This very good article on Jason Giambi accurately describes the situation as not black or white, but rather a mixed shade of gray. Yes, he "cheated", but his over vilianization is out of control. In the article, there's a paragraph blasting the yankees for being against Giambi only b/c he had a poor season. That, if he had a Sheff like season last year, he would be embraced. And, if he regains some level of sucess, George will "forgive" him.

so what? I have no problem with the Yankees being selfish. If the yankees could, in theory, get out of contracts if those players used steroids, OF COURSE, they'd try to get out of Giambi's, but not Sheff's. The yankees have to be concerned with putting the best team out there (which leads to making the biggest profit). They aren't there to make friends. I fully believe a team should "use" their players just like players should "use" teams.

I don't believe in the hometown discount just like i don't believe that players (like Biggio) are "owed" something. You sign a contract, and you live out the terms of that contract. If you wind up overachieving, you don't hold out for more money. And if you tank, the team can't ask you to pay them back. End of story.

As great a movie as Roger and Me is, it's based on a faulty premise. General Motors never owed Flint Michigan anything. General Motors has the right to hire whoever they want for their company. It's unfortunate that there is cheap human labor in countries such as mexico and even more unfortunate that our country allows companies to exploit this labor. And while there is a moral question as to whether GM is "wrong" for using this labor, the brunt of the responsibility falls on the government. If the ONLY goal of a corporation is to maximize profits, then how can you really fault a company for doing this in a LEGAL way.

The documentary does a great job at making GM out to be bad guys. That they abandoned the town and put an entire city out of work.

But, would an indivual employee, who left GM for (uh, is Ford a different company?) Ford be considered a deserter? Does he "lack loyality" for taking a new job that pays more and gives better benefits? Why is it ok for the worker to break the agreement, but not the company?

And yes, i see the logical answer of "gm won't be crippled if/when an employee leaves, they'll just hire someone else". But this isn't enough for me. If the only difference is the severity of the consequences, then the CAUSE shouldn't be judged any more or less harshly.

I need to think about this more.