It was getting dark. I spent most of the run hoping incoming cars can see me. When I got to the balloting area, I couldn’t read the district map because I had no glasses. I looked like I was gonna collapse. Could barely give my signature through my gloves. Didn’t really know who I voted for. On my way back, it was pitch black. Cars were swerving out at the last moment. Now I know how it feels to be a deer.

Lesson: don’t run in the dark. But it was worth it.

So does that mean faster service? Nope, just a means to close a $300 million hole.

NJTransit is not a passenger rail company. It’s a state jobs program for train hobbyists.

Commuting by car to the city is not an option for me. Fortunately, my town has a Transbridge Bus Station.

Thanks to the rate hike, now it’s cheaper than the train.

Until NJTransit become a real passenger rail service, I will not be taking it anymore. Neither should you.

For some people, the ruling in Citizen United vs. FEC means the beginning of corporate domination of politics. The beginning? Was corporate money in politics not an issue at one point?

One of the biggest mistake many people and our elected legislators make is believe that their intentions matter. Like the current heathcare reform, the intention is to cover every American’s health insurance, even though it won’t and it explicitly bars illegal immigrants access. It’s the thought that counts.

Same deal with Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The intent is to cap the amount an individual or corporation can contribute to a political candidate and party organizations and prevent corporations and other organizations from “electioneering”. Awesome. That’s exactly what will happen because I believe.

Thanks to BCRA, the money spent on presidential campaigns went from in 2000 $343 million to in 2008… $1.32… billion. Pat yourself on the back McCain & Feingold.

Waste of money in my opinion, as each additional vote became exponentially more expensive as a result. Still, as a libertarian, even intentions contrasting outcome does not bother me. For me, process matters.

What process deems a corporation like ExxonMobil to have less right to free than a corporation like the New York Times? But NYTimes is the press and they have freedom of the press. Clever, so what process determines that NYTimes is the press and ExxonMobil not the press? Whereas the NYTimes editorial board condemned the ruling on Citizens United, shouldn’t ExxonMobil have the right broadcast how they feel about Citizens United? What if they published a book on their position, is that a punishable offense? Rights matter, and they apply to all persons in America, including AIG executives and Pharmaceutical Reps, Teachers Union members, Non-profit founders… etc.

No, corporations are not persons despite legal president to the contrary, but its owners and operators are. So do New York Times journalists have the right to speech while ExxonMobile executives do not?

I believe there is none, which is why the Supreme Court ruled Citizens United accordingly.

As for the outcome of this ruling? If the passage of BCRA was any indication, nothing that would change anything. I hope, rather than spend large amounts of money secretly, this would allow more transparency in the process. And I doubt corporations can convince Americans to vote for a certain Senator as well as getting your fat ass to McDonalds. Others see corporate takeover of democracy, I see a massive waste of money that will make corporations look like Martha Coakley in Yankees garb.

In short, a victory for free speech,

If you really wanted to stick it to the credit card companies, you could have sided with people with good credit who accrue reward points and frequent flyer miles while the companies only get by with merchant fees instead of interest payments.

Then again, our lobbyists don’t pay as much as debtor’s lobbyists, so I can see how you’ve come to this decision.

Thanks, federal government.

Albert Pujols. He scored 100 pts more than the 2nd placed fantasy player. Enough said.

Building a strong starting five and sticking to it. In the new format that reduces the value of two-start pitchers significantly, having strong and durable starters is a must. Whereas the rest of the league struggled with figuring out their rotation, I stuck with Halladay, Verlander, Sabathia, Ubaldo Jimenez, and Wandy Rodriguez in the last couple of weeks. In two instances I lost because I decided to start a marginal two-start pitcher which ended up blowing up in my face. With these five I can trust even if they pitch poorly they will not wreck my score.

Rearrange offense constantly. I believe fantasy baseball is won in pitching, but offense is also important. I constantly changed my offensive line-up, scooping up productive players and benching or dropping struggling ones. I only regret dropping Tulowitski, but key pickups such as Zobrist, Sandoval, Posada, Nelson Cruz, and Johnny Damon made sure my offense kept up with the rest of the league. In a ten team format, the differences between team offenses were nothing compared to pitching differences. So do not hesitate to mix things up on the offense.

Innings, Strikeouts, WHIP Those are my three criteria for selecting pitchers. They have to be able to last 7-9 innings, strikeout a ton of people, and be able to scatter hits allowed.

High AB and slugging. Basically, plenty of at bats and plenty of power. #1-3 hitters are ideal.

And if I improve my drafting next season, I’ll be sure to repeat.

While we were in school around the same time, I never met the guy. I do remember reading his columns in the Targum and reading the Centurion, which he is a founder. I do remember the “Lucky Charms” stunt. Who knew that it would take him to national prominence?

Good for Mr. O’Keefe. From one pimp to another.

Joshua has been taking the bus to his local Whole Foods in New York City every five days for the past two years. This week, he said he’ll go elsewhere to fulfill his fresh vegetable and organic produce needs.

“I will never shop there again,” vowed Joshua, a 45-year-old blogger, who asked that his last name not be published.

What courage! Make sure no one can know his name or find his blog.

Michael Lent, another Whole Foods enthusiast in Long Beach, Calif., told ABCNews.com that he, too, will turn to other organic groceries for his weekly shopping list.

“I’m boycotting [Whole Foods] because all Americans need health care,” said Lent, 33, who used to visit his local Whole Foods “several times a week.”

“While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn’t seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit,” said Lent.

I don’t even care how he made the connection on Whole Food’s contribution to the deficit. You are boycotting because Mackey didn’t mention tax or war policy in an op-ed about health policy? What makes think he doesn’t?

Christine Taylor, a 34-year-old New Jersey shopper, vowed never to step foot in another Whole Foods again.

“I will no longer be shopping at Whole Foods,” Taylor told ABCNews.com. “I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients.”

I guess she pulled her statistics about the political makeup of Whole Food’s shoppers from the Department of Her Ass.

A commenter on the Whole Foods forum, identified only by his handle, “PracticePreach,” wrote, “It is an absolute slap in the face to the millions of progressive-minded consumers that have made [Whole Foods] what it is today.”

Whole Foods provide full health insurance to thousands of employees. I guess if ObamaCare passes, Mackey’s taxes would be paying for his customers health insurance too. How are you going to react if he decides it would be more effective to dump his employee’s insurance into ObamaCare?

Not everyone disagrees of course

Many posted online that they agreed with his message and would try to shop at the chain more often.

Frank Federer wrote ABCNews.com, expressing fatigue with the knee-jerk reaction of other shoppers.

“You can count me as one vote FOR Whole Foods’ CEO,” wrote Federer. “At a time when most folks are more inclined toward rancor than discussion of facts, I applaud John Mackey.”

I have no objection to shoppers who change their shopping habits because of what a CEO thinks, what I don’t understand is what is the big deal about Mackey’s article.

To me, it’s the most reasonable critique of the healthcare debate AND it has actual alternatives. Perhaps people are hung up about the Thatcher quote, but no one quoted in this article can point out what part of the op-ed they object to. Suggesting that consumers can purchase insurance across state lines is an boycott-able offense? I doubt it. It is more likely a boycott-able offense to be a CEO with an opinion.

Does it really matter? Mackey is not the one writing and passing legislation. Is this how Americans plan to deal with political disagreements, take your frustrations out on everyone else but the politicians?

Grow up.

Just like regulation of guns and drugs, making cars fuel efficient doesn’t make their drivers fuel-efficient. I drive a 1993 Nissan Maxima (at 19 mpg combined, doesn’t qualify as a clunker), and unemployment has reduced my carbon footprint significantly. When I finally do work in NYC, I’m probably going to take the bus and subway there. So it doesn’t matter whether my next car is a G8 or a Prius, it is up to me how much gas I would like to consume, not my car.

Of course, Cash-for-Clunkers also help remove usable and cheap cars off the market (because manufacturing new vehicles is so environmentally friendly) , reward the fine and honest folks at the car dealership, create incentives for actions people will do anyway. Otherwise, you’ll feel good.

The only question is then, if new cars are so important, why not have a $4500 tax credit on other consumer goods?

May I suggest Dos Equis, a cleverly marketed product which I found to be the most unremarkable beer I’ve ever tasted. I found myself downing these babies one every 5 minutes without feeling repulsed like other macrobrews.

Stay thirsty my brothers.

Still, in the large scheme of things, $10K isn’t a lot of money, especially for the defendants. In my field, that’s about 2 month’s pay (alright, the bribes aren’t going to up on their tax forms). So why can some politicians be bought on the cheap?

If I were in charge of ethics reforms, I would make politicians so expensive to bribe than only large corporations making large and highly scrutinized transactions can afford them.

And If I were a NJ politician today, I’d ignore anything below 6 figures.