Bar The Door

Tim from Colorado e-mails to speculate about where government control of heath care might one day lead:

If a government health care bill passes, in what ever possible form, I can envision the day when the government tells us what foods we can eat, what beverages we can drink, and what activities we can participate in, all because the higher risks of not following the government's rules will lead to increased health care costs.

For instance, fast food will be eliminated, or the menus will be greatly changed, because the government will say eating Big Macs and fries leads to heart disease. You would no longer be able to enjoy more than two or three beers or mixed drinks per week because the government cannot afford to treat sclerosis of the liver. That pack a day habit will have to get cut down to two packs per month.

How would the government know if you cheated on the rules? Easy; they'll issue you a government health care card which you would have to present to a doctor to get treated, but the government could also later mandate that to buy fast food, cigarettes, booze, or other detriments to our health, you'd also have to present your health care card, which could then be used to track how much or how often you bought stuff on the government's no-no list.

Am I being a nutter here? I'm not saying this will happen, but is it not possible?

Whoa there Tim. One has to be careful about discussing such matters lest one be accused of spreading "disinformation" and "right-wing lies" about health care. It's still okay to think about things like that (at least for now), but it's very disruptive and quite possibly un-American to share such thoughts in public. Please turn yourself in to the White House and await further instructions on how to begin your rehabilitation process.

At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg sows similar fears and discord with a post called Health Care Is the Door to Controlling Everything:

A point I didn't flesh out too much in my column seems to have struck a chord with a lot of readers nonetheless. Once the government decides it is in charge of health care, it has a say in everything you do (this, natch, was an argument of my book). Guns, diet, and cars are more relevant to our slightly lower life expectancy than insurance premiums and reimbursement rates, so of course Henry Waxman and Barbara Boxer and the rest of the gang are going to use their control over the health-care system as an excuse to go after those aspects of our lives. Why wouldn't they? They already want to influence those aspects of our lives now. Health care is really the only other policy area--after "the children" and global warming--that gives the State access to the most private spheres of our lives. Whenever someone says "it's a health-care issue" it's somehow supposed to trump traditional rights and liberties. That's what the push in the 1990s to make gun control a health-care issue was all about. That's why cameras once used to catch terrorists are now used to catch people eating in their cars in the U.K.

I've never heard anyone say something is a "health-care issue" as a preface to an argument for getting the government out of something.

Beer Of The Week (Vol XIX)

This week's Beer of the Week brought to you as always by the fine folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits, your place to shop when you want the spirits to move you.

The old saying is "never judge a book by its cover." In general, that advice tends to hold true when it comes to the package your beer comes in. However, as JB and I have both observed, in some instances there does seem to be more than a passing connection between the label on the outside and the beer on the inside.

Many craft brewers seem to believe that it's not enough to just make high quality beer. They want the package to be as pleasing to the eye as the beer itself is to the palate. You often find that a great deal of effort and attention has gone into the graphic design of craft beer containers, whether it be the bottle with a label, the can, and, when appropriate even the cardboard four, six or twelve packs the beer is sold in. While certainly not a hard and fast rule to go by, if someone cares enough to worry about the graphic design, they usually also care about the quality of the beer.

Which brings us to our Beer of the Week. As I've mentioned before, I harbor no ill will toward macro brewers who attempt to break into the craft field. If they can produce a decent tasting beer in addition to their mass produced swill, more power to 'em. The only thing I don't like is big brewers who try to disguise the product and confuse consumers by not being clear about where the beer really comes from.

While Anheuser-Busch is pretty upfront about their brewing Michelob Shock Top Belgian White, I have to admit that the first couple of times I tried Shock Top (on tap at bars) I was not aware it was an AB product. I was pretty sure that it wasn't a true craft beer, but I didn't know who made it until I picked up a six-pack at Glen Lake Wine and Spirits last week.

Even if the label didn't clearly say Michelob on it, you can tell that it's not from a craft brewery. The look is just a little too slick, too designed by a team of marketing wonks not to have come out of a corporate meeting room. The whole "extreme" orange with a mohawk wearing shades thing smacks of The Poochie Show from The Simpsons:

Lady: We at AB want a beer with attitude. It's edgy, it's "in your face." You've heard the expression "let's get busy"? Well, this is a beer who gets "biz-zay!" Consistently and thoroughly.

It's really not a look that fits the beer at all. They should have stuck with the golden field of wheat with blue summer sky above and nixed the orange with attitude. On to the beer itself.

Beer Style: Belgian White Wheat Ale

Alcohol by Volume: 5.2

COLOR (0-2): Very pronounced orangish-gold with nice cloudiness. 2

AROMA (0-2): Light citrus with a a hint of spice. 1

HEAD (0-2): Pours thick, fades fast. 1

TASTE (0-5): Light and crisp with flavors of orange and wheat. 3

AFTERTASTE (0-2): An unusual alcohol flavor lingers. 1

OVERALL (0-6): While it's not "extreme" (as hinted at by the orange on the label) in any way whatsoever, it's not a bad beer at all. I'd stack it up there with the likes of Blue Moon. Very drinkable and pretty refreshing which makes it a decent choice for summer. 3

TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 11

Astrowriting

The latest sign of desperation among the forces pushing the Democrats' health care reform plans comes via e-mail in the form a panicky plea from the folks at MoveOn.org:

Right-wing mobs aren't just disrupting congressional town halls--their outlandish lies are now making their way into mainstream news coverage, too.

How dare they! Mainstream media coverage is supposed to be reserved exclusively for left-wing lies.

We need to set the record straight. The majority of Americans support real health care reform. And no wonder, given the incredible cost of inaction.

In Minnesota alone, 190 people lose their coverage every day. And for those with insurance, yearly premiums will hit $22,467 in a few years if we don't act.

We can't let right-wing extremists ruin the biggest opportunity in a generation to get real reform. Can you send a quick letter to the editor of The Star Tribune--or another local paper--about the urgent need in Minnesota for Congress to pass health care reform with a real public option?

The e-mail goes on to provide a link to a form letter to the editor and provides helpful talking points to use.

Hmmm...

A group organizing efforts and providing information to help citizens make their voices heard and influence political outcomes? How positively un-American. Boy, wait 'til the White House hears about this...

One in a Million? So You're Saying There's a Chance

Troubling story out of Kentucky. Rick Pitino caught up in a web of sexual misconduct, lies, bribes, paid abortions, and extortion. With a resume like that you'd swear he was a politician. Close, but not quite, he's a college basketball coach.

In short, he met a woman in a bar and within hours proceeded to have intimate relations with her on a table at that same location. Weeks later he gave her money to allegedly procure an abortion. She later came back with demands for $10 million in hush money, he called the cops for extortion, she now alleges rape. It's the classic American love story.

One striking detail is present in this story. The reaction of Pitino's boss, about what he plans to do with his wayward charge:

Louisville athletics director Tom Jurich reiterated Wednesday to ESPN.com that he is "one million percent behind coach Pitino."

I recall during the Terri Schiavo ordeal blogging about a medical expert's opinion of her condition:

I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state.

Which led to remembrances of George McGovern's famous words in 1972 about supporting his Vice Presidential running mate who had been revealed to have undergone electroshock therapy for nervous exhaustion and fatigue:

McGovern said the disclosure in no way affected Eagleton's status, volunteering in a comment that was to echo from then to election day that he stood behind his choice of Eagleton "1,000 per cent."

And less than a week later McGovern gave him the boot.

Granted, one million percent represents an impressive new standard for support. But, as with the previous cases, once you blow past the 100% mark, we can't really tell how certain you are.

Why isn't he two million percent behind Rick Pitino? Why not 5 billion percent? Why not 1.1 trillion percent? (Which, coincidentally, is the percentage Barack Obama is sure that his health care schemes will not increase the federal budget.)

A mere million percent behind him? A clear sign of equivocation on Louisville University's part. With that kind of wishy-washy vote of confidence, Pitino will be likely to survive the weekend.

Obama's Iraq War (Except With a Higher Body Count)

President Obama is stubbornly going all out in his attempt to bring socialized medicine to the United States (yes, I know he isn't calling it that, but there is no doubt as too his ultimate goal). If he succeeds in destroying the finest health care system in the world, it may just do for him politically what the Iraq War did for George W. Bush. Of course, the casualties of a European-style health system would likely be much higher.

Consider the comparative age-adjusted five year survival rates for all cancers:
Europe: 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women,
USA: 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women
(Source: a 2007 study in Lancet Oncology via medscape)

The estimated number of new cancer cases in 2009 in the United States:
Men: 766,130
Women: 713,220
(Source: American Cancer Society)

The survival rate statistics suggest that of the 1,479,350 new cancer cases, 522,790 will pass away over the next five years. If Obamacare brings the United States cancer survival rates down to European levels, that number would jump to 718,993; an extra 196,203 deaths over five years. The extra cancer deaths (and remember this is only among those diagnosed in 2009) over five years would be 38 times the 5081 American casualties in the Iraq war to date.

We may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that financial incentives do work. A for-profit cancer center has every incentive to cure you -- having a high survival rate tends to attract more customers. In a government system, if they cure you, they don't stand to make more money, but to lose more on future treatments down the road. Of course, the government health care workers and bureaucrats' sense of compassion will greatly overwhelm their cost-cutting instincts and they will do their best to cure you. But there is no reason to believe that the workers at a for-profit center would be any less humanitarian. Even if the financial incentive is small by comparison, a little bit can mean a lot.

America After the Change

Interesting article from Victor Davis Hanson who returns from a Europe with some sobering observations on socialism, health care, and the path Obama and the Democrats are leading us down.

Excerpts, on his multiple first-hand experiences in European and Middle Eastern hospitals:

Because I have traveled a great deal in my life, often recklessly so, alone, and to weird places in search of answers to topographical questions of the ancient Mediterranean world, and first-hand observations about battles and campaigns in out of the way places for several books -- I have ended up over the last 36 years in a number of socialist hospitals.

In each case, the care was terrible. A sole lonely doctor or maverick nurse in two cases saved my life, but on the average the facilities were filthy, and the employees akin to those in the government-run post office or bank. And a strange thing occurred as well: often the staff became mad at the patient: "Why did you come here with an appendix problem?"; "You should have not let your strep get out of control!"; "If you don’t drink water, what do you expect!"; "See what happens when you don't take all your quinine pills!".

Socialism will always blame the patient (just watch when it comes here), I suppose for drawing on collective resources, and to focus on public enemies whose weight, smoking, or lifestyle have betrayed the public ideal. Fat people, and smokers (except our President) will soon become as hated in the socialist mind as jet skis, those in their 80s who want a bypass, Yukons, Tahoes and investment bankers.

Also he comments on the nature of those most zealously advocating that America needs to change:

Socialism surely does not make one happier, or content knowing that the resulting society is somehow more humane or caring. Instead each faction is constantly on the verge of striking against the public good. There are always the bad "them", easy-target public enemies among the rich and aristocratic who need to give away more to the "deserving." The bank workers are in perpetual war against the garbage cleaners who hate the social service workers who whine about the fire and police -- each convinced the public must grant more largess on themselves than on like others.

I've never met a beatific equality-of-result person. They are usually grim and angry warriors determined to right cosmic wrongs, eager to demonize those who 'have too much', convinced that the divine ends justify the demonic means.

It is no surprise that Obama invokes the constant bogeymen who do all sorts of terrible things, among them most prominently the Orwellian Goldstein figure of George W. Bush. There are no legitimate critics, only those Obama & Co. claim are shills for the insurance industries, who unfairly attack the Canadian health system, the greedy who go to Vegas and the Super bowl, the Neanderthal who cling to their guns, the dissidents known as Nazis, stooges, mobs, and the well-dressed who dare to become rude to the Congresspeople.

The road to socialism is not natural. It must be paved with the hard work of class envy, demonization of the successful, and obfuscation that each new massive spending program that will raise both taxes and deficits (that's the point, after all, to create so much red ink that we must raise taxes and redefine what constitutes income) must be passed immediately, without delay, now-or-never to stave off Biblical hunger, plague, and flood. Or else!

And to think we've handed exclusive control of our Federal government to these people over the past 4 years.

Anything in that Obama Health Care plan about massive subsidies and generous time off work provisions to treat depression? At this point, that might be the one silver lining that could get me on board.

Blatant Totalitarianism

Camille Paglia is the rarest of birds in many respects. Lately, what's set her apart from the crowd is the fact that she's a supporter of President Obama who has managed to maintain her intellectual honesty:

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the "mob" -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable "casual conversations" to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

Organic Roots

One of the most dishonest aspects of the Democrats attempt to cram down health care reform is their oft-repeated argument that the only alternative to their plan is the status quo. In fact, there are a plethora of proposals out there that seek to address what currently ails the health care system that don't require taxpayers to bend over for an invasive procedure from Doctor Government (this'll only hurt a lot).

The latest comes courtesy of a Brooks Brother-wearing, Nazi-sympathizing, mob-organizing businessman greedy profiteer in today's WSJ:

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction--toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

*Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).

*Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.

*Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.

*Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover.

*Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

*Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.

*Enact Medicare reform.

*Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

The running-dog wrecker continues by looking at the question of whether we have a right to health care:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care--to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Mis Disinformation! Something smells fishy here! Alert Linda Douglass! This anti-American villian must be stopped!

Oh yeah, the guy who penned this piece is Mr. John Mackey co-founder and CEO of one of those bastions of conservative corporate capitalism...

...Whole Foods Market Inc. Put that in your environmentally-friendly reusable tote bag for future reference when one of your progressive friends tells you that President Obama's way is the only path to health care reform.

A Better Question?

The boys at Power Line note this question asked of the President at the Town Hall meeting he arranged to attend in New Hampshire today:

QUESTION: Mr. President, you've been quoted over the years when you were a senator, and perhaps even before then, that you were essentially a supporter of a universal plan.

I'm beginning to see that you're changing that. Do you honestly believe that? Because that is my concern. I'm on Medicare, but I still worry that if we go to a public option, period, that the private companies, the insurance companies, rather than competing, because who can compete with the government? The answer is nobody.

So my question is, do you still as a -- yourself now support a universal plan or are you open to the private industry still being maintained?

A question which broaches one of the main areas of contention between Obama and the critics of his health care agenda. But way too vague and factually inaccurate and with a softball pitch ending fat enough to allow an old pro debater like Obama to turn on it and hit it out of the park (deep into the left field seats). The question becomes nothing more than an opportunity for Obama to offer pedantic lecturing and reiterate the obfuscations about what he would really like to see as a health care system in this country and what his reforms might lead to.

The one big chance the public gets to pin Obama down on where he stands and the question is blown. What a break for the administration. You get a "random question" from an "average citizen" and it's bad enough to allow you to come out looking like a free thinking, free market hero. Who needs political operatives and media spin machines when you have luck like this on your side?

If the hands of fate had pushed me into that Town Hall meeting instead and I was randomly chosen to ask the question in a way that would achieve greater clarity on Obama's position, it might have gone something like this:

Mr. President, in 2003, you were videotaped at a speech for the AFL-CIO unambiguously stating that you were a "proponent of a single payer health care plan." In 2008, during a Democrat Presidential primary election debate, when your opponents confronted you with this, you stated you did not support creating such a system in the US now because it would create too many problems in transition from the current employer sponsored system. But, if you had to start a health care plan from scratch, you would go with a single payer system. You repeated this contention, your preference for a single-payer system if you were starting from scratch, at other campaign events.

My question to you is, all things being equal, why do you prefer a system of socialized medicine over the traditional American system?

Follow-up question, if you truly believe a single payer system is superior, are you for or against incrementally achieving one over time, in a manner that could reduce the transition complications?

At which point I would be shouted down as a paid plant from a villainous health insurance company, called un-American and a Nazi just out to hurt our precious President, reported as fishy to flag@whitehouse.gov, and finally cold-cocked by a union goon in the parking lot.

Maybe it's a good those hands of fate didn't and on my shoulders after all.

But it is a shame that a better question wasn't asked of Obama. It's even more a shame that we get one chance to ask it from a random citizen, despite the fact a professional press corps is paid to follow the guy around 24 hours a day.

Savoring Summer

A couple of quick beer related notes:

1. Summit Brewing Company introduces a new, limited release line of beers:

The first in the series, Kölsch, is a traditional German style ale with a light, balanced, crisp and refreshing profile with just a slight fruitiness. The brewery has utilized only the most authentic ingredients available to produce this beer. There is 100% imported German malt; a blend of Pilsener and Kölsch malts from the Global Malt cooperative (a cooperative of 3 German Maltsters with a combined 6 maltings headquartered in Osthofen) and a small percentage of Caramalz from the Weyermann maltings in Bamberg. The hops used are also imported from Germany and are only grown in the Hallertau region of Bavaria. Hallertau Mittelfrüh are some of the most delicate, distinctive and highly prized hops in the world. Finally, the brewers have used a traditional top fermenting Kölsch yeast obtained from the world-renowned yeast banks at Weihenstephan in Bavaria.

Summit Kölsch is the product of these authentic ingredients combined with traditional mashing and brewing procedures in our German brewhouse, followed by a cool fermentation and a cold conditioning period. This yields the finest, most true-to-style example of this unique beer that the brewery could hope to produce, a perfect session beer for the final days of summer!

The Kölsch will be available in bottles and on draught for a limited time starting the week of August 10. The next beer in the Unchained Series will be available late Fall.

News that Summit is releasing a new beer is always welcome. News that it will be a Kolsch even more so as it is one of my favorite warm weather varities and one that's all too rarely attempted by US brewers.

2. I finally got around to trying Farm Girl Saison from Lift Bridge Brewing in Stillwater. While it's not exactly the most manly sounding beer out there, it is a tasty and refreshing brew which is ideal for summer drinking. Just the latest example of a local brewery making good.

When Government Bureaucracy Meets Common Sense

From the Star Tribune, troubling article about a Continental Airlines flight, being operated by Express Jet, trying to get from Houston to the Twin Cities. The big thunderstorms in town Saturday night diverted the plane to Rochester, where we pick up the story:

The plane, which left Houston about 9:30 p.m. Friday, arrived in Rochester about midnight, and passengers weren't allowed to leave the plane until 6 a.m. Saturday.

The Continental Airlines flight Friday night from Houston to the Twin Cities was left parked at the Rochester airport for six hours, complete with crying babies and the aroma of over-used toilets and no way for passengers to leave.

Welcome to Minnesota. We like it here.

OK, this isn't exactly type of welcome the tourism board would have preferred. Unless imprisoning travelers in the equivalent of a communal Satellite toilet for 6 hours is a more aggressive way to convince people that they should be Happy to Pay for a Better Minnesota. But, as of yet no Democrats have come forward to blame this on Gov. Pawlenty's budget cuts.

Instead, a more common cause has been identified for keeping these poor people trapped for 6 hours:

. . . . letting the passengers into the Rochester airport was not possible, ExpressJet said, because they would have to go through security screening again, and the screeners had gone home for the day.

ExpressJet spokeswoman Kristy Nicholas said the passengers could have entered the terminal only "if we had resources to allow the customers to deplane safely and were able to comply with federal regulations." Nicholas added that "upon arrival of TSA [security personnel] ... at approximately 6 a.m. Central, the customers were allowed to deplane the aircraft."

Well, I know I feel safer.

Listen up all you al Queda operatives lurking inside small regional airports after midnight in the event that unscheduled flights are routed there due to inclement weather, then waiting for the passengers to deplane to take bathroom breaks in the airport and then slipping in unnoticed among them as they get back on, and then keeping a low profile on the plane until it takes off and then committing heinous acts of terrorism - you've been foiled again! Defeated by the wisdom and foresight of the United States government.

Or, alternately, this incident was a huge clusterfarg caused by inflexible federal safety regulations, a one-size-fits-all approach meant to cover every situation experienced by all 28,000 flights (on average) each and every day in the US. In the interest of safety, they require all deplaning passengers to be rescreened every time. They just never counted on the Rochester, Minnesota TSA employees working bankers' hours.

If only the scientists of America had developed a time machine by now. Then, I swear I'd go back to shortly after 9/11 and visit the town hall meetings Congresspersons were holding regarding the Homeland Security Act. During the Q&A section, I'd raise objections to the unintended consequences of this specific provision, stating that it has the real possibility of needlessly causing great suffering and harm to air passengers and that we should think again before blundering down this path.

At which point it would be indignantly pointed out that there is NOTHING in this bill about making air passengers wait for 6 hours on the tarmac while waiting for security. Then I would be shouted down as a plant from Big Aviation, called un-American and a Nazi just out to hurt our precious President, reported as fishy to flag@whitehouse.gov, and finally cold-cocked by a union goon in the parking lot.

Maybe it's a good thing that time machine is still on the drawing board.

Instead, we'll just have to live with the government's reaction to this problem:

I think keeping people on the airplane from about midnight to roughly 6 in the morning, that wouldn't sit well with me either," [Rochester airport manager Steven Leqve] said. "It's an unfortunate thing. I wish it hadn't happened."

Gee thanks pal.

If the local bureacrats are unresponsive, at least we have public servants in the US House of Representatives in our corner. People who understand the problems of the average commerical air traveller.

House Democratic leaders neatly snuck into the 2010 defense appropriations bill an extra $132 million to pay for two extra C-37B private jets to haul congressmen around the country. As Capitol Hill's Roll Call first reported, the Air Force had requested one such jet -- for the general use of government officials and military brass.

But, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the spending spree didn't stop there. House Democrats authorized the purchase of three C-37B jets, plus another Boeing 737. Added to separate Obama administration and Pentagon requests, the total number of elite planes requested in the current budget stands at eight, for a total defense appropriation of $550 million.

OK, we're screwed. But on the bright side, this is only convenience during air travel we're talking about. It's not like these people are in charge of something life and death like your health care.

Over and Out

One of the long-standing traditions here at Fraters Libertas is my annual "Stick a Fork In the Twins, They're Done" post (a.k.a. The Elder's Divine Tine). Admittedly at times these "all hope is lost" posts have been proven to ridiculously premature. In these instances, my doom saying was doubtlessly driven more by emotional frustration resulting from the club's recent pitiable performances rather than a carefully calculated analysis of the situation at hand.

However, it is with a high level of confidence that I say today that the Twins prospects for 2009 have now been officially dashed. They're finished. Kaput. Over.

The Twins are now five-and-a-half games out of first place with a mediocre record of 54-57. They've gone 2-7 in their last nine games. And when you take a closer look at how they've lost those games, you'll see why you too should abandon all hope of a resurgence this year.

In that nine game swoon, the Twins scored 53 runs. That's an average of 5.8 runs per game. Now, their two wins were lopsided blowouts (10-1, 11-0) so take them out of the mix. You're still left with 32 runs in seven games, which is close to 4.6 runs a game. In fact, in five of these seven losses, they scored four or more runs (4, 5, 6, 7, 8). That kind of run production should get you more than two wins in nine games.

The problem is that they've given up 64 runs in the last nine games. In six of those games, their opponents scored EIGHT or more runs. The starters have surrendered 38 of these runs and the bullpen 26, numbers that neither group should be proud of.

At this time of season, if your hitters are in a slump, you can still realistically hope that they'll break out of it. Hitting does tend to come and go at times, but if your lineup is fundamentally sound you should be okay. If you have pitching.

The problem for the Twins is that they don't have the pitching now and there really is no reason to expect it to get much better before the end of the season (unless Carl Pavano performs miracles). The starters are shaky and the bullpen (with the exception of Nathan) unreliable. The pitching performances that we've suffered through over the last nine games are probably what we're going to see the rest of the way. The Twins pitching is what it is and it's not very good.

The Central Division title was up for the taking this year. The Twins unfortunately have now proven themselves to not be up for that task. It remains to be seen if the White Sox or Tigers are.