Why? So you can beat us with reeds?

...whoops, too late.

I'm surprised it was Furtado, rather than Repoz, who posted this, since it has the potential to bust out into a 1200-post blowout replete with insults and warnings.

And, of course 95% percent of those posts will be by the flaming closet Bolsheviks who dominate political discussion at BTF.

Wow, it's like a George Carlin bit except it's not interesting or funny.

I actually thought it was an enjoyable article, but I take issue with this:

Baseball has no affirmative action. Lefthanders are virtually disqualified from half of the fielding spots. You don’t like it? Tough noogies. If diversicrats ran baseball, they’d make half the games go around the diamond clockwise.

Is he really arguing that left-handers never get preferential treatment in baseball? What the hell is Javier Lopez doing on my roster then?

"Like freedom, baseball is that stake where energy and order merge, and all complexity is purified into a simple coherence." Piffle, or not piffle?

Must resist urge to comment ...

...that stake where energy and order merge, and all complexity is purified into a simple coherence

I thought that was whenever Greg Maddux says "####!"

Damn, couldn't resist.

Baseball is the perfect sport for conservatives. Love of large corporations, who profess to love the free market, but who demand corporate welfare and insist on protected markets so no real competition exists.

I love the free market. Baseball just isn't it.

Baseball is the perfect sport for conservatives. Love of large corporations, who profess to love the free market, but who demand corporate welfare and insist on protected markets so no real competition exists.

Those aren't conservatives, those are capitalists.

Capitalism transcends the liberal-conservative dichotomy.

Baseball is the perfect sport for conservatives. Love of large corporations, who profess to love the free market, but who demand corporate welfare and insist on protected markets so no real competition exists

.

It's not a bad article and obviously was more musing than analysis, but some of the things he ignores--anti-trust exemption, the long history of the reserve clause, and of course taxpayer-funded stadiums--were quite convenient.

I thought the article was amusing. Ya know, everything posted with a political connection doesn't have to be taken so seriously. Believe it or not, the future of America is not riding on the discussions on this site. Also, believe it or not, the people who disagree with you about politics don't necessarily have horns and cloven hooves. (I must admit, though, some of you might require visual verification.) ;)

Man that was boring.

Two points:

I don't think he knows what "meritocratic" means. Simply having fewer available playoff spots does not make it meritocratic. The word refers to the criteria for selection, and not scarcity of selections.

True, there’s a “luxury tax” on payrolls that exceeds a certain amount, but at least it’s a flat tax.

Is this true? I thought there were different tax rates depending on how far over you go. IIRC, it's as steeply progressive as anything FDR could come up with.

Edit - Ah, should do the research before the post. The rate increase I was thinking of has to do with how many separate times you go over the limit.

It's basically flat. But the rate will kick up depending if you have been over the luxury threshold for more than a year.

If William F. Buckley were alive, he'd be spinning over in his grave after reading that bit of tripe. OTOH the monopoly-loving Ayn Rand would be applying for the job of Baseball Aynnie.

Thanks 13, I was just realizing that as you posted.

Is he really arguing that left-handers never get preferential treatment in baseball?

His point is a little silly (no surprise, considering the article as a whole) but that's not it. He's saying, on the contrary, that left-handers do get preferential treatment when their capabilities warrant it. That is, he's saying that affirmative action is effectively the practice of allocating positions based on characteristics orthogonal to the actual abilities of the candidates, and baseball doesn't do that -- it allocates playing time (well, in theory) exclusively on the basis of what you can do on the field.

Of course, baseball actually does give lots of playing time to suboptimal players, it's just that it's based on the amount of playing time you've already accumulated, rather than handedness. :)

True, there’s a “luxury tax” on payrolls that exceeds a certain amount, but at least it’s a flat tax.

Yeah. Referring back to the conservative/capitalist distinction from earlier in the comments: casting a luxury tax as liberal, as this seems to do, must be coming from a capitalist viewpoint. These taxes are a useful market-based mechanism which are very much preferable compared to a hard cap.

It seems baseball's lack of lefthanders at 3B, SS, 2B, and C is a much better metaphor for segregation.

Basically, no matter how good you are, if you lack a specific trait, you are not getting the job.

The metaphor to affirmative action is actually a little unsettling if you work out what is being compared to what.

like conservatives, baseball was ALSO for segregation!

A Republican ended slavery, and MLB ended segregation! They are so great, as are George W. Bush and Bud Selig!

conservative does not necessarily = republican.

Capitalism transcends the liberal-conservative dichotomy.

A lot of conservatives who, once upon a time, were happy to play ball with small-government types have subsequently gotten all forgetful once their boy got into office. They're now big-government, Woodrow Wilsonian/Teddy Rooseveltian (take your pick of favorite "big stick" president) torture wafflers blinded by the presumed holy light of their Great And Noble Cause That Makes Them Just Exactly Like Winston Churchill And Everybody Else Is Neville Chamberlin. It's tedious, absolutely amoral, and repugnant to every civilized impulse, which is to say, profoundly hypocritical.

Some of us bearing the stripe of "capitalists", "libertarians" (= small-l "liberals"), or what have you, were (and still are) opposed to special government favors being doled out no matter the stripe of the supplicant. The only thing to have changed over the course of the last ten years is whose ox is getting gored, and the damage done to civil rights.

He describes George Will as a loyal Redskins fan? Yeah, that's really what he's known for.

It seems baseball's lack of lefthanders at 3B, SS, 2B, and C is a much better metaphor for segregation.

Then what does that make Tony LaRussa among managers? Or Billy Martin when he had Mattingly play two games at third?

If you are going to argue that something is conservative, it's probably best not to invoke Friedrich Hayek, who wrote "Why I am not a conservative."

Guess he missed the parta bout how the game is overtly dominated by the player's union.

But let's not let an ugly fact interfere with an otherwise beautiful analogy.

t seems baseball's lack of lefthanders at 3B, SS, 2B, and C is a much better metaphor for segregation.

Basically, no matter how good you are, if you lack a specific trait, you are not getting the job.

That's a terrible analogy. It's not about any sort of bias or prejudice, but the simple fact that lefthanded throwers at 3B, SS, and 2B can't get the job done, due to the geometry of the baseball diamond. I'm less convinced that a lefthanded catcher couldn't get the job done, but as Bill James once suggested, catchers need strong throwing arms, and if you have a lefty with a strong throwing arm, you make him a pitcher.

I've always wondered where the people who think that Ann Coulter is funny are and how they spend their time. And now, thanks to Jim, I know.

"A Republican ended slavery, and MLB ended segregation! They are so great, as are George W. Bush and Bud Selig!"

"conservative does not necessarily = republican."

Yeah, but sarcasm = sarcasm.

"conservative does not necessarily = republican."
Thanks to the current administration's free-spending, authoritarian ways, no Republican really knows what "conservatism" means.

The author chose an unfortunate starting point; if (self-described) conservatives are so thrilled with meritocracy, why do they get so worked up over the inheritance tax? I'm just asking...

"Baseball is sartorially libertarian"

I'm truly confused about who's conservative, who's libertarian, and who's Republican.

The "conservatives" and the "Republicans" have been gung-ho in favor of required school uniforms for decades now (Makes it more like a religious school = Good).

libertarians mostly vote republican, especially the ones against free speech, for government watching their every move, in favor of military adventurism, hopeful that the government will legislate their bedrooms, and big fans of corporate welfare by the hundreds of billion$.

The article's cute, and I'm sure a big hit with its intended market,

I once read an editorial in the Star-Tribune theorizing that Bush's baseball background gave him excellent preparation for the presidency. Despite the obvious (Sammy Sosa trade), what really disturbed me was the willingness of conservatives to go to utterly absurd lengths to create the illusion that Bush is qualified to be the leader of the free world. Though not exactly positing the same theory, this article has elicited a similar reaction in me.

And I personally think Ann Coulter is hilarious, but not for the same reasons that she and her fans think she is.

If I come out and say I don't like either side of this argument, can I get a free pass from the next political thread?

Baseball is interesting and absorbing in a way which has no real connection with politics. Actually, *most* interesting and absorbing things have no intrinsic connection with politics. Politics is like junk food for the brain -- it superficially stimulates the same emotions that truly interesting things do, but it deadens the appreciation for the real thing.

[W]hat really disturbed me was the willingness of conservatives to go to utterly absurd lengths to create the illusion that Bush is qualified to be the leader of the free world.

Be fair, both sides do this for their guy.

Politics is like junk food for the brain -- it superficially stimulates the same emotions that truly interesting things do, but it deadens the appreciation for the real thing.

I agree if one is middle class or above. Otherwise, it's life and death and you have to force yourself to enjoy the struggle or it's also hopelessly depressing.

"Baseball is federalist; its central government is the weakest of any major professional sport.

This must mean something different than it did when I was in school. The federalists favored a strong federal government whereas the anti-federalists (Jeffersonian Republicans?) favored a weaker federal government with the individual states holding greater power. When did this change?

Really awful article. Given this guy's standards, you could easily write an equally convincing argument for baseball being the most liberal sport (or for ________ being the most ______ sport).

Baseball is the perfect sport for conservatives. Love of large corporations, who profess to love the free market, but who demand corporate welfare and insist on protected markets so no real competition exists.

I love the free market. Baseball just isn't it.

You said it, brother, though that would be neocons and contemporary Republicans, really, rather than conservatives. Oh--and there's no such thing as a free market as long as there's a police force of some kind. Someone pays the cops, and that someone generally makes the rules, which in turn are enforced by the cops. Free, in the sense of "without rules except as agreed to by the contracting parties", really doesn't exist.

Is this true? I thought there were different tax rates depending on how far over you go. IIRC, it's as steeply progressive as anything FDR could come up with.

kdon, from memory, tax rates on the highest incomes were, under Eisenhower, far higher (93%?) than they were under Roosevelt.

The author chose an unfortunate starting point; if (self-described) conservatives are so thrilled with meritocracy, why do they get so worked up over the inheritance tax? I'm just asking...

rob, I suspect it's on the grounds that self-described conservatives assert fortunes are largely earned, i.e. merited, and therefore should not be, essentially, confiscated. We know, of course, that the best way to get rich in the U.S. is to have rich parents, but that's certainly an inconvenient point. As a self-described conservative, I'm all for Eisenhowerian tax rates on upper incomes, and for a death tax, in large part because plutocracies are inherently, viciously antidemocratic, and to defray the enormous and usually hidden costs of wealth accumulation. Great wealth in few hands destroys the possibility of a meritocracy for everyone else, imo.

I'm surprised it was Furtado, rather than Repoz, who posted this, since it has the potential to bust out into a 1200-post blowout replete with insults and warnings.

And, of course 95% percent of those posts will be by the flaming closet Bolsheviks who dominate political discussion at BTF.

Hey, robin. How's it going? Having been accused of standing with Stalin by a few cons on this site, let me do my part on getting us to 1200. From an anonymous post on the wonderful site, commondreams.org:

It is hard for anyone as superstitious as I am to look at a picture of John McCain and not see a bloated Nosferatu, a preview of the next stage of America’s dementia. Bush’s madness was at least understandable madness: a tiny brain, the moral depth of a Texas wood tick, a nature disposed to become the stooge of acquisitive masters. We’ve met people like Bush, making asses of themselves at fraternity parties, throwing up in roadhouse parking lots. But McCain is straight from the crypt, pasty white like you get after laying in a box of native earth in the basement of some Transylvanian castle, and black eyes that pop open when the sun has gone out of sight. I don’t understand him at all. Like Gollum he probably went mad after months of torture turned him into the homicidal, lopsided troll who today proposes himself as leader and spokesman for a nation of rudderless zombies. Something awful lies barely hidden inside John McCain, waiting for America to make one final stupid choice, itching to drag us the rest of the way into bedlam.

The author chose an unfortunate starting point; if (self-described) conservatives are so thrilled with meritocracy, why do they get so worked up over the inheritance tax? I'm just asking...

That's because, for certain people, merit is inherited, Rob.

41 posts in, and not one protest over Turner Classic Movies doing a marathon of Charlton Heston films on Friday night!

Damn them all to hell, Bruce!!

That's a terrible analogy. It's not about any sort of bias or prejudice, but the simple fact that lefthanded throwers at 3B, SS, and 2B can't get the job done,

What? Of course it's biased and prejudicial. You see a lefthander thrower, and you immediately decide they cannot play SS. I'm sure there are hundreds of little league teams where there is a lefthanded thrower who would make a much better SS than whoever is there but doesn't even get a chance to prove it.

And if you are going to use Schwartz's analogy to affirmative action, who are the analogous lefthanded throwers in society who "can't get the job done?"

What? Of course it's biased and prejudicial. You see a lefthander thrower, and you immediately decide they cannot play SS. I'm sure there are hundreds of little league teams where there is a lefthanded thrower who would make a much better SS than whoever is there but doesn't even get a chance to prove it.

Little Leaguers rarely are expected to throw someone out from the hole. It doesn't happen much at the level, so lots of lefties play short when they're eight. Later on, when you're expected to do this, as well as pivot on the DP, a lefty can't get it done.

This must mean something different than it did when I was in school. The federalists favored a strong federal government whereas the anti-federalists (Jeffersonian Republicans?) favored a weaker federal government with the individual states holding greater power. When did this change?

You're right. Federalism , however, as a concept, is the division of power between federal and local government. The disagreement comes in on how much should go to each one.

Finally, I find that I am much more principled when discussing other people's money.

Little Leaguers rarely are expected to throw someone out from the hole. It doesn't happen much at the level, so lots of lefties play short when they're eight. Later on, when you're expected to do this, as well as pivot on the DP, a lefty can't get it done.

You proved his point. Little Leaguers are rarely expected to throw someone out from the hole, however left handers are still often excluded.

By selecting in this way, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Please don't take this as a literal analogy, but the dynamic is similar to someone coming in after slavery and saying, "Blacks can't do higher professions because almost none of them can read!"

Even if a left-handed player magically makes it through little league and IS the best option at those positions in HS, they are almost certainly not going to get the job.

So they would have to just organically develop major league level skills without ever getting the opportunity to play the positions.

Just because the Federalists wanted more centralization than the Anti-Federalists doesn't mean that they wanted the same level of centralizaion as, say, comtemporary Ancien Regime France, or the London-dominated empire they had just left, or the modern US. Or the current NFL and NBA with their strong commissioners' offices. Federalism was a centralizing idea, but to a point it was so mainly in that it was opposing a decentralizing idea. The word "federation" implies a union of consituent bodies, which further implies that those bodies have some significance. Switzerland is a federation but it has a central government; France is not a federation even though it does have its provinces.

That said, I think that the "federalism" of the MLB doesn't really work, in part because you're really looking at 30 commercial entities running the show in co-operation and competition with the union. It's too limited to be federal. I might use the term "oligarchic".

however left handers are still often excluded.

I disagree. If a lefty is your best player when he's 9 years old, he'll play short on the days when he's not pitching. I see them all the time. However, when they get to high school, it would take an MLB-draftable skill-set to be quick enough to overcome the loss of time associated with turning your body all the way around to throw. As a result, most of those kids go play center field. That's a position that's enormously important when they're in HS, but didn't matter much at all 5-6 years earlier.

I get what you're saying, but as a little league coach with a current SS that's left-handed, I find it hard to believe that other coaches wouldn't come to the same conclusion I have. At the same time, I also think that someday in the future, he'll move to the outfield because he's a lefty, and his handedness won't be a disadvantage for him there at all.

It is hard for anyone as superstitious as I am to look at a picture of John McCain and not see a bloated Nosferatu, blah blah blah

That's good stuff there, downright poetic!

Hey, did you happen to notice that Obama has just stuck his foot in his big mouth yet again?

Totally overrated, not yet ready for prime time player. McCain will make a very good President.

Baseball is sartorially libertarian.

I remember a game maybe 5-10 years ago where one manager complained about an opposing player's undershirt in violation of the rules and the other manager said the pitcher's glove was a forbidden color, and both had to change.

It seems to me like rules 1.11 through 1.16 are pretty statist. :)

However, when they get to high school, it would take an MLB-draftable skill-set to be quick enough to overcome the loss of time associated with turning your body all the way around to throw.

Is that really true? I mean, it makes intuitive sense that it's harder, but so much harder that a lefty would be so disadvantaged that they could not handle the position?

I've always felt like right-handed 1B are disadvantaged in terms of fielding because the glove is on the wrong side for force plays, but it doesn't stop players from developing as 1B if they are right-handed.

Hey, robin. How's it going? Having been accused of standing with Stalin by a few cons on this site, let me do my part on getting us to 1200.

Life is going pretty well. You? I am headed up to LA tomorrow to watch the Lakers play the Spurs. I don't see McCain in terms that are nearly as negative as you seem to, although that is a funny rant for its metaphorical over-the-topness, particularly the "Texas wood tick" line. Why are you so down on McCain? Similarities to W?

Totally overrated, not yet ready for prime time player. McCain will make a very good President.

The results in PA and IN will be a good indicator as to whether your prediction will come true. But there is a long way to go, and your opinions are not exactly the best barometer of Obama's chances.

This must mean something different than it did when I was in school. The federalists favored a strong federal government whereas the anti-federalists (Jeffersonian Republicans?) favored a weaker federal government with the individual states holding greater power. When did this change?

That's because there are actually three options. The anti-federalists were advocates of a confederation which States are almost completely sovereign which ultimately means no central government at all. The opposite position from this is not federalism but a unitary central government similar to France in which districts are administrative units but have little or no autonomy. Federalism is a combination of these two positions. It has a strict separation of powers in which the states (or provinces) have autonomy in selected areas but which maintains a central government with power to govern those areas that are of common concern. The anti-federalist argument was that this compromise would ultimately result in the States giving up their autonomy. For better or for worse this has more or less happened. The result is that at the time to be a federalist appeared to mean that you were in favour of a strong central government while today to be a federalist usually means to be in favour of localization and State's rights. However the truth is that Federalism is a qualitative principle of how government should be organized not a quantitative measure of who holds what power.

The article's cute, and I'm sure a big hit with its intended market,

that is the way I took it too. I really think you can take pretty much anything and make it appear analogous to anything you want. You just focus on the similarities and ignore the differences, seems pretty straight forward. I don't know what is the problem with a simple fun article. I'm not conservative in most aspects of my belief system, but I find it hard to get worked up over a simple fun little article, that is written by a guy who is a conservative, that prefers baseball over football and is having --again this word-- a little fun showing why in a way his target audience would appreciate.

41 posts in, and not one protest over Turner Classic Movies doing a marathon of Charlton Heston films on Friday night!
Bruce, you usually don't play the provocateur but that was funny.
I saw a little of the interview by Robert Osborne of TCM and Heston came across as self-effacing and honest in his responses. Not that Osborne is a in-his-prime Mike Wallace or anything but it was interesting to hear Heston talk about some of the decisions he made during his film career.

My parents met Heston and his wife in the late 1940s, when he was a struggling stage-TV actor in New York. They kept in touch, and the Hestons sent us Christmas cards for many years.

Our family disagreed with Heston's politics in the final few decades of his life, but he did march with Martin Luther King in the 1960s, served several years as head of the Screen Actors Guild and helped establish the American Film Institute. He did a lot for the craft of acting and for the film industry, and it's an injustice to his memory to paint him as a Limbaugh-type right-winger. Life transcends mere ideology.

It boggles my mind that anyone would want to beat up on Charlton Heston merely because he was a big 2nd Amendment defender. I have a sinking feeling that Michael Moore's stunningly dishonest and manipulative hatchet-job on him in Bowling For Columbine plays a big role for left-wingers of my age group. Other than that, he's certainly not a right-wing caricature - other than the NRA (an organization with an increasingly bipartisan constituency, I might point out), what is there? Supporting Reagan? Congratulations, so did 60% of the country.

Whatever...I'm just tired of hearing my liberal friends make nasty and ignorant cracks about Heston over the last few days.

N.B. As for the linked article, it's pretty dumb. And I say that as a conservative who's more than happy to be pandered to over something like this. The analogies are just too strained. Right now the only "must-read" writer on National Review is, IMO, Victor Davis Hanson. Whether you agree or disagree with the man, he writes with more gravitas and classically-educated intelligence than the rest of the regular staff combined.

It boggles my mind that anyone would want to beat up on Charlton Heston merely because he was a big 2nd Amendment defender. I have a sinking feeling that Michael Moore's stunningly dishonest and manipulative hatchet-job on him in Bowling For Columbine plays a big role for left-wingers of my age group. Other than that, he's certainly not a right-wing caricature - other than the NRA (an organization with an increasingly bipartisan constituency, I might point out), what is there? Supporting Reagan? Congratulations, so did 60% of the country.

every time I like to think that by being a liberal I almost have to be reasonable and logical and capable of seeing through crap, I'm reminded about the fact that there was some liberal human being on the planet that saw that movie and actually thought "there is a true documentary with no distortions, and that Charlton Heston guy is a jerk reactionary of tremendous proportions" then I'm left with the sad realization that people will believe anything someone with the same view point puts out. My brother actually thought this wasn't a farce of a movie. It just makes me sad. Yes I support some form of gun control, but that doesn't mean that this wasn't a piss poor movie which couldn't find the semblance of journalistic integrity. To call it a documentary does a disservice to the word documentary.

Like Gollum he probably went mad after months of torture turned him into the homicidal, lopsided troll

Classy.

Life is going pretty well. You? I am headed up to LA tomorrow to watch the Lakers play the Spurs. I don't see McCain in terms that are nearly as negative as you seem to, although that is a funny rant for its metaphorical over-the-topness, particularly the "Texas wood tick" line. Why are you so down on McCain? Similarities to W?

Not too bad, thanks. I'm looking for a cheap lot to build a strawbale or cob house on, which is daunting, but interesting. I'm envious of your Bball sched, though. I did think the writing in what I quoted had a nifty verve to it and, yes, McCain is too like Dub for my liking. On my planet, among other things, you don't get to sing cheery songs about bombings that will inevitably murder civilians, AND run for president. You just don't. Aside from that, McCain's indifference to the distinction between Shi'a and Sunni (as if we haven't just gotten a splendid lesson in the enourmous harm wrought be certain kinds of ignrance), his chronic flipflopping, his real willingness to begin a war with Iran, the lobbyists on the bus, and his assertion we need to cut corporate taxes, make his honest warrior shtik too much to bear. I don't think he'll be a bad president, I think he'll be a disaster. Damn. I did promise to be more openminded. What are your thoughts?

...and that Charlton Heston guy is a jerk reactionary of tremendous proportions...

I don't doubt that Heston was more complex than Moore was interested in detailing, but what do you make of the NRA and Heston staging pro-gun rallies in towns that had just suffered mass-murders committed with guns?

I don't doubt that Heston was more complex than Moore was interested in detailing, but what do you make of the NRA and Heston staging pro-gun rallies in towns that had just suffered mass-murders committed with guns?

the problem is that Moore fabricated a lot of that, he stitched and pasted comments from different locations and implied it was the same speech(even though the tie, background and lighting were different, people still believed that all the outtakes was taken from one particular speech, which they weren't) On top of that Moore implied that Heston came to the town because of the shootings, when he was already scheduled to speak before the shootings happened.


I'm anti-NRA because they distort the 2nd amendment, but Heston wasn't staging rallies around the shootings or even because of the shootings.

Putting politics aside, I'll remember Heston first and foremost for Planet of the Apes, one of the favorite movies of my youth. Man, he was good in that, with some memorable lines, like "You damn dirty ape!" and the reaction he has to seeing the Statue of Liberty at the end of the movie. Also, as I recall, they also made him kiss the female ape (Kim Hunter?) in a particularly memorable scene.

The results in PA and IN will be a good indicator as to whether your prediction will come true. But there is a long way to go, and your opinions are not exactly the best barometer of Obama's chances.

He looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck; there's simply no doubt about it folks: he's a duck. Seriously, at this point Obama may as well just start going around in public wearing a big button on his jacket that says "You suck, America" on it. I've seen and heard more than enough.

Pay close attention, write this down, and bookmark it, because I'm calling it right now: Barack and Michelle Obama, the spirit of his mother Stanley, Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, the Weather Underground; the whole stinking lot of them and their lousy, shitty, anti-American attitudes are never getting inside the White House.

63: I'm wondering how you think this anti-Americanism would manifest itself in terms of policy. Do you think Obama would intentionally work to enact legislation that would do America harm? If so, what?

Yeah, because the White House has had such high standards in recent history.

What about the founding fathers with all of their bigotry and stuff? Wasn't that a lot more anti-American than anything Obama's friends and family have done?

63: I'm wondering how you think this anti-Americanism would manifest itself in terms of policy. Do you think Obama would intentionally work to enact legislation that would do America harm? If so, what?

Not that you asked me, but... I'd like very much to see a realist in the White House, one that can acknowledge that along with our virtues, American is an ignorant, violent, backward country that needs a hell of a lot of work.

Continuing a deranged, bankrupting occupation seems more anti-American than getting kinda pissy about a history of racism and war crimes, but maybe that's just me...

Thanks for posting 61, cardsfanboy.

edit: this and that

As a self-described conservative, I'm all for Eisenhowerian tax rates on upper incomes, and for a death tax, in large part because plutocracies are inherently, viciously antidemocratic, and to defray the enormous and usually hidden costs of wealth accumulation. Great wealth in few hands destroys the possibility of a meritocracy for everyone else, imo.

But if you were a legitimate conservative, instead of trolling about it for your own amusement, you wouldn't care about being "antidemocratic," because democracy is not a conservative value, which is why our founding fathers were not democrats.

What? Of course it's biased and prejudicial. You see a lefthander thrower, and you immediately decide they cannot play SS. I'm sure there are hundreds of little league teams where there is a lefthanded thrower who would make a much better SS than whoever is there but doesn't even get a chance to prove it.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about adult professional players, not little leaguers. As a LL coach (age 7-8), of course I would and do ignore the handedness of the player when selecting positions. At this level, I'm simply looking for someone who can field ground balls and make a reasonably accurate throw to first in fewer than 2 bounces. At some point (high LL, HS, ...) everyone possesses this skill, and thus going to the hole and making the pivot becomes important, and the player's handedness becomes an issue. And even if the aforementioned MLB skill set lefty could handle the position in HS, I think you're doing him a disservice by playing him there, as he will absolutely not be able to compete at the professional level. It's simple geometry, nothing more. It is nothing like assuming the "nigras" aren't intelligent enough, and I'm offended that E-X brought it up, but that's par for the course for him I guess.

One of the disturbing things about Obama's speech about his pastor, as now clarified in his speech about Pennsylvanians, is his view of the role of religion.

Liberals used to (claim to) )view the government as a safety net, to fill the gaps that the private sector, including private charity, including religion, couldn't. But Obama -- and I doubt he's different from most liberals in this regard --views religion as the gap filler. When the state doesn't do a good enough job, then people have to turn to religion.

I respect you for not using handedness to determine position with 7-8 year olds.

But you are not all of LL coaches, and there are certainly plenty who do move kids off of the position they enjoy most and are best at because they are "wrong" handed.

As for your assumption that simple geometry would prevent a lefty at certain positions, I would assume that the same would go for a guy with one hand, or who holds his bat at a ridiculous angle.

Professional athletes are not uniform. It's possible that no one could handle the position at a ML level, but we certainly don't have any evidence that the geometry is a complete disqualifier. What we do know is that Managers refusing to develop someone at the position is indeed a complete disqualifier, so I don't think that it's wrong to point the finger at that before we have evidence to the contrary, and if that offends you, I'm sorry.

"I'm simply looking for someone who can field ground balls and make a reasonably accurate throw to first in fewer than 2 bounces."

Ok, I'll leave the kids out of it. My memory from playing and umpiring was that they still didn't play LH at SS. The point still stands, however, that at the higher levels, it is a bias that keeps LH from getting an opportunity to play SS. Simply because there are good reasons for this bias, the issue is still prejudged.

"It is nothing like assuming the "nigras" aren't intelligent enough, and I'm offended that E-X brought it up,"

Actually, if you look at the article, it's Schwartz who is comparing lefthanders trying to play SS to minorities.

As for your assumption that simple geometry would prevent a lefty at certain positions, I would assume that the same would go for a guy with one hand, or who holds his bat at a ridiculous angle.

A one handed infielder, sure. Jim Abbot had about 99% of his value in his fully formed left arm. The fact that he had no right hand was a curiosity, and a minor demerit to his value. As a SS? Even if he were otherwise Ozzie Smith to the 10th power, he would not, could not play SS at any level above HS. As for the latter, I have no idea what that means.

It's possible that no one could handle the position at a ML level,

No, it is extremely unlikely.

but we certainly don't have any evidence that the geometry is a complete disqualifier. What we do know is that Managers refusing to develop someone at the position is indeed a complete disqualifier, so I don't think that it's wrong to point the finger at that before we have evidence to the contrary, and if that offends you, I'm sorry.

Well, what are you going to do? Let the lefty develop in the OF where it is possible he can thrive, or try to see if he is the one in a thousand who can use his quickness to overcome his awkward throwing angle?

The difference between that position and the racist one you brought up, is that there is was no evidence that blacks could succeed, only a prejudicial notion, whereas there is evidence that a lefty is at an extreme disadvantage at SS. Maybe not direct evidence, but provable, demostrative, evidence nonetheless.

that there is was no evidence that blacks could succeed

The double tense here (is was) is pretty interesting. If we want to talk about the present, then sure, the racial stereotypes of the segregationist era were not backed by evidence. However, the segregationists themselves certainly thought there was lots of provable and demonstrative evidence.

I think it's fair to say that most supporters of segregation were as convinced of the inferiority of black people as we are about the inability of a LH to play SS.

This thread has remained disturbingly on-topic so far. Arki's trolling has been largely disregarded and we're still talking about the original article. Primates, you keep surprising me.

Unrelated musical observation: The Jam's All Mod Cons album is immensely better than I remember it being when I first heard it years ago. And "Strange Town" is one firecracker of a single.

63: I'm wondering how you think this anti-Americanism would manifest itself in terms of policy. Do you think Obama would intentionally work to enact legislation that would do America harm? If so, what?

Man, Joey's a (predictable) barrel of laughs even when I've got him on "ignore."

63: I'm wondering how you think this anti-Americanism would manifest itself in terms of policy. Do you think Obama would intentionally work to enact legislation that would do America harm? If so, what?

I back Obama with trepidation, not because of who you can play X degrees of Kevin Bacon with using Obama, nor because of his lack of experience. He's a Sox fan, and as a Cubs fan, I worry he'll lower the middle IF tariff in Chicago, and our market will be flooded with cheap, imported 2B -- at a time when we cannot even find big league work for Eric Patterson.

Pay close attention, write this down, and bookmark it, because I'm calling it right now: Barack and Michelle Obama, the spirit of his mother Stanley, Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, the Weather Underground; the whole stinking lot of them and their lousy, shitty, anti-American attitudes are never getting inside the White House

.

You may well be right. If Obama is the nominee, IMO, it is going to come down to the stuff you are pissed off about vs. McCain's stated desires to continue many of Bush's unpopular policies. But again, as your earlier prediction about Hillary Clinton showed, you are, uh, a bit "out of touch" with those of us who favor Democrats.

But Obama -- and I doubt he's different from most liberals in this regard --views religion as the gap filler

You are either just having an off-day or showing the depths of your prejudice against the character of those who don't share your politics. My guess is the latter, in spite of the weak qualifier. I won't deconstruct Obama's remarks or his explanation; we did that the last time to largely no purpose. But people who view religion as a "gap filler" tend to be atheists and agnostics with a certain mentality about organized religion and/or about life, and that is not always an ideological issue. FWIW, I know "statist" Democrats who are disgusted by people who believe in what you believe in and go to church every Sunday; (I am an agnostic) I also know a couple of atheist Libertarians who are totally contemptuous of organized religion.

To be sure, there are probably more liberals who are that way than conservatives, but it not as neat a divide as you suggest.

What are your thoughts?

We will know more in the months to come. McCain is being largely left alone right now by the media, but as I said a few weeks ago, once the Democrats choose a nominee, the media will turn its baleful eye on him and we will see how he handles it. As to my own thoughts, I see him as a man with some good personal qualities, reasonable intelligence, a lot of basic guts that I wouldn't have had in the same circumtances, but also as a traditional Repub politician with whom I have substantial disagreements on 3 or 4 core issues. Your view of him is far more harsh, and I too have been disturbed by some of his remarks about foreign policy.

I'd like very much to see a realist in the White House, one that can acknowledge that along with our virtues, American is an ignorant, violent, backward country that needs a hell of a lot of work.

I tend to agree, and dealing with foreigners all the time as I do, I tell them that America is a great country, and also a country that has its share of blind spots, historical and intellectual backwardness, and problems. I too would like to see a president who looks at it like that, as I think Obama does, but in that I am IMO in the minority.

legitimate conservative

Which is? Not Bush, I assume. You, I assume. Goldwater? Reagan? Paul?

Do you think Obama would intentionally work to enact legislation that would do America harm? If so, what?

You didn't ask me, but I think in terms of foreign policy, he would be watched so carefully that even if he wanted to do stuff that was "anti-American" to some (and I don't think he does) he couldn't. His position on the war is pretty mainstream, actually.

Domestically, he is a liberal Demo. Some think that "would do America harm"; some don't.

The real issue, as Joey said, is "attitude."

The Jam's

Always liked them.

American is an ignorant, violent, backward country that needs a hell of a lot of work.

An Elijah Dukes among nation states?

RobinRed, look at what Obama said this time around:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

ISTM that he's discounting the possibility that they actually care about religion for its own sake; it's that they "cling to" it because government has let them down.

I know what he said, David. I read the transcript in its entirety, listened to the audio, watched the video of the town hall in Indiana in which he addressed it, watched the video today in which he addressed it again, and I don't see the point in a back-and-forth deconstruction, since we are both biased and unlikely to shift off position.

My point was that I don't think "most" liberals see religion as you are claiming Obama's remark shows he sees it. Many do, but I think the "gap-filler" attitude is not really tied to political ideology all the time as you suggest.

ISTM that he's discounting the possibility that they actually care about religion for its own sake; it's that they "cling to" it because government has let them down.

I didn't get that at all. The question, and the answer, poorly phrased as it was, was about what was swaying blue-collar votes in the Rustbelt. He's suggesting that people in those locales have become frustrated about the repeated empty promises of economic revival for their region, which they've gotten from both Republican and Democratic candidates for decades now. So in their frustration, they've given up on believing those politicians' economic plans, or at least given up on deciding their vote based on those plans, and end up basing their vote instead on other issues: gun rights, or religion (abortion and gay marriage), or demogoguery about immigrants or trade policy.

My parents met Heston and his wife in the late 1940s, when he was a struggling stage-TV actor in New York. They kept in touch, and the Hestons sent us Christmas cards for many years.

Our family disagreed with Heston's politics in the final few decades of his life, but he did march with Martin Luther King in the 1960s, served several years as head of the Screen Actors Guild and helped establish the American Film Institute. He did a lot for the craft of acting and for the film industry, and it's an injustice to his memory to paint him as a Limbaugh-type right-winger. Life transcends mere ideology.

Well said, TerpNats. Politics isn't everything, thank God. Although I don't think I could ever sit through any of Heston's movies.

ISTM that he's discounting the possibility that they actually care about religion for its own sake; it's that they "cling to" it because government has let them down.

I didn't get that at all. The question, and the answer, poorly phrased as it was, was about what was swaying blue-collar votes in the Rustbelt. He's suggesting that people in those locales have become frustrated about the repeated empty promises of economic revival for their region, which they've gotten from both Republican and Democratic candidates for decades now. So in their frustration, they've given up on believing those politicians' economic plans, or at least given up on deciding their vote based on those plans, and end up basing their vote instead on other issues: gun rights, or religion (abortion and gay marriage), or demogoguery about immigrants or trade policy.

Nice to see that at least one person isn't buying into the Hillary and McCain bullshlt about this wholly manufactured controversy. Obviously Obama could have put it better, but just as obviously he wasn't putting down religion.

Of course then there's Joey's well-thought out consideration of the whole Obama phenomenon, which pretty much distills the entire Obama = Satan POV into eight E-Z to read panels. And DID YOU KNOW THAT HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN?????!!!!!

ISTM that he's discounting the possibility that they actually care about religion for its own sake; it's that they "cling to" it because government has let them down.

When we talk about a phenomenon, I've never thought for a minute that it means we are discounting the possibility that it might not be applicable in every situation.

I've seen people using this quote against Obama and in every single case, they are invoking this same logical fallacy--that just because Obama says correctly that there are people who are bitter and that sometimes leads them to embrace certain values, it means that he is implying that anyone who has those values must being doing so disingenuously.

"What about the founding fathers with all of their bigotry and stuff?"

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

X,

Are you making reference to Jefferson's hatred of the English? Or Adams's dislike of the French? Or both?

McCain will make a very good President.

Honestly, this is the first time since the campaign began that I've seen someone not directly related to McCain's campaign say this. I'm sure many Republicans (and even many conservatives!) are going to vote for McCain because they think Obama/Clinton is too liberal/evil for America; I just don't believe there're many people who honestly believe McCain would make a good President.

Honestly, this is the first time since the campaign began that I've seen someone not directly related to McCain's campaign say this. I'm sure many Republicans (and even many conservatives!) are going to vote for McCain because they think Obama/Clinton is too liberal/evil for America; I just don't believe there're many people who honestly believe McCain would make a good President.

I do. I supported him in 2000, and supported him all along in 2008. Something wrong with that?

Are you making reference to Jefferson's hatred of the English? Or Adams's dislike of the French? Or both?

You could probably ding Jefferson on the first definition, given how much of a major French apologist he was, even as the bodies were piling up and liberties were going out the window.

I do. I supported him in 2000, and supported him all along in 2008. Something wrong with that?

Not at all; I'm just surprised. I'm not kidding when I say that I literally have not seen anyone not working with/for McCain say that he'll be a great president. I just haven't seen it — and I lurk around RedState, Powerline, and several of the larger righty blogs. I just haven't seen it.

For what it's worth, I thought McCain circa 1999 was a brilliant candidate. McCain 2008 is a totally different candidate.

Nice to see that at least one person isn't buying into the Hillary and McCain bullshlt about this wholly manufactured controversy. Obviously Obama could have put it better, but just as obviously he wasn't putting down religion.

Ah, the typical Andy response of failing to address a point and instead accusing people of repeating what someone else is saying. It's not at all "obvious," though I don't think he was consciously doing so.

I've seen people using this quote against Obama and in every single case, they are invoking this same logical fallacy--that just because Obama says correctly that there are people who are bitter and that sometimes leads them to embrace certain values, it means that he is implying that anyone who has those values must being doing so disingenuously.

I didn't say anything about "disingenuous." I'm not accusing Obama of saying that people who are religious are insincere about it -- just that they wouldn't feel the need for it if the government were doing its job. He says the same thing about guns, remember.

And as for whether this applies to everyone who has those values, it applies to a large enough percentage (in Obama's view) for him to make a point of it.

And as for whether this applies to everyone who has those values, it applies to a large enough percentage (in Obama's view) for him to make a point of it.

Sure. Do you disagree? How small a percentage would it have to be to be insignificant in a close election? 2%? 1%?

Certainly there's at least that many who are bitter than the government is not doing it's job and have picked up other pet issues to latch onto.

You're right. Federalism , however, as a concept, is the division of power between federal and local government. The disagreement comes in on how much should go to each one.

At this point, I am obliged to quote Robert Benchley on the Federalists:

"The Federalists (as I have told you again and again until I am sick of it) thought that the Federal Government ought to have the power to rule the various states with a rod of iron. A good way to remember this is by means of an old rhyme: "The Federalists thought that the Federal Government ought to have the power to rule the various states with a rod of iron. Rum-tiddy-um-tum-tum-tiron!"

(note: this is meant to be funny, not to correct you, since you were drawing a difference between the Federalists and the general concept of Federalism)

"people in those locales have become frustrated about the repeated empty promises of economic revival for their region, which they've gotten from both Republican and Democratic candidates for decades now. So in their frustration, they've given up on believing those politicians' economic plans, or at least given up on deciding their vote based on those plans"

This raises an interesting question: Why is it that many rustbelt locales, which 30 years ago lost or for 30 years have been losing their economic engines, have not succeeded in recreating themselves? (Note: I'm sure some have; I'm focusing on the ones which have not.)

I don't empirically know the answer. I just have an educated guess, based in part by my own personal observations and influenced (of course) by my biases. I think it mostly has to do with two factors:

1. The stridently pro-union, anti-entrepreneurial worker-culture in the rustbelt region, which grew up in the post-WWII era and still affects the mindsets there. In an era of limited competition, that culture was tolerable. But by the early 1970s, when Europe and Japan had rebuilt and global trade was liberalized, it could not compete. Since that time, industry after industry has either failed or fled.

I think one of the main reasons new companies don't want to open shop in those towns is because they sense that the workers will want to unionize, and thus destroy the competitiveness and innovation of the companies. They can't find workforces in the rustbelt which are flexible and willing to be paid for their productivity, not just cashing a paycheck for showing up.

Eventually, I would guess, that 1950s worker culture will be completely gone. And at that point, industries will return.

2. A large skills-deficit for non-college educated workers. Because of mechanization and competition from low-wage foreign labor, labor-intensive factories will never return in large numbers to the United States, let alone to the rustbelt. However, factories which require high-skilled, but not college educated workers, have trouble finding workers who combine facility in math and computers with skills with machinery and welding and so on. Europe (particularly Germany and France) has done a better job than we have, training this kind of workforce.

Nice to see that at least one person isn't buying into the Hillary and McCain bullshlt about this wholly manufactured controversy. Obviously Obama could have put it better, but just as obviously he wasn't putting down religion.

Ah, the typical Andy response of failing to address a point and instead accusing people of repeating what someone else is saying. It's not at all "obvious," though I don't think he was consciously doing so.

Nice of you to make that gracious concession, David, smarmy as it was. I suppose you can now wax even more noble and say that it "might have been" a "Freudian slip."

Politics indeed makes for strange bedfellows, and the spectacle of David Nieporent in the sack with Hillary Clinton and John McCain is indeed one of the more curious menages a trois of this campaign, though in David's case I don't think that he's consciously dreaming of anyone other than his wife.

Professional athletes are not uniform. It's possible that no one could handle the position at a ML level, but we certainly don't have any evidence that the geometry is a complete disqualifier. What we do know is that Managers refusing to develop someone at the position is indeed a complete disqualifier,...

When I was a kid, probably around 8 or 9, as a lefty I just didn't play the infield except for 1b. It wasn't done in the majors, so we didn't do it in the fields in the town where I grew up. I'm pretty sure we also knew exactly what position batted where, without exception. Your SS was fast, a light-hitter, and therefore batted first. Yor 2b was fast, a light-hitter, and a good bunter, so he batted second. It was like the nine commandments. C batted 8th, always, the pitcher batter ninth.

Politics indeed makes for strange bedfellows, and the spectacle of David Nieporent in the sack with Hillary Clinton and John McCain...

Aw, Christ, Andy. There goes breakfast.

We will know more in the months to come. McCain is being largely left alone right now by the media, but as I said a few weeks ago, once the Democrats choose a nominee, the media will turn its baleful eye on him and we will see how he handles it.

True. A lot hinges on whether McCain does anything ridiculous. If he doesn't, the general is his to lose. Two weeks ago I had a moment in which I thought once people got to know McCain Obama would glide to a 55-45, 300 Electoral College vote victory. Then I remembered the presidents we've given the world since my childhood, and what is important to the majority of Americans, and came to my senses.

McCain can win in one of two ways.

He can continue to try to make an honest case for continuing the war in Iraq, much as he's done over the past year, acknowledging that this isn't a popular view, but hoping that his power of persuasion will carry the day. He can supplement this with his relative experience in military affairs compared to the Democrats, and with his biography. He can further make an equally honest case for the free market as the better solution to our current financial crisis, as opposed to the sort of increased regulation that both Democratic candidates are calling for.

This would be known as "campaigning on the issues." And win or lose, it would leave a clean taste in our mouths.

Or he can steal Hillary's notebook, listen to some of his more sleazeball advisors, and try to demonize Obama on a personal level, seizing upon every word of Obama's that can be re-formatted into a Halloween mask, in order to scare those voters whose attention span is strictly limited to sound bites.

If McCain chooses this path, it will demonstrate one thing above all: He doesn't have any confidence in his ability to convince us of his rightness of his ideas. He'll be just another Swift Boater, if only one of the more ironic ones. He'll be just one more Al Davis of politics.

I'm betting on #2.

If the polls show him behind, you get bet your last dollar the GOP will pull out all the stops to paint Obama as a more cleancut-looking version of Al Sharpton.

Professional athletes are not uniform. It's possible that no one could handle the position at a ML level, but we certainly don't have any evidence that the geometry is a complete disqualifier. What we do know is that Managers refusing to develop someone at the position is indeed a complete disqualifier,...

Well, I'll put it this way. There certainly could be a left handed thrower with an arm strong enough to get the ball to first from the hole or make the pivot on the DP as quick as a right handed thrower despite his awkward positioning. But if such a super strong left arm existed, he would be made a pitcher in a heartbeat. At that point it becomes an issue of proper allocation of resources. Why waste the potential lefty ace at SS when there are oodles and scads of right handers who can do the job just as well?

When I was a kid, probably around 8 or 9, as a lefty I just didn't play the infield except for 1b. It wasn't done in the majors, so we didn't do it in the fields in the town where I grew up. I'm pretty sure we also knew exactly what position batted where, without exception. Your SS was fast, a light-hitter, and therefore batted first. Yor 2b was fast, a light-hitter, and a good bunter, so he batted second. It was like the nine commandments. C batted 8th, always, the pitcher batter ninth.

Anecdotes are swell, but on the team I currently coach, my lineup starts 2B, P (fielding position only. At this level we use a coach operated pitching machine, with a fielder standing next to it), 3B, SS, 1B. In other words, the five best fielders* are also the five best hitters and I play them accordingly. And so does every other team I have played. On every team, the SS is the #3 or #4 hitter.

Of those 5 players, only the P is at his first year at this level and he happens to be the only lefty on the team. I have little doubt that whoever has him next year will put him at SS or 3B.

* Yes, I know defensive spectrum an all that, but at this level, the 1B is probably the most important position, as you have to have someone who can actually catch a ball and few 7-8 year olds can do that consistently.

Anecdotes are swell,...

I wasn't defending the arrangement, but rather reporting how some kids of a certain age get it into their heads that there's one right way to do something. Some of that was derived from inflexibility at the ML level, which we mistook for the way things should be, and some from childrens' dislike of ambiguity.

This would be known as "campaigning on the issues." And win or lose, it would leave a clean taste in our mouths.

Or he can steal Hillary's notebook, listen to some of his more sleazeball advisors, and try to demonize Obama on a personal level, seizing upon every word of Obama's that can be re-formatted into a Halloween mask, in order to scare those voters whose attention span is strictly limited to sound bites.

McCain will do both.