My piece on autism, vaccines and John McCain is up at Pajamas Media.

A soon-to-be-cousin-in-law asks me what I think of the recent brawls between the Rays and the Yankees.

Here's what I think about it:

-zsdjghsg-

Sorry, I fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard.

More seriously, Peter Abraham says it all, far better than I could:

The idea that this somehow represents the "new" Yankees under Joe Girardi is laughable. Let's review for a second:

A Class A catcher with a .261 career batting average and six home runs in 247 games got run over and broke his wrist. Most of the regular players were home when this happened. I would venture that most of them couldn't pick Francisco Cervelli out of a lineup.

A non-roster left-hander who practically none of the regular players have ever spoken to grazed one of Tampa Bay's players with a pitch.

Then Shelley Duncan, who has played in 34 big league games, decided to go all Rambo with his slide into second base.

...The Yankees are a class team with class guys like Jeter, Pettitte, Posada and Rivera leading the way. Girardi was part of that group as a player and will be that way as a manager. You don't motivate a $205 million roster by vowing revenge on the Tampa Bay Rays. This is baseball, not minor-league hockey. You think Girardi wants to sit in the dugout and make up silly excuses for what Shelley Duncan did? That's not why he wanted the Yankees job.

The Yankees don't care if people pose for home runs or nonsense like that. They care about beating you to death with their relentless lineup then watching you flail weakly at Mo's cutter in the ninth inning. They worry about winning, not sideshows.

The idea that they "sent a message to all of baseball" is ridiculous. Having All-Star caliber players at nearly every position and the best young pitching in the game is sending a message. Shelley Duncan sliding spikes high into second base is not what the Yankees are about.

That sums it up.

As far as whether this pugnacity augurs well for Tampa this year, I will try to elaborate on this in my baseball previews (which I hope to start posting in the next week or two), but I am indeed terrified of the Rays. But fights between them and the Yankees in spring training have nothing to do with it - rather, what worries me is the number of burgeoning stars they have all over the place, and the possibility that the pieces will fit together in very short order.

Red Sox fans likely remember some crazy brawls over the years between the Sox and the Rays (this game being the most famous example). You might have noticed that they didn't lead to much success on Tampa's part. Combativeness isn't new in Tampa - good players are.

(With the trade of Elijah Dukes over the winter, the Rays have even lost the excuse of having one of the very few players who could legitimately cause everyone else in the ballpark to fear for their safety, especially after the game. One more strike against this theory.)

Here's Jim Cramer on his friend Eliot Spitzer:

Very touching and sad.

(Via Felix Salmon.)

Laura wonders how Silda Wall Spitzer can attend press conferences with her hopefully-soon-to-be-ex-husband:

Why do political wives stand by their man? Why do they stoically stand next to their husbands at the podium as the dirtbags admit to sleeping with prostitutes and young men? Most women I know would morph into Loretta Bobbitt in a similar situation rather than Silda Spitzer.

Silda is urging Eliot to stay in office. At this point, I would be throwing his clothes out of the window of their 5th Avenue apartment and letting them rain down on the reporters below.

I can think of many reasons why Mrs. Spitzer would at least try to put up a brave front in public.

The first problem is, Laura is approaching this like a normal person. There is nothing normal about a political family. I just blogged about this. Let's quote Andrew Ferguson:

But does "super type-A personality" really describe the kind of person who runs for president nowadays? It's not pleasant to think of the life they lead, these Americans who would be president, from the first hints of dawn to well past midnight, this life of endless demands, this succession of superficial sociability, in which you smile and smile and pop your eyes wide open in delighted wonder at the ever-shifting kaleidoscope of faces and places that circles before you, and you haven't the time or leisure to settle on a single one. Charming countryside, pretty little towns, sprawling centers of commerce and industry fly by and you haven't a moment to enjoy them or learn their tales. You rush to meet hundreds of people a day and never have a meaningful exchange of words with any of them.

From the backseats of freezing cars and vans you're hustled into overheated coffee shops and those packed school gymnasiums with the stink rising to the rafters and then the oppressive hush of corporate meeting rooms, where your nose starts to run and a film of sweat forms under your wool pullover, and you press the outstretched hands that carry every bacterial pathogen known to epidemiology. You open your mouth and you release the same cloud of words you recited yesterday and the day before. And in the Q&A, when you stop to listen, you hear the same questions and complaints from yesterday, the same mewling and blame-shifting, all imploring you to do the impossible and through some undefined action make the lives of these unhappy citizens somehow edifying, uplifting, and worth living. And you always promise you will do that; you have no choice but to tell this kind of lie.

There's no rest, because there's not a moment to waste: The handful of minutes away from the kaleidoscope are spent chatting with the scorpions of the press, the ill-dressed, ill-mannered reporters from the prints and the pretty, preening peacocks of TV, each of them either a know-it-all or a cynic or a dope, take your pick, and each of whom, for professional and other reasons, will deploy all his energies and cleverness to the task of trapping you into a misstatement or ungenerous remark or expression of irritation so he can convey to his editors and the world that--at last!--you've made a gaffe; and if you won't make a gaffe then he will convey to his editors and the world how "scripted" and "over rehearsed" you sound; kind of slick, almost robotic, inauthentic.

When the scorps are dismissed, in the seconds before you pass from the freezing van to the overheated gym or boardroom, a sycophant whose name you can't remember hands you a cell phone that connects you to a rich man whose face you dimly recall from another boardroom last summer and you beg him to give you money, or more often--considering the grinding pressure you feel for cash, always for cash--you beg him to assemble a circle of other rich men that he can beg on your behalf, and when you sign off you don't have time to be grateful. There will be more calls before dinner and after dinner, and dinner is a cold thigh of chicken in a sump of clotted gravy served from a steam table in a freezing cinderblock banquet room at the Lions Club, and a hundred pairs of eyes fix themselves on you--a celebrity, someone they've seen on TV--as you dribble the gravy on your shirtfront. And after you release the same words and hear the same complaints you go to bed in a Hampton Suites for five hours of sleep on starchy sheets with dimly visible stains whose origins are impossible to discern, and from the corner the digital display on the microwave flashes 12:00 12:00 12:00 . . .

And you do all this so you can wake up the next morning and do it again. Because you like it.

The man or woman who seeks out such a life and enjoys its discomforts is not normal. Not crazy necessarily, but not normal, and probably, when the chips are down, not to be trusted, especially when the purpose of it all is to acquire power over other people (also called, in the delicate language of contemporary politics, "public service" or "getting things done on behalf of the American people").

This. Is. Not. Normal. And no candidate can long undertake this kind of effort with an unsupportive family - either the candidacy goes or the family does. A spouse that supports this kind of effort is buying into a pressurized lifestyle that outsiders can barely understand, much less relate to. (Michelle Cottle's profile of Michelle Obama in this week's TNR is also worth reading along these lines.) Remember Elizabeth Edwards' insistence that her husband redouble his campaign efforts in light of her cancer's recurrence? That type of commitment to the husband's political career is closely related to what drives a political wife to attend a press conference regarding that which any other couple would try with all their might to keep private. Dean Barnett, no friend to Democrats, understood this:

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW BAD I FEEL FOR ELIZABETH AND JOHN EDWARDS. I'm familiar with the body-blow of a sudden diagnosis that turns your world upside down. It's incredible - you walk into a doctor's office and within a span of minutes you find out your life will never be the same. In the back of your mind you nourish the hopes of miracle cures or that you might be like that guy in Dubuque who got the same diagnosis but oddly enough lived forever, but the reality of the situation sits there in your mind. You can't shake it - it just won't leave.

But you try to carry on. I think I may know some of what the Edwards are feeling. They've been running for the White House for seven years now. And make no mistake - as Hugh points out in his book, running for president is a family affair. It's more than a dream and an ambition for them. It's a big part of what defines their lives.

So they walked out of that doctor's office refusing to let her disease take their lives away. Some people are calling their decision courageous; others find it puzzling. Having been in a situation analogous to theirs, I think I have some understanding and I know I have some sympathy. They're working through all of this. Their first instinct is not to surrender. That's good, and it's what you would have expected. People who seek the presidency aren't the types who give up or even compromise easily.

Whether high-level politics selects for people capable of this level of commitment or causes it - likely both - the end result is that families committed to politics at this level simply cannot, and do not, react in ways that would seem "normal" to outsiders. The pressure (which after a certain amount of habituation, becomes more internal than external) to keep up the public facade is overwhelming in a way that outsiders can barely imagine.

I still think this is one of the underrated reasons for the recent increase in political dynasties: they're the only ones who think of the lifestyle as normal, which confers a major competitive advantage in and of itself.

I don't really know any politicians, but some of my best friends are rabbis or rabbis' wives. For pulpit rabbis (and I am sure the same is true for other religions' clergy families), the pressure to be "on" and present the appropriate public face 24/7 to the community also can be pretty overwhelming, and the entire family is enlisted into this project by necessity. It is part of what you sign up for, if you're the wife - and the kids learn quickly that they have no choice (yes, many wonderful rebellions are inspired by this realization). If you think that political wives can be resentful (as shown by certain lines attributed to Mmes. Spitzer and Obama over the years), trust me on this one: you have NEVER had a candid conversation with a pulpit rabbi's wife.

Finally, there is one point that isn't restricted to political or rabbinic families. When everything is falling apart around you, it is natural to seize at any part of the situation that you can control. It wouldn't surprise me if women in Mrs. Spitzer's situation try to keep up an "appropriate" public facade purely as an attempt to control what they can, to hold the husband-induced chaos at bay in at least one way. I don't think anyone can criticize a woman for this reaction.

Some time ago, Matt Yglesias drew up a list of substantive items that weren't getting enough attention in the Democratic primary. Two of his items caught my eye. First,

Federal Reserve: Are Clinton or Obama happy with the past 25 or so years of conservative Republican leadership at the Fed or would they like to take things in a new direction?

I had a couple of thoughts on this item:

1) I wonder - does Paul Volcker count as part of the "past 25 years or so of conservative Republican leadership?" Most Fed-watchers would draw a bright line between pre-and-post Volcker eras, and see primarily continuity between his reign and that of undisputed conservative Alan Greenspan. The wrinkle is that Volcker is a lifelong Democrat who recently endorsed Barack Obama.

2) More importantly, the one thing that has been made clear through the current economic turmoil and the Fed's current tough spot is that while there are debates about the role of the Fed at a given time, they don't usually break down easily along partisan lines. For example, if Paul Krugman (a born blogger whose day job is something to which he is far less suited) has disagreed with anything Ben Bernanke has done in the current crisis, I've missed it. A number of Republican economists, by contrast, have accused Bernanke of loosening credit too much too fast. And even Greenspan was far less dogmatic in his actions as Fed chairman than one would assume from his biography or reading his memoir. So it's far from evident that (a) the phrase "conservative Republican leadership at the Fed" is a meaningful description of what has happened at the Fed over the last 25 years, or (b) that a Democratic President who wanted to take things in a new direction at the Fed would succeed in doing so (unless he or she appoints some pure hack).

Second from Matt's list:

Judiciary: Assuming a Democratic Senate allows for relatively easy confirmations, do Clinton or Obama intend to continue appointing 1990s-style moderates, or would we see a return to the liberal jurisprudence of a Thurgood Marshall?

I also have two thoughts about this one:

1) When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court, Bill Clinton called her the "Thurgood Marshall of gender equity law." Yet on the Court, she has been generally considered fairly moderate. So you never know, even if a judicial candidate is the closest thing to Marshall.

2) This deserves a post unto itself...but let's just come out and say it. When Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Court to fill Marshall's seat, most people scorned his chances of ever matching the record of Marshall. Well, Thomas has been a far, far superior Justice to Marshall, using any possible criterion (such as influence on the Court and the development of the law generally, skill of opinions, etc.) other than the crudest form of results-oriented judging I am quite confident (as confident as I can be without actually going to the trouble of asking anyone)that many, many respectably liberal legal academics would agree with that assessment (especially if they could do so off the record).

To clarify: this only refers to the two men's records as Justices of the Supreme Court and not their legal accomplishments as a whole; Marshall is surely a more important figure based on his civil rights record. But I view Marshall as a legal parallel to James Madison - a man of monumental impact whose least important role was his service as President.

May be updated as things develop....

1) Fred Siegel has some very complimentary things to say about our soon-to-be-incoming governor, David Paterson:

Paterson, an avowed liberal, is an engaging man, willing to listen to people he disagrees with. I had dinner with him several times at B. Smith - and despite our policy differences, I found him easy to discuss matters with and willing to debate the issues.

A longtime minority member of the state Senate before becoming lieutenant governor, he'd bring to the governor's office the legislative perspective and understanding of how the capital works that Gov. Steamroller has so notably lacked.

He even gets along well with Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno; he just might be able to bring a welcome spirit of openness to Albany.

Not incidentally, he is the son of Basil Paterson - one of Harlem's famed Gang of Five, along with Rep. Charles Rangel, former Mayor David Dinkins, Assembly Ways & Means Chairman Denny Farrell and Harlem clubhouse boss Percy Sutton. The group has long run Harlem's political scene.

Basil was New York City's first black deputy mayor - as well as the first black candidate for statewide elected office (lieutenant governor) in New York, and under Gov. Hugh Carey the first black secretary of state. He once held the same state Senate seat his son would later in effect be given by the Harlem leadership after its then-occupant died in office.

But, while his father may have effectively anointed him a state senator, David has kept an arms-length over the years from the Gang of Five - repeatedly running for office even as his father endorsed opposing candidates, and taking some taboo positions, including prominent support for vouchers and school choice.

Mickey Kaus, control yourself!

2) Laura wants to know more about the Emperor's Club. Slate complies.

3) Daniel Drezner recently postulated the existence of a "Noam Scheiber effect," based on his history of carefully reporting the dynamics of the Dean and Obama presidential campaigns immediately before said campaigns imploded encountered temporary difficulties.

Well, in 2005, Scheiber wrote a lengthy and positive profile of Elliot Spitzer for the NYT Magazine, speculating that his record as NY Attorney General prefigured a template that Democrats could use for recapturing national power. I think we can now chalk up another data point for the Scheiber effect.

Memo to Franklin Foer: Wouldn't Scheiber be the ideal candidate to write an in-depth profile of the Boston Red Sox in connection with the upcoming season?

4) HA! (Via Andrew Sullivan.)

5) This is funnier.

6) And this line is funniest.

Like Tyler Kepner, I would never have expected Mariano Rivera to name this guy as a mentor:

...I asked him if anyone had helped him out when he was a young Yankee. Rivera surprised me with the first name he mentioned: Steve Howe.

I always thought it was amazing how well Howe pitched when he initially joined the Yankees after being out of the game for so long. One trivia note: the GM who released Howe for the final time in 1996 was Bob Watson, who Howe induced to fly out for the final out of the 1981 World Series.

Via Greg Mankiw, here's a useful interactive guide to the subprime mortgage mess.

And in honor of Paul Krugman's horrifying-yet-too-convincing column (in which he reminds us all that it is easier to make a tightly constructed argument for doom if you don't spend all your time ranting about the evils of GWB or Barack Obama), here's an excerpt from my favorite personal-finance book, Andrew Tobias' The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need. Tobias has a chapter about miscellaneous investment topics, and here (quote may be slightly off) is his definition of a margin call:

A margin call is what alerts you to the fact that your life is going to hell and that you never should have gotten into the market when you did, let alone on margin.

It looks like we can talk about Elliot Spitzer's political career in the past tense, as he has been linked to a prostitution ring.

It's too bad his political fall wasn't linked to his performance as governor, not to mention his perfection of the shakedown artist act while he served as NY State's attorney general. But we'll take what we can get.

UPDATE: Speculation is that Spitzer will resign. Perhaps he can start a consulting firm with Jim McGreevey. Maybe Rudy will join as well.

FURTHER UPDATE: Assuming Spitzer resigns, this would make quite the trifecta for the tristate area, between him, McGreevey and Connecticut's John Rowland (albeit the latter went to jail for old-fashioned corruption rather than anything spicier). Is it something in the local water?

ONE MORE UPDATE: Slate's XX Factor blog is all over this one - just keep scrolling; too many good posts to link.

LAST UPDATE: This is the best headline of the whole story; almost believable. The pretend story is pretty good too:

Discovering that the exclusive international ring of prostitutes known as the "Emperor's Club" charged up to $5,500 an hour for their services, New York governor Eliot Spitzer vowed to put an end to this price gouging practice.

Four people alleged to have run the "Emperor's Club" were charged with conspiracy to violate federal prostitution statutes, while two of them were also charged with laundering more than $1 million in illegal proceeds.

"That kind of excessive compensation is simply outrageous. Prostitution is allegedly a victimless crime,” Spitzer said in a press conference that took place only in our imaginations. “But now we see that its customers can become its victims.”

Spitzer added it was especially shameful that one of the most trusted names in prostitution had engaged in this shocking betrayal and rank greed.

I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME: This ABC News story (via TPM) has more details on what Spitzer could be charged with. I hadn't thought that merely being a "client" would get Spitzer indicted, and that is in fact not the case: he may be charged with "structuring" transactions so s to avoid mandatory bank reporting laws.

According to a friend who knows more about this area than I do, if Spitzer gets charged under the money laundering statutes, the end of his political career will be the least of his problems:

The Sentencing Guidelines on money laundering were unbelievably draconian last I checked, and that was before the Patriot Act. Like, 20 year sentence bad.

The most important takeaway from the ABC News story is that this isn't merely a bad break for Spitzer: he wasn't merely a name in an escort service's "black book" that leaked after the service got busted, as often happens in Hollywood. Apparently, his suspicious money transfers were what instigated the entire investigation:

The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.

It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn't hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club.

..."We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it," said one Justice Department official.

Spitzer, who made his name by bringing high-profile cases against many of New York's financial giants, is likely to be prosecuted under a relatively obscure statute called "structuring," according to a Justice Department official.

It doesn't appear that this will end with Spitzer's resignation and disgrace. If this ever went to trial...the NY tabloids will have a field day.

Since when has George McGovern taken up a fellowship at the Cato Institute? I'm not sure there is a better explanation for this op-ed.

...Reihan Salam is breaking new ground in dramatizing roles based on real-life famous figures. His interpretation of Hillary Clinton is more subtle, evocative and true to life than any of the above actors' recent Oscar-winning performances:

I have been working on a much longer piece dealing with the whole autism/thimerosal/John McCain affair for another (paying) site. It will hopefully be published soon, and I will link to it when it is.