Fri AM

How cool that Miguel Cabrera won the MVP.  He deserved it.  I'm not running down that Trout guy, whatever his first name is.  Trout had a terrific season and, in most years, would have won the MVP. But Cabrera had a Triple Crown season, the first in 45 years.  I know there were a lot a folks who are hung up on the sabermetrics stuff and that's fine--for them.  But Cabrera's season was about more than leading the league in average, HRs, and RBIs.  Listen to other teams' managers comments throughout the season and how their game plans were altered because they were playing against Cabrera.  I have no doubts Trout affected the game while it was being played, but Cabrera had managers planning days in advance.  And when did Cabrera's hits come?  You guessed it--at the ends of games!  I think he hit quite a bit higher in the last few innings than he did earlier in the games.  Again this is not to denigrate Trout; he just had bad timing.

And, to ensure this wasn't a hometown vote for Cabrera, the guy who won the Cy Young Award deserved it.  Verlander, as close as it was, would have been deserving, too, but the right guy won it.  But there are lots of things to consider in the CY as in the MVP.  Verlander is widely recognized as the best pitcher in the game.  But the CY winner had a slightly better season and deserved the award.

Obama has challenged the two US Senators who have been critical of the UN Ambassador.  He intimated they were bullies and told them to "come after me."  They should.  First, I will not even pursue "The Buck Stops Here," because with Obama, it doesn't.  He is blameless.  Remember, "It's Bush's fault."  Second, I guess my question is this:  Why, if she can't be scrutinized, did Obama send her out there to do his work?  Third, why did she continue the charade, two weeks later, of the phony anti-Muhammad movie trailer on You Tube?  From even the CIA's own timeline, it was well-known the trailer had little to do with the Benghazi attack--and, no, it wasn't a spontaneous riot!  That is, did Obama and the State Dept. feed her lies without telling her they were lies?  Was she used as a dupe?  (I'd certainly resign in that instance, but as I've noted here in the past the concept of shame has long been outmoded.)  Of course, Obama and the State Dept. could have told her these were lies, but to repeat them anyway.  That's a whole different story and it's a legitimate question to ask her if she knew they were lies, why she perpetuated them.  But this is all pointless if Obama is regarded as the Messiah.

I listened to some nationally known TV analyst the other day on the radio.  I can't stand it when the locals just fawn over these guys.  And here's one reason why.  The guy, in about five minutes, made two egregious errors, inexplicable for one considered so knowledgeable.  (As senile as I'm getting) I have forgotten the one (it was three days ago, after all!), but the other was a complete error.  He said, "If President Clinton had been impeached...."  He was impeached!!!!!!  I know, I know....  But I expect my "experts" to at least know what they are talking about, even though I may or may not agree with their views.  Boy, I wish I could remember the second mistake, but I can't right now....

I don't know much about the particulars in this General Petraeus affair (no pun intended).  But I wonder why his boss, the commander-in-chief, wasn't held to the same standards that military personnel are held.  Namely, I'm talking about Bill Clinton.

Speaking of Clinton, what does it say about us, or at least a majority of us, that the Democrats can pull out this scumbag for endorsements of candidates and propositions?  And we, apparently, buy into it?

I wonder why there hasn't been a reality show titled "Hypocrites."  The material for such a show is endless....