That’s why the players association needs to drop its tone-deaf opposition to HGH blood tests. If Reyes is indeed innocent, he’s precisely the type of athlete who could benefit from this screening.
Coincidence or not, union chief Michael Weiner was in Port St. Lucie on Saturday, addressing the Mets on various issues, including PED’s. Like his predecessor, Donald Fehr, Weiner is telling his constituents not to worry, the union has their backs on HGH. The war will be waged on the “privacy” issue, which means we can forget about blood tests for at least another two years.
That’s just fine with the same group of ideologues that prolonged the juicing era 3-4 years longer that it should have. Fehr enabled his players’ rights over steroids, now it’s Weiner’s turn with HGH.
“Blood testing is much more complicated in terms of the safety issues,” Weiner was saying on Saturday. That’s another way of saying the union would rather wait for the more-easily administered urine test, knowing that’s years away from being implemented.
...Weiner, of course, knows all this.. He’s an intelligent man who’s looking to hold onto his job the way Fehr kept his for 23 years, from 1986-2009. Weiner isn’t about to forsake Fehr’s militancy in his first six months in office.
But times have changed. Drug-free players don’t want to be rounded up with the usual suspects anymore. This is Weiner’s chance to put his own, unique stamp on union of the coming decade. It’s his opening to be the leader to all his constituents, not just the stars looking for loopholes.
Repoz
Posted: March 14, 2010 at 03:20 AM |
179 comment(s)
|
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
General,
NY Mets,
Steroids
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
<U>Klapisch: Baseball needing HGH testing perfect example of why baseball needs HGH testing</U>
<U>Klapisch: Ben Rothelisberger sexual assault case perfect example of why baseball needs HGH testing</U>
<U>Klapisch: Failure of Donald of Islay to defeat Alexander Stewart at the Battle of Harlaw perfect example of why baseball needs HGH testing</U>
Between the visit to Canada and the "8 weeks of rest, no meds needed" and the conflicting reports by the Mets and Reyes, it seems like many fans believe he took HGH and think less of him for it.
If Reyes didn't, and he cares about his reputation, why wouldn't testing be good for him?
IMO the union was all about the stars years before PEDs.
If drug-free players who don’t want to be rounded up with the usual suspects comprise a majority of the MLBPA membership, then Weiner's opinion on the matter of blood testing won't make a damned bit of difference. You can say that the union has always been about the stars, but then you have to admit that the rank and file have always gone along. If the union opposes blood testing (and you think they're wrong to do so), then it's on all the players (or at least all but those who vote in favor of testing and work to convince their brethren to do likewise). Fehr wasn't a Jedi Master, and neither is Weiner.
It'd certainly be hard to avoid that conclusion. One would think that the drug-free players would welcome a chance to demonstrate that they've learned a lesson from the steroid fiasco, but up to this point that's yet to be demonstrated.
But maybe they'd just want to use this as one more bargaining chip....As one of the players in the Tank McNamara strip says, "What's the point of having virtue if you can't monetize it?"
IMHO the typical fan is not as jaded about PEDs as many BBTFers. Why should MLB and MLBPA risk fan apathy and attendant loss of revenue by even the appearance of PED use? Some actions, like owner revenue sharing, are needed for the collective good, and not just for the good of some individuals. (Apologies to the libertarians.)
Because the testing is not perfect (I'm assuming) and it would lead to some players getting false positives--a stain that they would never be able to remove from their name regardless of how many tests they took afterward. And because, even if Reyes had been undergoing testing leading up to this problem, a certain faction of the press and fans would still assume that he simply found a way to beat the test and they'd be calling for some further invasion into players' privacy.
Aside from all that, though--if you haven't killed anyone and dumped their remains in your closet, why don't you want the police searching your home everyday? When you were in a bad mood the other day, we all thought it might be because you had killed someone and dumped them in your closet. This sort of search would exonerate you, dontcha see?
How about it, Bob? Surely one man's privacy concerns shouldn't stand in the way of the good of the game.
PED testing is a workplace/employment rule, like no drug use or no guns in the clubhouse. No one says you have to be a professional baseball player.
Comparing this to a constitutional freedom from unreasonable search and seizure in one's home is specious. Not all searches for the public good are deemed unreasonable: DWI checkpoints, metal detectors at airports and wanding/pat-downs at sporting events.
That's a legitimate point for the union to raise, but it's not as if there couldn't be ways to prevent this.
In stages, you'd want to
1. Set up a registry of MLB approved doctors who would have the sole authority to prescribe any sort of steroids or HGH type treatments for injury;
2. Let players who want to have steroids or HGH for injury treatment go to those doctors for a time-limited prescription;
3. Let any player who tests positive outside those timeframes be allowed to view the results of the test and offer alternate explanations---with the aid of any outside counsel or expert witnesses he chooses---before the test results are made public. Any reasonable doubt as to the positive result's validity should be resolved in the player's favor, the result negated, and the player's record remain clean.
That isn't a perfect setup, I'm sure, but the point is that there are two worthy objectives---eliminating PEDs from baseball and keeping innocent players' reputations intact---that aren't irreconcilably opposed to one another. An enlightened players' union---and a pitcher like Andy Pettitte---should be able to recognize this and work out a solution.
BobM, why do you hate everyone else's privacy? The examples you cite are in place for public safety of large numbers of people and are still pretty controversial.
Vlad, the image of Milton Bradley will have me laughing for a while.
I object to hyperbole, reductio ad absurdum, and ad hominem attacks.
Because the typical fan doesn't give a #### about PEDs. They may bemoan them, but when it comes time to vote with their dollar they say "we don't care". It's not as if MLB saw a spike in revenue or interest after implementing testing.
Because Miguel Tejada might have dumped a body in my closet.
*See what I did there :P
Darren, the "real world" right now finds far fewer reputations marred by leaked negated results than it has reputations ruined by vague "steroid era" associations. Just look at any steroid thread here on BTF---where the Cliche of the Century seems to be "HOW DO WE KNOW that ____ didn't juice? Everyone was juicing back then"---if you doubt that. All you're doing with that line of rhetoric is trying to prevent any sort of testing at any point.
And still, you have players being tested for a substance for which there are questionable results on the field and questionable health results. How about we get those things pinned down before we start up the newest, latest witch hunt?
Fine, then just leave it as it is, with no testing for a banned substance until we know every last detail about it, and leave players like Reyes bearing the brunt of innuendo, just as innocent players in the "steroid era" are tarred by association in great part because back then they had no way of testing clean. That's an easy call from the outside, since it isn't your reputation at stake.
Radio station booted from Cardinals' spring training site for mocking McGwire.
"Oops, David N or Dan Sz posted something, I'd better say something about libertarianism to distract people!"
And you know this, how, exactly?
I think Jose Reyes has a pretty good shot of knowing what's better for Jose Reyes than any of us...
Well, my friend, this goes both ways. If the players are concerned about their "reputations" enough to go to a more rigorous drug testing program, then they can start asking for one, both within the MLBPA and in the media, one which includes blood testing. Lance Berkman has actually done this--maybe a couple of other guys.
To use one of your tropes, maybe you should find out who each team's player rep is and start an email campaign, and get some fans to join you, or organize a boycott one game a year until blood testing is in place. Saying MLB should have blood testing for hGH is an easy call to make from the outside, since it is not your privacy at stake.
I am in favor of some type of testing, and I am glad there is some in place, but I will leave it to the MLBPA and MLB to work out the specs. If I don't like it, I can watch the WNBA or something.
Yes there is. How effective it is or isn't is up for debate. My understanding is that false positives are much less of an issue than false negatives. Although 'false negative' probably isn't really the correct term. The detection window is ridiculously short. There are lots of questions surrounding Terry Newton's positive test (i.e. -- apparently he was targeted on the basis of other evidence of use and subjected to repeated testing until they were able to get one to turn up positive; many experts seem to doubt whether they ever would have caught him based solely on random testing). Also, Don Catlin, Selig's go-to guy on the issue, has said that "...in the regular testing, year-in and year-out, and short-notice testing, blood just isn't a part of it." link
As you well should, since it makes you look like a fool. I bet Saddam objected to the US using stealth technology when they blew up his army, too.
Let me let you in on a little secret here, to which I alluded earlier. MLB doesn't really want HGH testing. Sure, they'd like the shot of positive PR from looking like they're tough on drugs, but not enough to exchange anything of real value for it in collective bargaining. They save those chips to trade in for things that actually make them money. Thus, they've mustered up a compliant cadre of useful idiots in the media to bleat an emotional appeal (the last rhetorical refuge of the scoundrel), to see whether they can back the Union into giving them something for nothing. They could buy HGH testing from their partners in collective bargaining, but they'd rather try to steal it instead.
To put it in the popular vernacular, MLB needs to either pay up or shut up.
As secrets go, I gotta say this one's kinda dull.
As you say, they have no interest in testing, they are not stealing anything, they are just passing the buck to the MLBPA. If the MLBPA wants something for allowing testing, they have to go get it from the politicians.
However, you and I are in agreement, fool that I may be:
[19]
PED testing is merely a workplace rule, regardless of whether it is subject to collective bargaining.
It's a workplace rule which will be implemented when (a) either the owners are willing to exchange it for something of value or (b) when enough fans get disgusted, vote with their dollars, and the players feel an impact from the resulting revenue reduction.
It's not a moral imperative (owners) and it's certainly not some unconstitutional invasion of privacy (players).
And you know this, how, exactly?
How many players have had their reputations hurt by the leaking of test results which turned out to be untrue or falsely positive? Name as many as you can.
And how many columns (or BTF primates' arguments) have you read on the order of "we really can't be sure about_____, because he played in the steroid era"? Bagwell, Thome, even Pujols have had their reputations questioned for no greater reason than chronological coincidence, and those are but the first three cases that come to mind. If the overall ratio is any greater than 1 to 100, I'd be surprised.
---------------------
Let me let you in on a little secret here, to which I alluded earlier. MLB doesn't really want HGH testing. Sure, they'd like the shot of positive PR from looking like they're tough on drugs, but not enough to exchange anything of real value for it in collective bargaining.
As usual, reality mirrors parody, in this case the two Tank McNamara strips I linked to in #13. As if players should be somehow rewarded for doing the right thing in order to help clear their own names! Just what do you suggest? $10,000 per test?
Look carefully, and you can spot the permanent brown stain on his self-serving nose.
HGH does NOTHING to improve baseball performance. But twits like Klap Itch will never let the facts stand in their way.
If you don't like the terrifying truth, you should've picked "Dingers", chief.
Why is allowing someone to invade your body at their whim the "right thing" to do? And why aren't their names presumed to be clear, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary whatsoever?
Personally, I'd want more, but take it to the table and see what they say.
Only Andy knows.
How would you know which ones are true/"real positives" or not?
Why is allowing someone to invade your body at their whim the "right thing" to do?
It's the right thing to do if you don't want people to think you've got something to hide. I know damn well if I were a player I'd want to be tested, whether or not I felt it an insult to my character. In the absence of such testing, large segments of the public are going to make all kinds of assumptions based on ignorance and easy generalizations. That is not a good thing either for the player or for the game itself.
And why aren't their names presumed to be clear, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary whatsoever?
That's a question that's much better addressed to people like Bryant Gumbel, not me. What player have you seen me accuse of anything in the absence of evidence?
Just what do you suggest? $10,000 per test?
Personally, I'd want more, but take it to the table and see what they say.
Too bad that Fehr's job is already taken, but maybe you can grab on as Weiner's junior speechwriter.
How would you know which ones are true/"real positives" or not?
Well, it might help if you got specific. You can begin with by naming some players whose positive tests have been announced and who've denied the results. That would give us a starting point for assessing the damage.
And please note what I wrote in #20 above, just in case you're trying to imply that I'm in favor of simply dumping those test results out there prior to giving players a full chance to show that the test was in error for any reason. I take that false positive possibility as a serious question to be confronted.
Andy: I introduce you to the slippery slope in action. The one you repeatedly pretend doesn't exist and foolishly attempt to mock people for pointing out to you.
I'm not sure what you're implying here. I'm not advocating that the owners go over the union's head to implement blood testing. And I'm not saying that Weiner should attempt to force it on the union, which wouldn't get anyone anywhere. I'm saying that both Weiner and the union should see this as being in the players' own interests, and not muddle the issue by trying to force "reciprocity" in the form of anything other than strict safeguards to guard against the releasing of possibly false positive tests, such as I outlined in # 20 above.
We disagree. Agents, in the general sense, IMO are not merely ambassadors to whom their principals delegate their votes, but rather they are skilled in some narrow area in which the principals choose not to invest time and effort becoming experts. (Do lawyers always do what their clients say they want them to do?)
I would hope that the union directors have more knowledge and experience in industrial and labor relations than the players they represent.
For example, do you think Marvin Miller relied on his background as a labor economist and his understanding of supply and demand to agree with the owners, in the players' best interests, to limit free agency (via minimum service time and multi-year contracts), or do you think he polled Catfish Hunter and Andy Messersmith for his marching orders?
Really? I thought it was quite clear. Whenever you propose A, and I say, "No, because A will lead to B," you insist that it won't because precedents don't mean anything, we can just stop at whatever arbitrary point we want, and slippery slopes don't exist. And yet, here's an example of one invasion of privacy being used as an argument for another.
1. Bite me, Andy. You are getting worse and worse.
2. For a guy who takes the position that he will not agree that amphetamines are performance enhancing without 500 certified double blind tests and a written testimonial from 1,000 MLB players, your continued insistence, in the face of all evidence, that hGH doesn't do anything, is simply proof of complete, 100% intellectual dishonesty. Trollism, pure and simple.
No, he doesn't. He is not some statesman. He is nothing more than an appointed representative of a bargaining unit.
Steroid hysteria has been around for almost a decade now, and baseball keeps doing better and better.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
IOW, never.
Apparently they don't. Maybe they know what is in their own best interest better than you do.
Oh, I forgot, you're part of the BBTF liberal circle-jerk, that always knows what's better for people than they do.
[54]
So, what are you saying? Does HGH enhance performance?
If yes, why do you call people's legitimate concerns "hysteria"? Why should players have to take drugs without proper supervision or find doctors in Canada in order to compete?
Regardless, what's the harm in banning hGH if one can find an effective, non-invasive test and an administrative protocol that protects players' privacy?
If you were my lawyer and you said that to me, or if I found out that was how you worked, you'd be fired faster than you can say "Ayn Rand".
I expect to trust my attorney to make the right legal decisions for me. I can handle the moral decisions.
You're mixing apples and oranges.
hGH does nothing.
The steroid hysteria is a correct term for the vastly overblown reaction from people like . . . you. You can call it "legitimate concerns", but that doesn't make it so.
Rafael Palmeiro is the most prominent name that comes to mind.
Fine. That's a starting point. Do you think that Palmeiro was the victim of a false positive test? And do you want to list any names of players whose names had been released and who subsequently had been shown to have been the victims of any sort of a mistake? (I'm not saying that there haven't been any, but I don't remember any off the top of my head.)
Note that I fully support the right of players like Palmeiro to confront the results, with any outside help they wish, BEFORE their names are released. And that after hearing out their cases, if there's any ambiguity then the result should be voided and the name completely cleared and NOT released.
--------------------
2. For a guy who takes the position that he will not agree that amphetamines are performance enhancing without 500 certified double blind tests and a written testimonial from 1,000 MLB players, your continued insistence, in the face of all evidence, that hGH doesn't do anything, is simply proof of complete, 100% intellectual dishonesty. Trollism, pure and simple.
And what do you call someone who just invents positions whole hat? The first part of that statement is a legitimate parody of my position on greenies, and that's fair game, but when have I ever insisted that HGH "doesn't do anything?" I have no idea whether it "does anything," but that doesn't mean that it should be allowed in baseball without the sort of supervision I outlined in # 20 above. The fact that I'd be willing to allow such use under strict supervision doesn't mean that I have any particular position as to what good it might do, if any. There's absolutely nothing in anything I've written about HGH that would back up what you just wrote about my position. I'll leave it to you to acknowledge this.
Really? I thought it was quite clear. Whenever you propose A, and I say, "No, because A will lead to B," you insist that it won't because precedents don't mean anything, we can just stop at whatever arbitrary point we want, and slippery slopes don't exist. And yet, here's an example of one invasion of privacy being used as an argument for another.
David, I've never said that slippery slopes don't exist in some peoples' minds (in this case yours, in reaction to something bobm wrote), and I've never said that in some cases one or more of the three branches of government haven't used slippery slope logic to lead us down Ye Olde Primrose Path. What I've said is that you can't simply assume that the worst case scenario is bound to happen, and use that as an automatic reason to oppose a position.
Or better put, you can sometimes convincingly argue a slippery slope position as a reason to avoid taking the first step, but your argument has to contain more than mere conjecture, or cite cases that aren't relevant to the subject at hand. Perhaps it's just my non-lawyer frame of mind, but I simply don't see this seamless connection between Point A and Point H that you tend to find in so many places.
I found this paper gives some detail on the process. (Emphasis added)
So Miller negotiated a deal that did what the majority of players wanted it to do.
Or am I missing something?
DB
What did some restriction mean? Marshall wanted zero years and Bench wanted less than 10 years.
Miller had to:
1. unite the players behind him;
2. convince both stars and average players;
3. retain the support of players anxious to return to work;
4. fend off agitators like Marshall; and,
5. determine a reservation requirement in years, without any relevant economic data or history, that would satisfy ALL the players and that the owners would accept.
He was only saved from the danger of "total free agency" by the idiocy of the owners. That would have really tested Miller's organizing and PR skills.
Typo. I meant to say that your continued refusal to admit that hGH doesn't do anything.
Mea culpa.
I read "zero years" as no restrictions; I don't know how this can be interpreted as "some restrictions." This was the position held by Marhsall (and I would presume some other players), but, according to the quoted article, not by the majority of players.
"Less than ten years", as expressed by Bench seems to be a pretty good guideline as to what was meant by "some restrictions". Since the agreement Miller negotiated on the player's behalf (according to #64) called for free agency after six years, I would say that Miller met the "some restrictions" guidelines that the majority of players wanted in the agreement.
Not the way I read the excerpt that you provided. The majority of the players Miller represented did not want "total free agency"; so had the owners proposed it, it would have been met with the same rejection by the players as the owners proposal of "no free agency prior to ten years of service." In other words, the "idiocy of the owners" (to use your phrase) only prevented total free agency from being offered by the owners; not from being accepted as an agreement between the two parties.
Based upon the excerpt that you quoted in #64, it seems quite clear to me that Miller was negotiating an agreement that was in accordance with the desires of the majority of the players, whom he was representing. I don't see anything in your excerpt that would lead to a different conclusion, i.e., that Miller was negotiating an agreement that was in opposition to what the majority of players stated that they wanted.
DB
Typo. I meant to say that your continued refusal to admit that hGH doesn't do anything.
Mea culpa.
Okay, now you can cite some evidence for my "continued refusal to admit that hGH doesn't do anything." I may have been convinced of HGH's PED qualities at some point a few years ago, but everything I've read since then has made me more of an agnostic on the subject. But that agnosticism doesn't mean that I think that unsupervised HGH use by ballplayers should be allowed, or that I'm completely convinced that it has no potential PED qualities. My generic position about potential PEDs is simple: When in doubt, disallow it under any unsupervised conditions.
And if you read what I've actually written here instead of jumping to extrapolated conclusions based on a snarky post about BTF libertarians, you'd see that it boils down to two points:
1. I think that the players' union should freely and voluntarily agree to random blood testing, rather than putting itself in the same stupid PR position that it found itself in WRT steroids; and
2. I believe in the strongest possible safeguards to ensure that any player testing positive has the fullest chance to explain---with whatever representation he wishes---a benign reason for that result BEFORE his name is released or any penalty applied.
You can disagree with that all you want on grounds of either privacy or scientific illiteracy, and that's fine. I'm sure that in addition to being Hawaii's top lawyer you're also Hawaii's ace scientist. But if that position of mine constitutes "trolling," I'd like to know what position other than your own particular position isn't "trolling." You seem to apply that word sometimes with an awfully broad brush, more than anyone else I've seen around here.
IMO an offer of "total free agency" could have derailed the PA's plans to constrain the annual free agent supply.
I never said that Miller (or a union leader) would negotiate an agreement in opposition to his membership's interests or wishes. It's just that he wasn't a mere messenger of the players' wishes, but rather Miller really crafted the strategy to increase player compensation from whole cloth. When Miller took the job, most players were focused on narrow issues like contributions to their pensions.
As I said, if players decided they wanted hGH testing, Weiner should focus on getting that for the players. If they don't, it's not his job to decide that it's in their best interests and concede it to the owners or the public.
What really pisses me off is that with--as of last year--an aging 2Bman who's a real collapse candidate, a SS who played in all of 36 games, and a 3Bman who suffered a brain injury and did not play well after returning from that injury, the Mets went out and managed to "bolster" that delicate infield by resigning Alex Cora, his average defense, and his 630 OPS. Holy sh!t.
Not if those players don't mind being endlessly subject to rumor and speculation about PED use, simply by virtue of their being players. That's entirely up to them.
I'd rather their was a level playing field, but I'd much rather have a nation where we truly valued the right to privacy.
All that's great and noble, but don't expect that if players place their privacy above all other considerations, plenty of people won't start drawing conclusions about their reasons for doing so.
Some of us may limit those conclusions to players whose actual drug use gets outed. Others may play the "how do we know?" game and start speculating about any player whose muscles or numbers exceed their previous norms. There's probably no way for players to eliminate the latter class of morons (who seem to take particular delight in speculating about players in inverse proportion to any actual evidence of their drug use), but IMO the less ammunition you give to them, the better.
A lightbulb just went off, Andy - your arguments on this issue are analogous to those of any good democrat when faced with a choice between standing up for an important principle or giving in to ignorant public speculation.
Makes me wanna holler, throw up both my hands..
Had the owners offered total free agency, I don't think there's any way the players could have rejected it. Rejecting that would have called into question every argument they had against the reserve clause.
It's also my recollection that the turn of events went like this:
1. Arbitrator Peter Seitz struck down the reserve clause.
2. He gave both sides a period of time to come to a modified agreement, which they did.
Had there been no agreement at that point, the reserve clause would have been dead and every player a free agent. So either side could have had total free agency just by refusing to negotiate. But neither side wanted that.
It's all about threshold, especially for something like HGH, which naturally occurs in the body. What practically all drugs tests do is not a binary "is this substance in the system?" but "is there more than X parts per Y in the system?"
There is no perfect drug test. If you set X to be low enough to catch all of the guilty people, then you catch some innocents in the same net. If you actually ensure that there are no false positives, then you are always going to miss some people. This is true of even marijuana or cocaine (although those are examples of tests which accept many, many false negatives in order to ensure very few false positives). Unless you live in a plastic bubble, you are exposed to trace amounts of illegal drugs practically every day.
That said, try and convince your employer that your positive heroin test was a result of eating a whole lemon-poppy cake the night before and see how far it gets you. Or better yet, try and convince the sports media that you had a naturally high level of HGH on the day of the test. The general public practically doesn't believe in false positives OR false negatives. You can already hear certain members of the media all but convinced that Reyes is taking HGH because one possible symptom of use is elevated thyroid levels.
Shorter Andy: "I wouldn't personally steal your car if you left your keys in it, but you can't really complain if other people do. And even though I guess they probably shouldn't steal your car, it's much more important to criticize you than the thieves."
Shorter David: "Sure, I deliberately left my keys in my car right in the middle of Greenwich Village. But the most important fact to note is that stealing a car is illegal. And if you point out that I deliberately left my cars keys in the ignition instead of putting them in my pocket, you're obviously in cahoots with the thieves."
Unintentional socialists, finding unique ways to redistribute wealth to the masses.
So it's not unreasonable to suspect Reyes used hgh, but is it relevant that he perhaps sought unorthodox or even illegal treatments to try and recover from his injury? Besides questioning his judgement of doctors and medical treatment?
Next up, Andy defends the Hollywood Blacklist using the same logic.
This "mea culpa" occurred because Andy's comments appear to operate from the premise that HGH does something. Then when someone assumes that Andy is operating from such premise, Andy falls back on the weasely "I never said that HGH does anything."
This is why it's sometimes frustrating to have a discussion with Andy, and it's why he's constantly requoting lengthy portions of a discussion with the challenge "Show me where I ever said X!" Well, he never actually said X, but he said .5X and .3X and .2X, and so people assumed that all of that added up to X.
One would think at some point it would dawn on Andy that if he's constantly having to ask different people to show him where he said something, perhaps the problem is not them.
I deliberately leave my keys in my car all the time when I park it in the garage here in NYC -- as does everyone else who parks in the garage. You drop your car off and leave your keys in it so one of the attendants can put it away. If someone steals my car after I leave the deliberately leave the keys in it (*), does Andy think I'm not a victim?
Same thing happened when I left my rental car with the valet repeatedly over the weekend down in Florida.
(*) It's a 1997 Toyota Camry. They'd probably be doing me a favor if they stole it, though I don't believe I have theft insurance.
Seinfeld. The Smelly Car. "It's B.B.O.! Beyond B.O.!"
Next up, Andy defends the Hollywood Blacklist using the same logic.
Well, here's what one of my websites says about the Hollywood Blacklist. I wrote the text, and I'll be glad to sell you a copy of the poster at the BTF Family rate.
And yes, that's supremely logical: If you offer practical advice to someone who stands to be accused of something he didn't do, you're therefore "defending" his unjust attackers.
But funny, it isn't Jolly Old St. Neck Wound who goes around saying "how do we know that [Bagwell, Thome, Pujols, Belle, etc.] didn't take steroids?", thereby casting a net of innuendo over them. It's the self-styled BTF civil libertarians who seem to specialize in that sort of indiscriminate trashing.
Well, here's what I replied to Srul. If you have any evidence that contradicts anything I say below, feel free to mention it:
----------------------------
And what would you call people who deliberately leave their keys in the car? Idealists? Insurance scam artists?
I deliberately leave my keys in my car all the time when I park it in the garage here in NYC -- as does everyone else who parks in the garage. You drop your car off and leave your keys in it so one of the attendants can put it away. If someone steals my car after I leave the deliberately leave the keys in it (*), does Andy think I'm not a victim?
As if there's no distinction between the scenario I wrote about---leaving the keys in your car on a street in Greenwich Village---and leaving your keys with a parking lot attendant. You had every reason to believe your car would be safe in the garage, and yes, your victimhood is 100% certified by all the proper ethical authorities. Not quite so if you were dumb enough to leave your car unattended on the street with the key in the ignition. You may be a victim by law, and the thief is still a thief, but the obvious response to your plight is much more like "What the hell do you expect? The Guardian Angels are going to watch your car until you come back from Starbucks?"
Surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto!
DISCLAIMER: Do NOT actually watch this movie: it sucks. Not for political reasons, but because it wastes a great premise with unfunny dialogue and shockingly inept direction from Michael Moore (this was his first non-documentary). I don't think I've ever seen so many good actors give such awful performances. Eesh.
Too late. I already saw it :-)
Uwe Bol frequently has real actors, frequently good actors, some with Oscars in their closets, in his movies, and yet virtually every performance given by every actor in every one of his movies is mind numbingly awful, Moore doesn't come remotely close.
That's OK, since you'd probably appreciate the sentiment despite the stupid mistake.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main