Expensive day at the ballpark, Part 2

A little over a month ago, I had a post about the guy who caught Barry Bond's 756th home run ball. At time the ball was estimated to be worth around $500,000. To those of us who don't really care about sports, this seems like a very large number. I mean this is probably not the last homerun that Mr. Bonds will ever hit. Why is it worth so much money? I'm sure it is probably hopeless trying to explain something like this to someone who is not interested in watching sports. Well it turns out that the estimate of the home run ball's value was less than market price.

The ball sold for $752,467.

Let us take a minute to think about how much money that is. Well maybe not how much money but, what else it could have been used for. If you go to Feedthechildren.org you can make a donation that will help feed starving children in Kenya. According to the FTC page, one can feed 10 children for $80 a month. So that means that for $8 a month or $96 a year, you can feed a child in Kenya. Assuming that the price of food is constant and that it does not cost anymore to feed a 15 year old than it does a 2 year old; it would cost $1,728 to feed a child in Kenya from birth until their 18th birthday. I know that these are some large assumptions, but just work with me for a minute. If you had $752,467 how many children could you feed from birth until their 18th birthday in Kenya? The answer is 435 children. One could feed 435 children in Kenya with that amount of money for 18 years, with the assumptions that I have made.

Now I am not saying that we should all go and give our money to the poor. I am also not saying that Marc Ecko ( the winning bidder of the ball) should have done something else with his money. I think that everyone should spend their money as they see fit. I will leave it to the altruists to say Mr. Ecko should be helping poor children in Kenya. I think that this is just a reflection on the American culture as a whole. For better or for worse; I will leave that value judgment up to you.

New Attorney General

Alberto Gonzales is finally Gonzo.

If you are a reader of Slate, then perhaps you also followed Deathwatch. This was a series of articles documenting the downfall of our former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. These articles were written by Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and Dahlia Lithwick of Slate magazine. (Click on the above image to be taken to the last installment) So with Attorney General Gonzales no longer in office, who will be his replacement?

While reading my copy of the Times this morning, I found out that a man named Michael B. Mukasey appears to be in line for the position of Attorney General. From a New York Times article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Philp Shenon:

But people in both political parties say he possesses the two qualities that Mr. Bush has been looking for in a nominee: a law-and-order sensibility that dovetails with the president’s agenda for the fight against terror

To read the rest of the article click here.
Mr. Mukasey must be quite an individual with the type of flexible moral fiber that is required to work in the Bush administration. I mean how are you suppose to have a law and order sensibility, when the President keeps pushing his nonsensical policies? President Bush's "war on terror" has nothing to do with sensibility. I think that if one has a law-and-order sensibility then you would have to be directly opposed to many of the President's idea about how to fight his imaginary war. Another article talking about Mr. Mukasey nomination can be found here.
I have concerns over anyone who President Bush is willing to appoint for AG even in his last days in office. Trust is one of those things that, once you lose you have to work very hard to regain it. Bush lost my trust a while ago and has not yet done anything to gain it back.