And when, in your 40's and 50's, you find yourself with free time to explore again, be willing to abandon your old ideas. Never mind about pissing off mom & dad, grandma or grandpa, your friends at work, at church, Father Mokehe, or whomever. Your mind is your own.

Commit yourself to truth, no matter what conclusions you must reach.

Eric

The Truth Behind Conservative Vs. Liberal

What is the difference between liberal and conservative? Why is it that we tend to polarize into one or the other? Why, when this dichotomy so handicaps us, do we insist on lobotomizing ourselves and our culture in this way? These fundamental questions are ones I’ve obsessed over as I’ve watched, with increasingly nauseous horror, the transformation of our media from one where both sides were at least prone to giving token attempts at balance to one in which one-sided media remains entrenched on one channel, or the other – Fox news and talk radio on the right, and MSNBC and Comedy Central on the left. (And isn’t it odd that there is no comedy channel devoted to making fun of liberalism!)

What it boils down to is two of our very dearest values clashing together, not because they are incompatible, but because they tend to diverge among different personality types, and our naturally handicapped, tribal, hunter/gatherer brain takes over from there. On the one side is Freedom, compassion, and fairness. In short, a desire for a utopian condition. On the other side is purity, loyalty and security, a recognition of a tragic condition. I think, at heart, both sides recognize that both utopian desire and tragic recognition are necessary for the best possible society, but because our differing personalities prefer one over the other, we polarize, and then fight with each other about shit which is ultimately about as important as a mosquito, and equally as annoying.

As such, we wrongly demonize our opponents: With liberals being a bunch of latte-drinking, hybrid-driving, granola-crunching bleeding-hearted, atheistic Marxists, and conservatives being a bunch of coffee-chugging, SUV-driving, Wall-Street-hogging, heartless, Bible-thumping Rockerfellers. But, of course, neither of these caricatures is even remotely accurate. We both want the best possible world. We just disagree on the finer points of how to get there.

Take religion vs. government, for example. Both sides agree that some form of reciprocity needs to be in place to prevent criminals and freeloaders from spoiling society. Historically, there have been two forms of this (and not always separate): religion, and government. Those who favor the liberal side favor freedom, and so want maximum opportunity while young in life. As such, they favor large-scale solutions which benefit them, and so favor government. Those who favor the conservative side favor security, and prefer small, community-based solutions which benefit them while elder in life. As such, they prefer religion, and would rather government stayed out of it, except in matters of keeping everyone safe. This explains so many dispositions between the two sides that it’s mind-boggling. It explains why conservatives prefer small government, but will nevertheless spend ridiculous amounts of money on police, the military, and prisons. It explains why liberals, desiring to maximize freedom for all sentient beings, will be vegetarian to protect the rights of fellow sentient mammals, while being pro-choice, since an early-term fetus is not yet sentient. It explains why conservatives oppose abortion and euthanasia, but are typically in favor of the death penalty. It explains why conservatives want lower taxes to better enjoy their golden years while liberals would rather have more taxes and programs to benefit them right away before old age sets in. It explains why liberals want a strong separation between religion and government, and why conservatives prefer or pretend that the wall of separation between church and state doesn’t exist. It explains why colleges and universities are rife with liberals – because science requires the questioning of one’s elders as a major tenet, and so freedom to explore is the order of the day for scientists, engineers, philosophers and sociologists. The language arts must, of necessity, be populated by cultural explorers and this sieves out all but the most ardent of moral relativists. (And this would be true even if universities didn’t receive loads of tax-dollars.) The one exception is the obligatory business school, where one department preaches VonMises, and loathes and despises the sea of liberal thought it finds itself floating in.

It also explains why liberals want big government and conservatives small government, UNLESS the subject of sex comes up, in which case conservatives want drastic, government-imposed restrictions, and liberals would prefer big government to stay out of it! This would seem like a hypocritical shift, until one sees the underlying cause. Freedom of business vs. freedom of gonads. Fascinating!

Telling is how these two sides tend to divide among the values shared by young and old. The young want to strike out, explore, be sexual, live life to the fullest. As such, they prefer the freedom aspect of the ideal society. The old prefer safety, sanctity, the recognition that life can be cruel if you’re not careful. As such, they prefer the security aspect of the ideal society. But as the young grow old, they grow increasingly more like their elders, preferring to nurse their arthritis quietly and live the stress-free lifestyle as their hormones go into remission. This is perhaps why the once biggest liberal juggernaut ever – the Baby Boomers – have gone from being pot-smoking, anti-war hippies at Woodstock who elected Bill Clinton, to being grey-haired, Tea-Party, anti-drug activists irrationally afraid of the same sort of black president they would have begged for in their youth. The only similarity between the two is their staunch willingness to get out and march in protest. How have the mighty fallen!

Young and old divide among their planning perspectives as well. The old prefer a long-term solution strategy, having lived a long time themselves, and knowing that they will not be around to see it through. The young, by contrast, see no point in waiting until the next generation or two (or three) before real solutions to injustices manifest, and so desire intervention right away to make justice more immediate. This explains why conservatives would rather minorities strive for wealth on their own, while liberals tend to prefer affirmative action programs minorities so that opportunity isn’t something only enjoyed by their grandchildren. In reality, long term solutions are always better than short-term ones, as long as there’s no racial favoritism involved.

It’s the ancient battle between constrained vs. unconstrained, change-embracing vs. change-averse. Desire for utopia clashes with the acceptance of tragic reality. Science fiction author, Nick Sagan (son of my hero, Carl Sagan), phrases it this way: It’s the battle between the primal forces of delicious and nutritious. Delicious wants to enjoy. Nutritious wants to survive. And fittingly, just as our modern world has glutted us with foods which are artificially sweet and savory, with added sugars and highly-salted poly-saturated fats, as well as artificially nutrient-bearing vitamin supplements, so also has our media given us excessively sweet, salty, or bitter content. Right now, it seems as if liberals are gorging themselves upon Oreo-cookie soft-serve, while conservatives are turning their urine blue choking down all their vitamin pills. What ever happened to meat and potatoes?

You see, in the battle for delicious vs. nutritious, it isn’t impossible to have both. Ice cream for dessert is a good thing, and a vitamin pill in the morning is healthy. In between, a balanced meal with the occasional salad is just fine. In like manner, a little bit of Bill O’Reilly and Rachel Maddow is fine, but let’s not go overboard! Let’s get the bulk of our data from unbiased sources, shall we? How about eating foreign food once in a while (BBC or Canadian news services)? The variety does a body good.

And this balance begins with the ability to abandon the irrational hatred of our obviously bipartisan President.

Eric

How To Change The Things That Matter

When I look at the things that matter the most to the quality of our lives, and the key issues that most directly effect whose side I prefer politically, I'm amazed that two things always repeatedly come up: economics and education. Economics comes up obviously because we all want better jobs, and want to punish those politicians who aren't doing a good enough job at helping us get them. Education comes up because everything about our society ties in to it, whether it be crime, money, stability, security... Nothing doesn't go south without good, quality education. And since education affects the economy, education is the more important of the two.

Yet what do we really know about these two key factors? If we want to change the things that matter, we must be more competent about these two things than anything else. But are we? Ask yourself: what's needed to give a child a quality education. No, I mean REALLY needed. Be specific. Phonics in grades K through 4? Algebra in grade 5 instead of 6? What is the ideal class size? 15? 20? 30? Is a central teacher-in-classroom model even effective? Or is perhaps a direct-tutoring model more efficient? Perhaps a more multi-faceted model is needed, where two or three teachers handle three levels of learning, depending upon a child's needs? Perhaps boarding schools, the one form of school which has proven effective for inner-city children, should be assigned across the board?

And how about economics? Will tax cuts for the rich really work? What kind of tax cuts? How big should a corporation get? At least some regulation is necessary - as we learned the hard way - but how far should rules of regulation go? What kinds of reforms would work? Why would they work? What measures would make it fail, and why would the failure take place?

When it comes down to it, we don't know jack. ALL of us! Even the smartest people know very little about the fundamentals of both education and economics. And yet poor quality, as well as poor quality of understanding, of both these topics is a sure-fire recipe for disaster for any civilization.

And where are the most radical changes happening right now? Yeah, you follow me. And you understand why we should be concerned. We're blind, at the helm, and have no clue where to steer clear of the rocks.

I certainly don't have all the answers. I don't know how exactly education should be reformed, nor have I yet worked all the kinks out of my synthesized economic model. But I know this much, and it's a reform that both political parties can agree to, and can be implemented right away. I hope everyone writes their legislators in support of this idea. And it is simply this:

Teach economics as a required course in high school!

Eric

Debt Ceiling Bill... Compromise?

So, it seems the dual pilots of our National Airplane, Capt. Democrat and Vice-Capt. Republican, have finally decided to put their fisticuffs in the cockpit on hold long enough to jointly pull up on the joystick before the death-spiral tailspin crashes us, and everyone's globally-networked personal incomes too. And while it's refreshing to see that partisan politics can be put aside when the need is dire, it's equally disheartening to note that it took everyone's nuts being held in a vice, plus the loss of at least one testicle per legislator, before anyone finally compromised on anything. It seems that Our Trophy President, ever the Superman strategist I kept telling you fair-weather-fans he was, has hammered out a compromise with the most uncompromising of S.O.B.'s in order to literally save the whole world's ass. That's our man!

But what did we get? While Democrats are bitching that they get nothing out of this deal, pointing out how Republicans are getting everything that they demanded, some are wondering what the "compromise" actually was. And in spite of this, some in the GOP are actually complaining that it doesn't go far enough because it doesn't include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Well, it's nice to see that there's something to piss off everyone, because that's usually the sign of a good bill. But seriously, what did Democrats get out of it at all? Taxes levied on the topmost who have most effectively taken the money supply out of circulation? No. Serious military cutbacks? Not right away. Shit, did the Dems get anything?

The answer is yes. I'll tell you what they got: They got President Obama a "Get out of jail free" card regarding our nation's economy.

You see, the two economic models at war with each other play on fundamental mechanisms of how money works. On the one hand is the idea that the money supply is kept in balance with a system of carefully levied taxes upon the uppermost, and a responsible methodology of spending upon infrastructure, medicine and education, which benefits all businesses and citizens. On the other hand is the idea that business flourishes better when it is "unfettered" (by which it is usually meant, "untaxed"), and allowed the freedom to grow. Both ideas have merit, and both are obviously incomplete - which is why a synthesis of the two is so badly needed. Unfortunately, polarized thinking has blinded many to this reality, and this debt-ceiling bill illustrates this fully.

What will likely happen as a result of this bill, I'm saddened to say, is an economic downturn - the last thing we need. Already, economists are warning of it, and the Republicans who just don't give a damn are refusing to believe it. Now, this bill has passed, and whatever happens negatively in our economy, the Republicans now have full responsibility, thanks to their sticking resolutely to their vaulted principles. Obama will no longer bear any blame, thanks to this bill - which is essentially a Republican victory. Republicans succeeded in blocking taxation upon the wealthiest in exchange for another four years of Obama. (I hope they're finally happy.)

Now, this is a test of my understanding of economics. All you who read my blog may judge my analysis with me. I've made my prediction, and put my balls out there. And while the scientist in me looks forward to the results of this real-life extro-laboratory experiment, my hypothesis can only be correct if people suffer. This is NOT the way I wish to win an argument! Such is never the preferred path to victory for people of conscience. Nevertheless, if I'm right, don't say I didn't warn you.

You know, however, this could be interesting. I've been right about a lot of things. For example, I predicted Barack Obama's victory. But I've also been wrong on this blog. In the interest of equal time: I was wrong about selling gold right away. I was wrong about Herman Cain being a serious candidate. I was also wrong about legalizing marijuana solving all our budgetary woes. (My own later analysis showed that it would make a dent, but wouldn't come close to solving everything.) So I'm certainly fallible. On the other hand, if I happen to be wrong this time, then everyone is benefiting from a healthy economy, and I'll gladly wear egg on my face for that. If so, our good economy will ensure incumbent victories, and Obama will win. If the economy goes south, Obama has a devil to blame for it in this Republican-led compromise bill. Either way, it's all Obama until 2016.

It's the oldest maxim in the world: People vote with their pocketbook. And when it feels the pinch - as I regrettably expect it will - people will simply have to put the blame at the most obvious cause. This budget fight was so big, and so well-covered by the media, that everyone, for once, knew the issues behind it. They will not forget come 2012.

Then again, experience has shown us that they just might.

Eric

Want More Jobs? Then RAISE Taxes. Really!

The more I educate myself regarding how economics works, the more I realize how the Hayek model (named after Austrian economist, Friedrich August Hayek), also known as the "Chicago school of economics," which is currently championed by disciples of Ayn Rand and most Republicans, fails in many regards. It refuses to acknowledge the obvious factor of luck, inevitably the source of nearly all the success of the wealthiest 1%. Through their lenses, an undeserved dollar simply does not exist. An unearned buck is seen as having been gotten by the sweat of their own brow rather than by the winds of fate. Any tax system which compensates for this is seen therefore not as a counterweight for fairness' sake, but as theft of what's theirs. No wonder they scream so loudly about taxation!

But in our current budget fight, one thing outweighs the national debt crisis, and that's jobs. Currently, we have competing views on how to create jobs, and there's two main schools of thought. On one side, the idea is that if the wealthy are taxed, they'll cut jobs in order to hang on to more of their money. On the other side, the idea is that more taxes will ensure more government programs which strengthen social guarantees and the building of infrastructure -- both of which help create jobs, though not right away. The fight between these two sides has gotten rather heated as of late.

I've come to realize both sides are wrong.

Here's how it really works. Suppose you're wealthy (which is a very easy thing to both wish for, and imagine). You've just been given a big tax break. What do you do with the money? According to Republicans, you'll hire more workers. But that model assumes you're content with what you have, and primarily desire to build more business. This is hopelessly naive. You could just as easily want to take that extra money and do something else with it. Like party. Or travel abroad. Or finally open that Swiss bank account you've been pondering (which sometimes costs a premium to open, especially these days). Maybe a sailboat, or a winter home? Maybe buy gold. Maybe buy a mistress. All kinds of things besides hiring another worker to do with that money, and you know as well as I do that the chances are far, far better that those other things will come first.

You see, the wealthy will hire more workers, but only when it's in their interest to do so. If it isn't, then cutting taxes on the rich is as helpful to the "trickle down" system as filling the cistern, and then failing to turn the spigot! What good is all that liquidity going to do way up there if none of it "trickles down" to here because the rich didn't turn the damned faucet on? Oh, sure, there will be a few philanthropists, but most won't be. (There are too few Herb Kohls and Chris Abeles.) So, the trick is to make sure that it's in the best interest of the wealthy to hire more workers, of course. How on earth do we do that?

Let's imagine that you're wealthy again. (Fun fantasy.) This time, let's say that you've enjoyed the benefits of a large tax break for some time. Say, since the Bush II years. But now, that cushion's about to disappear, and you'll be returned to Clinton-era tax rates. Now what? It's the opposite scenario of the above, isn't it? Obviously, you'll want to restore that extra income, if you can. But how? Do you cut your business, slash workers' salaries and fire people? Well, you can't, because in this shaky economy, you've likely already done that. Your business has been waiting for the economic recovery, but the recovery has been sputtering, and you've been reluctant to hire. Now you're income is about to take a hit. You can't pare down. What can you do?

You have only one choice: Build your business and gain greater market share. In other words, because your taxes got hiked, your best bet at restoring your lost income will be to HIRE MORE!

Holy shit! REALLY?

Really. The way to make it in the best interests of the wealthy to hire more is to restore the balance between too much, and too little taxation. We've had an imbalance of too little taxation for a long time now, and so there's been too little hiring. Raise taxes on the wealthiest just a bit more, and more hiring takes place as they struggle to continue keeping up with the Joneses the way they have been. Isn't that what we want?

The current hue and cry is that raising taxes will be bad for the economy. Indeed! Okay, it's going to make those who have it made have to make a little bit more, but so what? Aren't these the clydesdales we want to harness to pull our economy out of the dumps? Why leave them in the barn?

Make no mistake, the "raise no taxes" line in the sand is exactly the same as a "hire no workers"

line in the sand.

Atlas has shrugged long enough. It's time for him to punch back in and go to work!

Eric

Marijuana Laws.

The Huffington Post recently reported that "the federal government" (the article did not specify what office or branch) ruled that cannabis had no accepted medical purpose. This, from people who've likely never smoked it and/or experienced its nausea-reducing effects on themselves or observed it in other people. No, these bureaucrats, most of whom I'm certain have no medical or even science degrees, have taken it upon themselves to declare what should or should not be prescribed.

You know, when between 70% and 80% of every state in the union approves of medical marijuana being made legal, you'd think that there might be politicians everywhere clamoring all over themselves to be the first one to endorse legalization. Aside from Ron Paul, I don't know of any prominent Republicans who are even bothering to address the issue. For the most part, major Republican players remain firmly opposed to marijuana for medical, recreational, or spiritual use. Could there be a deeper reason?

Here's a thought: In 1972, Richard M. Nixon declared his "war on drugs." At the time, he was firmly opposed in the war on Vietnam, and one thing every unpopular president loves to do is throw up a war and drum up national crisis in order to bolster bad polling numbers. But in Nixon's case, I believe it went deeper. Many of Nixon's opponents were hippies - long-haired bead-wearing young people who were smoking cannabis on a regular basis. How to go after these pot-headed peaceniks? Why, by taking away their weed, that's how! And in 20 years' time, who knows? The lack of marijuana could spark a war-mongering right-wing revival.

What happened? 22 years later, 1994, Bill Clinton watched his Democratic majorities in both the house and Senate disappear, as Republicans took control with their "Contract with America." The Republican revival was on!

Coincidence?

We should be cautious before drawing any conclusions, here. Correlation does not imply causation. It could entirely be just happenstance. But it doesn't necessarily need to be true, does it? What needs to be true, is that certain Republican party leaders believe it. If they think that legalizing pot will cause the hippies to come back, and result in more recreational-use-inspired liberalism to boot them from office, it would explain their stubborn refusal to bow to the overwhelming majority of their constituents.

Now, obviously smoking pot doesn't make you a liberal, any more than taking oxy contin makes you a conservative. But if politicians believe that such mind-altering drugs can indeed alter the mind in just this way, it would explain a great many things, wouldn't it?

Especially not legalizing and taxing, and thus boosting the economy, and jobs, and treasury revenues, at a time when our government is so desperately in need of a balanced budget, and a thriving economy.

To help end the Great Depression, prohibition of alcohol was ended. It worked. Yes, a war helped, too, but the recovery began before the war did. So isn't it time our government woke up and legalized cannabis? Like now, when it's so bloody obviously the right thing to do?

Eric

Some Brewer Observations

A break from my usual stuff, even as the political right is trying so desperately to keep the fat cats from going on a much-needed diet while simultaneously playing chicken with the debt ceiling and the global economy which depends upon it. No, this time I'm bringing my number-crunching powers of observation to bear on our Milwaukee Brewers, and why they can't seem to win a road game against any team other than the Florida Marlins.

First, let's recognize that the problem is offense. Par-value offense or defense is 3 runs. The Brewers meet or exceed par offense in Milwaukee, but not in other cities. At home at Miller Park, our offense is unbeatable. Six of our regular starters are batting over .300 (Lucroy, Braun, Rivera, Fielder, Morgan, Weeks) while two more are batting over .290 (Betancourt and Hart). Even most of our starting pitchers are batting over .300 at home (Narveson, Greinke, Gallardo). At home, the Crew hits the damn ball.

But something happens when the team goes on the road. Apparently, aliens come down and kidnap the regular team and replace them with mannequins that resemble them somewhat. Away, only two players bat over .300 (Nyger Morgan, and, of course, Ryan Braun). Even Prince Fielder's average drops to .272 on the road (down from .326 at Miller Park). But the biggest disappointment when the team travels is Jonathan Lucroy. That man bats a whopping .364 at home, and an appalling .216 on the road! Next up on the disappointment list would have to be Yuniesky Betancourt, who bats .295 at home, and flirts with the Mendoza line at .191 when travelling. Corey Hart, who bats .293 in the home court bats a disgusting .230 when away. We might be tempted to brand Braun as the only player who can hit on the road, and even he takes a slight dip, batting .338 at home, and .306 on the road.

Jesus, that fucking sucks!

But amidst these foul-smelling numbers, one shining star does emerge. Nyger Morgan! At home, he bats a very nice .316. But when away, he does even better! A .333 average on the road!

I say, Nyger starts every road game.

What about pitching? So far as I can tell, it's worse on the road as well, but not markedly so. Each pitcher gains one ERA point when travelling. Randy Wolf has the lowest downside, with an ERA of 2.78 at home and 3.75 away. Gallardo pitches 3.47 at home, and 4.39 in alien ballparks. Narveson does 3.91 at home and 4.93 on a road trip. But Zack Greinke is the biggest disappointment, showing 4.26 at home, and 7.77 while away. Granted, that's only because of a couple of bad outings, but they were road outings.

Inexplicably, the bullpen seems affected as well. Kameron Loe, the apparent go-to guy in the eighth inning, has an ERA of 4.22 at home, and 5.19 away. John Axford has a sparkling ERA of 0.82 at home, but 5.02 on the road (Most of that thanks to the Yankees debacle.)

But again, there are some nice exceptions. Sean Marcum pitches 4.13 at Miller Park, and 2.26 everywhere else! (If only he could start every road game!) Tim Dillard pitches 7.36 at home, and 3.38 when sleeping in hotels. But the biggest difference, making me wonder why the hell he doesn't get more time on the mound, is La Troy Hawkins. At home, his ERA is a fantastic 0.75. And on the road? His ERA is 0.00!!!

Okay, La Troy Hawkins is definitely our set up man on the road!

So what's going on here? Could it be that when these guys are away from their wives and kids and not getting laid that they do worse? It's certainly possible, and if so, plane tickets for player's families might be a relatively cheap investment in road wins, especially down the stretch. The other thing (and I don't have solid numbers to back me up on this, but it seems true) is that hitters seem to swing outside the strike zone on the road. The number of walks the team gets isn't significantly higher at home than on the road, but there are sure a lot more strikeouts when the Crew takes a road trip! Almost double, in fact! How to correct this? Well, chiding from coaches has never worked. In 30 years of watching baseball, I've learned you can never coach a player into being more disciplined at the plate if that S.O.B. is determined to swing at shitty pitches. But what a coach CAN do (which is entirely within Brewer tradition) is put a game within a game. On the road, any player who strikes out by swinging at a pitch outside the strike zone scores a "shitlist point." The three players with the most shitlist points after a road trip have to pay for the next team party.

The Brewers win when they play with good ol' fashioned Milwaukee gemutlichkeit. Let's add some of that to the game by making a game out of doing the right thing at the plate, and winning on the road, especially for the hitters.

Eric