Say no more, Dan. You've made your real point.

Oh, I'm a racist. Great to know!

Hey, #### you too Andy.

Oh, I'm a racist. Great to know!

No, but you're surprisingly forgiving of racism.

He's not a government official with policy-making power. Even assuming he ever got any legislation passed that took away the civil rights of anyone, that would be a reason to celebrate his death if it happened at that point of time not this week. The pathology that leads one to have so much hate for a powerless elderly dementia patient is a pretty sick one, in my worldview.

This "celebration"---which in my case is only a simple statement that I'm glad that he's dead, and wished it had happened 50 years ago---reflects the fact that right up to the end Helms was utterly unrepentant of his life and foul works. By contrast, the reaction to George Wallace's death was far more nuanced and respectful, and properly so.

No, but you're surprisingly forgiving of racism.

I'm neither forgiving or not forgiving. I don't think it's my right to arbitrate which thoughts are good or bad. If it ever becomes my job, I'll be sure to forgive you statists and the bible beaters, two peas in a pod, as well.

Say no more, Dan. You've made your real point.

Oh, I'm a racist. Great to know!

Hey, #### you too Andy.

Of course I'm not saying anything of the kind, and you know it.

But what on Earth did you mean by "Helms was probably a bad man"? I took it to say what seemed to be the clear implication of your wording---that we can't really know for sure if he even was "a bad man."

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but if I am, you might want to consider choosing your words a bit more carefully.

EDIT: Of course if all you're saying is that we can't judge anyone, only anyone's deeds, then we really do have to apply the same standard to good old Stalin. I suppose that Stalin, too, was only "probably" a bad man!

I'm not sure how representative of the population I am, but until I looked it up just now, I thought the Numa Numa guy you had been referring to was some kind of genocidal leader from some time or place I had been uninformed about.

Although it does give me greater appreciation now for the utterly brilliant and loving "Pork and Beans" video by Weezer. I have great love for Weezer, and their love of YouTube.

I'm neither forgiving or not forgiving. I don't think it's my right to arbitrate which thoughts are good or bad.

I'd love to have seen the BTF thread of when Hitler died. Your non-defense defense of him would have been brilliant to read.

16 million people viewed Numa Numa. Do you think 16 million people could actually even specifically outline the views of their senator, let alone be persuaded by them?

Really? Number of viewers? That's your argument.

Polticians, because their votes have effects on structures that impact people's lives - from Medicare to civil rights to AIDS care - have effects on public opinion regardless of how many people know the name of their Senator. They either get to eat at the lunch counter or not, they either can afford the drug cocktail or not. I thought I made that pretty clear before.

Further, a person making a political argument - such as "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races" (link) - has a different effect on the public opinion and political and cultural norms a dude dancing on youtube. Obviously, actors can be more or less engaged politically, and their statements and actions will have more or less effect on public opinion, the political economy and cultural norms depending on the extent and character of that engagement.

At this point I think all that Dan is doing is playing out his usual semi-pro libertarian contrarian role. And his spin on this is just about as dead as Helms himself, since it's wholly an abstract one, with no specific facts about Helms's life and career allowed to enter into the relevance of the discussion. It's all about us haters---a label which, unlike in the case of Helms, there are apparently no "probably" qualifications in Dan's mind.

I'd love to have seen the BTF thread of when Hitler died.

Many posters (myself included from time-to-time) simply enjoy being polemical. They seldom hold their posts very sincerely and will instinctively take whatever position they think will be the most controversial.

Hey, can we ease up on Dan? I'd like him to be fresh so he can provide the TO on Brad Lidge. I want to see what the Phillies are getting for their $37M.

Well he's white, so Szym should like the extension.

/ducks, tongue-firmly-in-cheek

Jesse Helms was one of the people who most inspired me to join the Libertarian Party.

I must say that it is amusing how heated we all get, when it really seems to me that no one is really too far apart from anyone else here other than on the semantics. Not a single person in this thread has said anything of Helms that could be construed as being positive, beyond my statements that I don't think it's fair to call him evil. When that's the nicest thing being said about someone and there's still so much anger going around, I can't help but laugh. Don't know whether it says more about Helms' legacy or about the people posting here.

When that's the nicest thing being said about someone and there's still so much anger going around, I can't help but laugh.

Go ahead and laugh. The people who are dead of AIDS because of uninformed and meanspirited holdups in funding research aren't in a position to.

Don't know whether it says more about Helms' legacy or about the people posting here.

I'd say it says something about the people posting here. This is what the President of the United States said about Helms:

Throughout his long public career, Senator Jesse Helms was a tireless advocate for the people of North Carolina, a stalwart defender of limited government and free enterprise, a fearless defender of a culture of life, and an unwavering champion of those struggling for liberty. Under his leadership, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was a powerful force for freedom. And today, from Central America to Central Europe and beyond, people remember: in the dark days when the forces of tyranny seemed on the rise, Jesse Helms took their side.

Jesse Helms was a kind, decent, and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called “the Miracle of America.” So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the Fourth of July. He was once asked if he had any ambitions beyond the United States Senate. He replied: “The only thing I am running for is the Kingdom of Heaven.” Today, Jesse Helms has finished the race, and we pray he finds comfort in the arms of the loving God he strove to serve throughout his life."

Here's a smattering of statements from National Review Online.

John Miller:

When you think of the most consequential conservative politicians of the 20th century, a single name floats to the top of the list: Ronald Reagan. Next, arguably, is Barry Goldwater. Third? A good case could be made for Helms. He's probably in the top five, almost certainly in the top ten. [funny in the context of the "inconsequential" defenses presented here]

Miller, again:

First and foremost, Helms was a Cold Warrior who hated communism and the Soviet Union.
...
It's too bad that he's gone, but everybody has to go—and isn't it kind of wonderful that he died on the Fourth of July?

Mark Levin:

I wish the Helms family peace, and I thank Jesse Helms for helping to ensure the election of Ronald Reagan, being a warrior against the Soviet Union and for the release of Soviet Jews and other abused minorities, and being a voice for millions of unborn babies. [Srsly! Abused minorities!]

I'm glad we're having the discussion we're having, in this context.

Alan, I think the contempt and disgust with which Helms is regarded among anyone other than racists is directly proportional to the knowledge they have of the details of his career, and to the degree that they will ever admit that anyone who fights "liberalism" can be worthy of unqualified rejection.

Whatever "nuances" there are in Helms's career come down to exactly one character trait: Like Teddy Kennedy on the other side of the aisle, he was famously gracious on a personal level. But while I suppose this is a mark in his favor, all it really does is perhaps to elevate him slightly above the likes of Bilbo and Rankin., who famously referred to one of his critics as "a communistic little kike." It scarcely mitigates the rest of the Helms total package, and in fact to the degree that his graciousness made him more effective, it only made his bottom line even worse.

If it ever becomes my job, I'll be sure to forgive you statists and the bible beaters, two peas in a pod, as well.

I'd have expected better from you, although I can see why you are a little grumpy based on some of these exchanges. But as I have learned, the hard way, since I have done both all too often, the two fastest ways to start a flame war are to be condescending and snotty, and/or to ascribe petty pathological motivations to your opponents and then pass moral judgment on them. Ultimately, we are talking across divides and we are all passing judgment on some level, but as Dayn Perry said in his civility post, we all pretty much want what we think is best for America and the world, so therefore, how we say things has some importance. To put it more bluntly, as a "statist", I think a lot of your core beliefs are backwards as hell, too. But I also think you sincerely believe that the world would be better off your way in terms of the effect it would have on people, and as such you and I are on the same ground morally.

And no doubt Jesse Helms believed that about his worldview, too. The differences are that in guys like Helms there is an intentionality of desire for others to suffer based on traits that are not part of their own beliefs, actions or character, and Helms sought, attained and deployed political power in order to achieve those ends. And that, no matter how old and harmless the guy was at the time of his death, is something we should always judge with some degree of harshness even as we contextualize it or try to understand it.

Leaving Helms aside, the issue of how to talk about the recently dead is largely one of personal sensibilities and personal experience. I really don't have much of a problem with people being straight-up about it--if you think the guy was an evil a$$hole, well, then, dead or not, he was an evil a$$hole. Lassus, E-X, Andy and kevin all have visceral responses to Helms' death for very understandable reasons.

OTOH, I think I would prefer to frame it as "I wish he had never been in power" rather than "I wish he had died 50 years ago."

While allowing for the protocol of the moment, those National Review tributes to Helms that Matt cites are but further evidence of a human truth that transcends party lines: To most ideologues, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Never mind that Helms was one of the more notorious racists of the 20th century---he was against abortion and helped elect Ronald Reagan! Apparently that puts him on some high moral ground.

OTOH, I think I would prefer to frame it as "I wish he had never been in power" rather than "I wish he had died 50 years ago."

In the heat of the moment, and not as a serious general point, I'd say that Jesse Helms's life is one fabulous justification for infanticide, if only performed under strict supervision and with the assistance of a reliable crystal ball. And to be nonpartisan about this, I'd say much the same thing about Al Sharpton, who differs from Helms in terms of power and influence, but not all that much in terms of basic character.

And no doubt Jesse Helms believed that about his worldview, too. The differences are that in guys like Helms there is an intentionality of desire for others to suffer based on traits that are not part of their own beliefs, actions or character, and Helms sought, attained and deployed political power in order to achieve those ends. And that, no matter how old and harmless the guy was at the time of his death, is something we should always judge with some degree of harshness even as we contextualize it or try to understand it.

To put it in terms that Dan might relate to in the way of contextualization, if they ever assigned a number to bigotry and race baiting that took context into consideration, Jesse Helms OPS+ would have been up there in the Ruth / Willams / Bonds category.

While allowing for the protocol of the moment, those National Review tributes to Helms that Matt cites are but further evidence of a human truth that transcends party lines: To most ideologues, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Without wishing to defend either Jesse Helms or the National Review, I think "the protocol of the moment" pretty much captures it: the man's dead, some people who cared about him are probably bereaved, and public figures making public comment are understandably focusing on the positive things they can say about him.

Jesse Helms was a racist and a Neanderthal (and saying that is probably unfair to Neanderthals). I certainly wouldn't say so if I were asked for comment on his death and thought there was some nonzero chance of his loved ones seeing my reply, though.

Zim, the solution is to go contribute to a site in which the posters don't try to redirect every thread into a progressive circle-jerk.

Man beats Yankees fan? Complaining about conservatives and Jesse Helms by Post 13!
Jim Rice thinks he should be in the Hall of Fame? Start a John McCain thread in Post 33!

What's next? A Brad Lidge thread that turns into complaining about people who don't like labor unions? A Jose Reyes thread that turns into an alternative energy flame war? A VORP thread that reveals the secret truth of the Machiavelli of the 21st century, George W. Bush?

No off-topic political hijacking is too wacky for LiberalThinkFactory.org!

Here's Hitchens response to Jerry Falwell's death. I feel the same way about Helms:

Hitchens on Falwell's death

Man beats Yankees fan? Complaining about conservatives and Jesse Helms by Post 13!


Were you looking forward to having a long discussion of whether it was right or wrong to hit the guy with a bat for having New York plates?

No off-topic political hijacking is too wacky for LiberalThinkFactory.org!

Ahh, this again. Trust me, Joe: Dan has plenty of ideological allies here of varying stripes. I don't know that they will line up with him on the semantic framing of Helms' death or the appropriateness of the reaction to it, but they are here (some Repubs, some right-leaning independents, and some Libertarians):

DiPerna
Nieporent
Good Face
RmC
Joey B
Esoteric
Orinoco
tfbg9
flournoy
bunyon
BeanoCook
Dolf Lucky
Rich Rifkin

...and others have all expressed rightwing views of various types very articulately. This thread, is, at the moment, Dan vs many of the lefties at BTF, but the recent pol threads have been quite balanced.

Zim, the solution is to go contribute to a site in which the posters don't try to redirect every thread into a progressive circle-jerk.

Oppressed conservative alert!

Either step up to the plate and make an argument, or take your ball and go home. If you have a point about Helms, make it. You are not being prevented from speaking.

Without wishing to defend either Jesse Helms or the National Review, I think "the protocol of the moment" pretty much captures it: the man's dead, some people who cared about him are probably bereaved, and public figures making public comment are understandably focusing on the positive things they can say about him.

If I were a public figure making a public comment, I assure you I'd be as circumspect as any Senator. But the truth is the truth, and we're not running for any office here.

But the "protocol of the moment" only partially explains the National Review take. This was much more like Trent Lott on Strom Thurmond than it was mere respect for the recently departed. There was no falseness of tone in those comments, any more than there was in Lott's.

I thought Matt Yglesias's comments on Helms and the conservative reaction were pretty much on target:

One fascinating thing about the death of Jesse Helms is the conservative reaction. One might expect that Helms' death would prompt from conservatives the sorts of things that I might say if, say, Al Sharpton died -- that he and I had some overlapping beliefs and I don't regard him as the world-historical villain that the right does, but that he's a problematic guy and I regard him and his methods as pretty marginal to American liberalism. But instead conservatives are taking a line that I might have regarded as an unfair smear just a week ago, and saying that Helms is a brilliant exemplar of the American conservative movement.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I think the reactions of Szymborski and a couple others in this thread fit well enough into Yglesias' category of mixed reviews that attempt to make clear the marginality of the man and his views. I think that's wrong, too, but it's categorically different from what conservative commentators and the frickin' President have actually said.

I'd say much the same thing about Al Sharpton, who differs from Helms in terms of power and influence, but not all that much in terms of basic character.

I dunno about this point, Frank. Al's pretty good at shaking down the powerful and geting that ring kissed nowadays.

Ahh, this again. Trust me, Joe: Dan has plenty of ideological allies here of varying stripes. I don't know that they will line up with him on the semantic framing of Helms' death or the appropriateness of the reaction to it, but they are here (some Repubs, some right-leaning independents, and some Libertarians):

DiPerna
Nieporent
Good Face
RmC
Joey B
Esoteric
Orinoco
tfbg9
flournoy
bunyon
BeanoCook
Dolf Lucky
Rich Rifkin

I can guarantee that I would mourn the deaths of every one of these worthy ideological opponents, and without qualification. To my knowledge, at worst they're enablers of people like Helms, but as BTF primates, we have to assume that they're always just one good post away from Enlightenment....

I'd say much the same thing about Al Sharpton, who differs from Helms in terms of power and influence, but not all that much in terms of basic character.

I dunno about this point, Frank. Al's pretty good at shaking down the powerful and geting that ring kissed nowadays.

The moment that Al Sharpton apologizes with full sincerity to Steven Pagones, I'll take him seriously as anything other than an opportunistic charlatan and a demagogue. To the extent that Jesse Helms had apologized to the entire African American population for his hateful words and deeds, I would have granted him the same second chance. Unlike some of my conservative (and alas, liberal) brethren, I don't see "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as much of a moral compass.

I'd love to have seen the BTF thread of when Hitler died. Your non-defense defense of him would have been brilliant to read.

As we learned in a past thread, the liberals here don't believe in any kind of natural right to yourself, so in that worldview, the right not to be gassed in a concentration camp is just a policy decision.

Zim, the solution is to go contribute to a site in which the posters don't try to redirect every thread into a progressive circle-jerk.


Maybe it's about time. I joined with Furtado in 2001 in order to help develop a site about baseball, not a site tangentially related to baseball. 7 years might be a good enough run.

Were you looking forward to having a long discussion of whether it was right or wrong to hit the guy with a bat for having New York plates?

Of course not. We all know the answer is "yes, especially if he's wearing a Yankees cap."

Maybe it's about time. I joined with Furtado in 2001 in order to help develop a site about baseball, not a site tangentially related to baseball. 7 years might be a good enough run.

I don't get this at all.

A) Most threads still stick to baseball.
B) The ones that don't are the longest and often the most interesting.
C) You yourself add to the post count in most political/religion/philosophy/race threads quite considerably. Since Furtado rarely posts in political threads, I could see his feeling that way--although he has gotten a few shots in at the BTF monolithic liberal machine as well.
D) Things get a little heated, but the intellectual level of non-baseball discussion, and civility, here, is quite high, mostly.

The moment that Al Sharpton apologizes with full sincerity to Steven Pagones, I'll take him seriously as anything other than an opportunistic charlatan and a demagogue.

Not the point, again. The man has a lot of sway, most people have forgotten all about the Brawley case, "white interlopers" and all that jazz. Sharpton's a racist, a powerful figure, on TV constantly, your feelings towards him have nothing to do with that. Pols you support seek his thumbs-up.

Therefore, since they suck up th Al, and fail to denouce Sharpton as a racist, they're soft on racism. Guilt by association. See, it works both ways!

Zim, the solution is to go contribute to a site in which the posters don't try to redirect every thread into a progressive circle-jerk.

Maybe it's about time. I joined with Furtado in 2001 in order to help develop a site about baseball, not a site tangentially related to baseball. 7 years might be a good enough run.

Leaving aside robinred's list of distinctinctly non-progressive circle jerkers who show up in these discusssions all the time, what percentage of these threads actually branch out from pure baseball? One in twenty? Is that really so crushing to your spirit? And do you have the same reaction to the threads that evolve into long discussions about the merits of various rock musicians and fantasy movies?

My problem with the tone isn't because he's dead. If they hated him when he was alive, they might as well hate him when he's dead. And as I said before, I wouldn't begrudge someone the right to be angry or hateful towards people whose behavior they view as immoral. I just think that the anger is counterproductive and largely misplaced.

Furthermore, to look at Helms and the America he grew up in and left behind and only be left with the thought that, "Helms is dead. Good. He was a dick," and nothing more is a sign of either blind emotion, a failure to really understand the complexities of how the world works, or something in between (I don't claim to be omniscient, but I try very hard to view things in shades of gray.) Responding with that emotion is perfectly understandable and acceptable, but showing disgust towards people who don't share that response is where I'm put off.

I have nothing good to say about Helms, but he was not the devil. I don't know how many times I can say this. He had his faults, and his were certainly worse than those of probably anyone posting here, but we are all flawed. He didn't sit down one day and think "Well, I know they are people just like me, but I am going to exploit people's fear of niggers and faggots for my own personal benefit." The chain of events that got him to where he got mentally is just much more complex than that, and oversimplifying that makes it much harder to actually solve the problem. You don't have to be sad he's dead, but just understand that basic point, whether you agree with it in practice or not. To be fair, the vast majority involved seem to at least be respectful of the more subdued response to Helms, and I am perfectly willing to dismiss kevin's comments as just kevin being kevin. I just very much wish that so many people didn't feel it necessary to see a direct correlation between indignation and moral stature. It's absurd, and it's the kind of thinking that leads to people acting out of emotion rather than logic and then putting people in power (like Helms) who appeal to individuals' emotion rather than logic.

To sum it up it all up in one sentence, these threads could be a lot more pleasant if people were a bit more centered (emotionally and logically, not politically).

Therefore, since they suck up th Al, and fail to denouce Sharpton as a racist, they're soft on racism. Guilt by association. See, it works both ways!

So, to be clear, George W. Bush, by failing to denounce Helms and in fact praising him as a great man, a great American, and a great Christian, is soft on racism, and you denounce Bush's statement? Or are you just playing tu quoque games?

The moment that Al Sharpton apologizes with full sincerity to Steven Pagones, I'll take him seriously as anything other than an opportunistic charlatan and a demagogue.

Not the point, again. The man has a lot of sway, most people have forgotten all about the Brawley case, "white interlopers" and all that jazz. Sharpton's a racist, a powerful figure, on TV constantly, your feelings towards him have nothing to do with that. Pols you support seek his thumbs-up.

Therefore, since they suck up th Al, and fail to denouce Sharpton as a racist, they're soft on racism. Guilt by association. See, it works both ways!

To the extent that they actually do solicit any support of Sharpton, I'd agree with you. And to the degree that they've also parroted Sharpton's views to the extent that many conservatives parrot Helms's views, I'd agree with you even more.

And with that I'm off to a wake---for an 82-year old right wing Catholic who loved Jesse Helms. A great guy nevertheless.

As we learned in a past thread, the liberals here don't believe in any kind of natural right to yourself, so in that worldview, the right not to be gassed in a concentration camp is just a policy decision.

Yeah, maybe it is time for you to stay off political threads.

Yeah, maybe it is time for you to stay off political threads.

Hey, if the previous poster wants to equate me as being a fan of Hitler, I think it's a fair place to go.

Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 06, 2008 at 02:42 PM (#2845565)

Either step up to the plate and make an argument, or take your ball and go home. If you have a point about Helms, make it. You are not being prevented from speaking.

ok

helms couldn't hit, pitch OR field so why are we bothering to even talk about him?

Or are you just playing tu quoque games?

There are no more evil "ism's" in the collective mind of the Left than racism,
and a judgemental moralism. These are the two worst things in the world for them.

And so, I can't decide whether the increasingly furuous speed in which they'll try
to outrace each other, given the tiniest opening, to find a way to spit out a huffy
denunciation of somebody, anybody, besides themselves as guilty of racism, is remarkable,
repetitively boring, or has now become bitterly predictable.

helms couldn't hit, pitch OR field so why are we bothering to even talk about him?

Maybe you are thinking of WES Helms. We mean JESSE Helms.

There are no more evil "ism's" in the collective mind of the Left than racism,
and a judgemental moralism. These are the two worst things in the world for them.

And so, I can't decide whether the increasingly furuous speed in which they'll try
to outrace each other, given the tiniest opening, to find a way to spit out a huffy
denunciation of somebody, anybody, besides themselves as guilty of racism, is remarkable,
repetitively boring, or has now become bitterly predictable.

Ok, now that you have read "the collective mind of the Left", do you have an answer to Matt's question, or not?

As we learned in a past thread, the liberals here don't believe in any kind of natural right to yourself, so in that worldview, the right not to be gassed in a concentration camp is just a policy decision.

Weak, and unworthy of you. You don't like that some here chose to speak ill of the dead, fine. You don't think Helms' racism and bigotry were such a big deal, fine. Let's not take this somewhere you'll regret, like you did above.

There are no more evil "ism's" in the collective mind of the Left than racism, and a judgemental moralism. These are the two worst things in the world for them.

This response was pretty predictable.

robinred Posted: July 06, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#2845687)

helms couldn't hit, pitch OR field so why are we bothering to even talk about him?


Maybe you are thinking of WES Helms. We mean JESSE Helms.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

well at least wes made the majors.
this jesse guy didn't even make rookie ball, best i can tell. maybe he was little league. or even bush league....

Hey, if the previous poster wants to equate me as being a fan of Hitler, I think it's a fair place to go.

Sure, if you confine it to that poster. You didn't--like tfbg9 above, you decided to make a nasty generalization about all of us. If you're at that point, maybe it is time to go talk about the Orioles.

To be fair, the vast majority involved seem to at least be respectful of the more subdued response to Helms, and I am perfectly willing to dismiss kevin's comments as just kevin being kevin.

A more subdued response to the racist prick Helms, but a less subdued one to the frankly honest kevin. That makes a lot of sense.

Alan S, the Helms enabler.

or even bush league

Heh.

BTW, what is Richard Justice saying about the Astros' chemistry these days?

Hey, if the previous poster wants to equate me as being a fan of Hitler, I think it's a fair place to go.

Nobody did any such thing. You're unhappy that people are trashing Helms upon his death; would you object if people did the same to some greater monster? Or should we lie to ourselves and each other because the man's dead, or try and minimize the terrible things he did and said? You seem to think we should.

You wrote that you don't think it's your right to arbitrate which thoughts are good or bad; given your comments about liberals and liberalism, that's clearly not true.

Weak, and unworthy of you.

You, the one who implied I liked Hitler?

I'm done.

The description above seems apt. Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk.

I can't decide whether the increasingly furuous speed in which they'll try
to outrace each other, given the tiniest opening, to find a way to spit out a huffy
denunciation of somebody, anybody, besides themselves as guilty of racism, is remarkable


Yes, it's truly remarkable that in a discussion of a prominent segregationist on the occasion of his death, some of these loony liberals bring up racism.

By the way, the Wimbledon final is awesome. if you're getting too hyped, go watch it. I am.

robinred Posted: July 06, 2008 at 03:43 PM (#2845721)

or even bush league

Heh.

- cain't nobody say i got no sensa yuma
and having no ding dong of my very own i get left out of circle jerks


BTW, what is Richard Justice saying about the Astros' chemistry these days?

- it was obvious to anyone who can read body language that there was a LOT of trouble in the clubhouse LONG before chacon. the guys stopped bothering to pretend in front of reporters a GOOD 6 weeks ago.

but i gotta hand it to justice - he didn't do what the organization wanted the media to do and pretend it was ALL chacon and only chacon and now everything is just WONderful like they made the astros broadcasters tv and radio do. i've heard all KINDS of stuff my own self and none of it is good...

You, the one who implied I liked Hitler?

Me, the one who did nothing of the sort. Re-read my comment; I'm not linking Dan Szymborski with evil, I'm linking Jesse Helms with evil. I'm disappointed you'd go to this. You said it was not your place to arbitrate right and wrong; my comment was to imply that if it were someone like Hitler who had died, you absolutely would be making judgements. Of course, you're free to be mightily offended and feel terribly victimized.

You want to duck out or minimize Helms' racism, etc., you're free to do that as well. You'll excuse me if I don't.

Pissing on his grave may give a moment of satisfaction (I know this from personal experience),

You pissed on Helms' grave already? Damn--you work fast.

The description above seems apt. Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk.

You didn't interrupt it, you merely won the contest with an RMcesque inanity about "the liberals here."

I gotta tell you chaps, the argument that Helms killed AIDS patients by railing against an AIDS research funding bill that actually passed is a veritable feast of oratory ########. I hope Zim meant done in the thread instead of done on the site, the suggestion that he quit was meant to be facetious.

Righties are jealous that liberals won't recognize them as a persectuted minority.

I gotta tell you chaps, the argument that Helms killed AIDS patients by railing against an AIDS research funding bill that actually passed is a veritable feast of oratory ########.

It was held up for 2-3 years, until the senate forced it upon the Reagen Administration. Helms was the leading force in the senate that held it up. That it was held up delayed the time when effective treatment, diagnostics and other preventatives could be discovered and instituted. I personally know the NIH was robbing Peter to pay Paul to make up for some of the funding scarcity. That they did that, in defiance of retrograde neanderthals like Helms, is a tribute to the health professionals who worked there at the time.

Maybe it's about time. I joined with Furtado in 2001 in order to help develop a site about baseball, not a site tangentially related to baseball. 7 years might be a good enough run.

I understand this feeling. I've more or less stopped participating in the political threads on BBTF because they become so insufferable. It's not about being outnumbered, per se - it's about the perceived difference in tone and aggressiveness. Life is too short to be taking it in the back of the head from the likes of MCoA, Lassus, kevin, etc. When even Andy is cavalierly insinuating that Szymborski is a racist based on nothing else than Dan's intelligently-argued (and rather mild) position re human agency, then I'm forced to conclude that the smug, self-assured arrogance of the liberal contingent on BBTF has gotten so out of control that, in the larger scale, it's pointless to attempt to reason with you all on either major or minor issues. If for every polite response I have to deal with two snarky/nasty ones, or (even worse) if I have to simply sift the insults and ignorance out of posts making otherwise substantive points...well, it's just not worth my time.

If any one thing has absolutely killed my will to participate in political discussions around here, it's what I perceive as the reflexive tendency towards snark and the stubbornness of arrogant certitude among posters, and I perceive it mostly on the left side of the ledger. (Don't cite Nieporent to me here...even if I thought he deserved those labels, he is but one person.) Note that I say "perceive," because I don't want to be accused of making an unfair generalization. It's just the way things appear to me...a subjective observation that is relevant only to my own state of mind. Either way, I'll stick to baseball, because I just get the sense that a number of the most voluble left-wing posters on BBTF aren't interested in having a fair argument so much as they are in browbeating opponents, congratulating themselves on the righteousness of their views, and high-fiving other fellow-travelers for delivering snarky putdowns or witty-but-empty dismissals of substantive points.**

**Does not apply to Andy or robinred.

but i gotta hand it to justice - he didn't do what the organization wanted the media to do and pretend it was ALL chacon and only chacon and now everything is just WONderful like they made the astros broadcasters tv and radio do. i've heard all KINDS of stuff my own self and none of it is good...

Tell us, tell us, tell us. I love this sort of dish. Rumormonger away.

I joined with Furtado in 2001 in order to help develop a site about baseball, not a site tangentially related to baseball.

That site died years ago.

When even Andy is cavalierly insinuating that Szymborski is a racist...

Nobody did anything of the kind. Nobody's called Dan a racist, or a Hitler-lover, or anything of the sort. Anyone drawing that conclusion based on the originating posts is just fishing for reasons to be offended. Dan, however, DID manage to draw some sort of moral equivalency between genocidal mass murderers and liberals:

As we learned in a past thread, the liberals here don't believe in any kind of natural right to yourself, so in that worldview, the right not to be gassed in a concentration camp is just a policy decision.

We'll just let this one slide, right?

If any one thing has absolutely killed my will to participate in political discussions around here, it's what I perceive as the reflexive tendency towards snark and the stubbornness of arrogant certitude among posters, and I perceive it mostly on the left side of the ledger. (Don't cite Nieporent to me here...even if I thought he deserved those labels, he is but one person.) Note that I say "perceive," because I don't want to be accused of making an unfair generalization. It's just the way things appear to me...

I think that is pretty much 50/50, not only here but around the country/internet.

on the righteousness of their views, and high-fiving other fellow-travelers for delivering snarky putdowns or witty-but-empty dismissals of substantive points.**

**Does not apply to Andy or robinred.

Thanks. I always read your political posts with interest, although we have some major disagreements, and I can be kind of a dick at times. I like hearing from the other side. And we both care about the country and its people--that I am sure of.

i've heard all KINDS of stuff my own self and none of it is good...

I am with my ideological opponent here. You have been a big tease all week with this stuff. Out with it.

I guess it is a fairly good sign of the tone of this blog that no one is willing to step up and say the same kind of things about Helms that were found in the National Review. One poster who wanted to shoehorn the Helms point into an abstract discussion of the lack of human agency in shaping history, but nothing substantial related specifically to Helms. I have no idea why he was unable to simply say Helms was a bad guy, but I doubt it was racism.

I think that speaks well of the conservatives on the site.

I do find it very odd that 163 puts MoCA and kevin in the same category though, since from what I've read they have a completely different tone and attitude.

When even Andy is cavalierly insinuating that Szymborski is a racist...

Nobody did anything of the kind. Nobody's called Dan a racist

The hell you say. Read again what I wrote. "Cavalierly insinuating." Now read this gem, from Andy:

Helms, in my view, was probably a bad man.

Say no more, Dan. You've made your real point.

WTF else is that supposed to mean? It is exactly what I said it was, a nasty insinuation (not an outright accusation, of course, since Andy is a craftier rhetorical strategist than, say, kevin) that Szym was at the very least suspiciously easy on racists, if not one himself. Like all such insinuations, it directly states one (bad) thing whilst hinting omininously at another (even worse) one.

And your refusal to acknowledge that this is what it was (whether mere rank inability to see what is in front of one's face or intentional disingenuousness) is exactly the sort of bad faith argumentation I'm talking about with respect to the loudest and most aggressive lefties on BBTF. It's almost as if it would be shameful and suicidal to concede even the smallest, most meaningless points. I dunno, maybe it's just me; I cede ground all the time, regularly acknowledge when I overstep rhetorically, and can even be (*GASP*) persuaded. But of course that's just a prescription for failure on the interwebs, where apparently a man's intellectual worth is inversely correlated to the amount of times he has admitted defeat in an argument.

Hmmmmm.... other than my somewhat bltchy (yet topical, based on the AIDS content of our discussion) "drama queen" comment, I'm not entirely sure what sort of insulting, browbeating, or self-congratulatory behavior I've been guilty of, Esoteric. Where have I taken to the back of anyone's head? I only ask as I've been called out specifically.

(If it means anything, I'm sorry for that drama queen comment, Dan.)

#163 is dead on the money.

WTF else is that supposed to mean? It is exactly what I said it was, a nasty insinuation (not an outright accusation, of course, since Andy is a craftier rhetorical strategist than, say, kevin) that Szym was at the very least suspiciously easy on racists if not one himself.

Don't be dense. Do you really think Andy's going to walk around here calling people racists? Do I really think people here are Hitler lovers? The length to which people seem to WANT to be offended is amazing. Dan's consistently agreed in the thread that Helms was a racist and bigot, but as he said, "I don't think it's my right to arbitrate which thoughts are good or bad." That's pretty forgiving of someone who spent his entire career trying to make his political and social extremism public policy. THAT is what people have a problem with.

Nobody thinks Dan's a racist. Nobody thinks Dan loves Hitler. I'm absolutely stunned that people think these are serious points of argument.

We'll just let this one slide, right?

Low-hanging fruit there, my friend.

We recently had a long thread in which the left-leaning participants of this site asserted that the only rights that truly exist are those granted by government.

Now, with Hitler already being thrown into the fray, I felt free to simply wonder how one can have a right not to be murdered if the government does not recognize that right.

Evidently, the posters in this thread don't find the casual throwing around of hyperbole to be quite as amusing when they're receiving the criticism rather than tossing hatred around like a frisbee.

Don't be dense. Do you really think Andy's going to walk around here calling people racists?

No, I frankly don't expect that sort of comportment from a gentleman like Andy. But the words speak for themselves. Out of character for him? Most certainly (which was my point, in fact). But the words speak for themselves. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Regardless of what people "actually think" or "normally walk around doing," that's what was done and said here. Which is damn unappealing.

N.B. Cheers for the gratuitous insult re density. I shall try to be empty-headed from here on out.

Wow. When I clicked on this thread, I had no idea what it would be. I thought it would be some sort of weird, irrational Yankees/Red Sox thread. I thought, with so many posts, that maybe some Red Sox fan was defending the guy with the bat. But Jesse Helms? That was a surprise.

I hope that no one takes this as a defense of Helms; it is not. But I won't be buying a plane ticket to NC just so I can urinate on his grave site. That just seems like too much work to do to express my outrage.

Evidently, the posters in this thread don't find the casual throwing around of hyperbole to be quite as amusing when they're receiving the criticism rather than tossing hatred around like a frisbee.

See? You're perfectly willing and comfortable passing judgement upon Andy, or myself, or others in the thread. Just not Jesse Helms.

"I don't think it's my right to arbitrate which thoughts are good or bad." That's pretty forgiving of someone who spent his entire career trying to make his political and social extremism public policy.

As I said, it's not my right or anyone's here to decide what thoughts are good or bad.

Only actions matter and Helms failed miserably to turn his bigotry into results. If anything, the posters should be praising Helms displaying the buffoonery of evil rather than Eichmann's cold banality of evil.

My point was and remains that celebrating the death of a senile old man in no position to harm anybody is deeply disturbing and reflects far more poorly on that person than on Helms.

See? You're perfectly willing and comfortable passing judgement upon Andy, or myself, or others in the thread. Just not Jesse Helms.

I'm not passing judgment, I'm describing actions. I certainly wouldn't celebrate if either your or Andy died.

We recently had a long thread in which the left-leaning participants of this site asserted that the only rights that truly exist are those granted by government.

Whom are you referring to? If you want to call folks out, if you can remember who was who, do it by name. Do you mean the wheelchair access debate? That was mostly formerly dp vs. Nieporent.

This is sort of like saying, "All the righties here are 100% behind Bush and the war." To my knowledge, only Joey and Beano are totally behind the war and have explained why. I know you are not. I know Rifkin did not even vote for Bush, neither did Nieporent, and Esoteric did so, but according to his own account, more out of dislike of Kerry than admiration for Bush.

We recently had a long thread in which the left-leaning participants of this site asserted that the only rights that truly exist are those granted by government.

This is a complete misstatement of the case.

The point is that there aren't rights that inhere, only rights that are respected, by governments, but also by societies and communities. There is work ongoing in international human rights to protect people based on theories of rights, but I support these not because of some metaphysical claim about individuality, but because of a pragmatic belief in the value of rights-work to create societies and communities in which people can thrive.

No, I frankly don't expect that sort of comportment from a gentleman like Andy. But the words speak for themselves. Out of character for him? Most certainly (which was my point, in fact). But the words speak for themselves. Your argument is a non-sequitur. Regardless of what people "actually think" or "normally walk around doing," that's what was done and said here. Which is damn unappealing.

So despite knowing Andy's history here, and regardless of the context of the thread in which his comments were made, you'd rather ignore that and just assume the most offensive possible translation of his comments? Now THAT is damn unappealing.

This is sort of like saying, "All the righties here are 100% behind Bush and the war." To my knowledge, only Joey and Beano are totally behind the war and have explained why.

That's what, 2 of 2 real righties on the site?

The point is that there aren't rights that inhere, only rights that are respected, by governments, but also by societies and communities.

It's the people who believe rights to be an arbitrary whim of government that gives power to people like Helms, so it seems fitting that they take a little of the, ummm, "credit."

Nobody thinks Dan's a racist. Nobody thinks Dan loves Hitler.

I know that, but the point is that if you make comments of that sort, people get pissed, don't want to talk anymore, etc. Now, if you WANT to piss people off, fine. That is not my style, but BBTF is not a support group. I think a little venom is OK for some, and like I said, I am quite certain that any nastiness is about 50/50. Manners are not ideological, and some people have a rough rhetorical approach. For example: kevin is independent. RETARDO is hard left. Joey B ("needy, infantile Liberals" and "Obama is a total and utter coward" and "bull dykes") is hard right. arkitekton is a guy I personally like a lot, but he can be rough, too.

But you are smart enough to know that if you reference a specific poster, and put the words "Hitler" and "defense" in the same post, trouble will ensue.

I know a lot of folks don't like "going meta", and I apologize for boring them. But I like the political exachanges here for the most part and wanted to say so and look at the context.

We recently had a long thread in which the left-leaning participants of this site asserted that the only rights that truly exist are those granted by government.

All of us? I can't even get 3 people to find a time to go to dinner. I definitely never agreed to THAT position.

Whom are you referring to?

If you're going to push the boat out and use whom, say "To whom are you referring?"

/grammar Nazi.

As I said, it's not my right or anyone's here to decide what thoughts are good or bad.

Only actions matter and Helms failed miserably to turn his bigotry into results. If anything, the posters should be praising Helms displaying the buffoonery of evil rather than Eichmann's cold banality of evil.

My point was and remains that celebrating the death of a senile old man in no position to harm anybody is deeply disturbing and reflects far more poorly on that person than on Helms.

While I'm certainly sympathetic to your point of view, Dan, I'm not sure I agree. It's not just actions that matter, it's intent. Attempted murder is (and should be) a crime. It seems strange to defend Helms on the grounds that he didn't succeed in what he was trying to do.

In my view, a substantial part in judging actions is their intended consequences - which does go to thoughts, state of mind, etc. Of course, that is not to excuse people who cause evil despite good intentions.

On the right/left thing - I think we should put groups of political affiliations on the Wiki to help keep track. And no, arkitekton, you can't be in the conservative group.

That's what, 2 of 2 real righties on the site

Well, if you want to say "righties" means "pro-war Repubs" I guess so.

It's the people who believe rights to be an arbitrary whim of government that gives power to people like Helms...

The people who kept giving power to Helms by re-electing him would disagree with your assessment of their view of government and individual rights.

When even Andy is cavalierly insinuating that Szymborski is a racist based on nothing else than Dan's intelligently-argued (and rather mild) position re human agency,

I'm trying to figure out what I wrote that might prompt this conclusion, and the best I can come up with is this brief exchange:

Helms, in my view, was probably a bad man.

Say no more, Dan. You've made your real point.

to which Dan replied

Oh, I'm a racist. Great to know!

Hey, #### you too Andy.

As I pointed out, I was saying nothing of the sort. The thought has never even occurred to me that Dan---or anyone else on these threads---is a racist. They're people with opinions, just like you and me.

But I did have some questions that have yet to be answered, by Dan or by anyone else who's sticking up for him here:

But what on Earth did you mean by "Helms was probably a bad man"? I took it to say what seemed to be the clear implication of your wording---that we can't really know for sure if he even was "a bad man."

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but if I am, you might want to consider choosing your words a bit more carefully.

EDIT: Of course if all you're saying is that we can't judge anyone, only anyone's deeds, then we really do have to apply the same standard to good old Stalin. I suppose that Stalin, too, was only "probably" a bad man!

This wasn't for a second an accusation of "racism" against Dan. It was an expression of wonder as to what could possibly have left him even the slightest bit agnostic about Jesse Helms's racism.

And as I explained earlier, the reference to Stalin was not to say that Helms's crimes against humanity were equivalent to Stalin's act of extermination of the peasantry or his mass murder of tens of millions of innocent people in general. As much as I detest Helms, that would be an obscene comparison. Helms had no interest in liquidating anyone; he just wanted to maintain blacks as a subservient race of people in perpeptuity. That's bad enough, and needs no stretching on my part.

The comparison was this: Just as Stalin ranks with Hitler at the top of the depravity scale among world leaders, so Helms ranks at the top of that scale among 20th century American politicians. That's what I said the first time around, and that's what I mean. You can think of plenty of foreign leaders whose particular combinations of cruel philosophy and access to power have wrought more damage than could ever have been done by Jesse Helms. But IMO it would be very difficult to think of a 20th century American politician whose philosophy was nastier, whose racial rhetoric was more inflammatory, whose influence was greater, and who at the end of his life was more unrepentent. There have been others who matched him in one or two categories (Bilbo, Wallace, etc.), but overall he was our greatest four tool son of a bltch.

And BTW don't underestimate for a second the insidious influence of those nightly WRAL editorials of his. They were enormously influential---not entirely responsible, of course, but enormously influential nevertheless---in lunging the politics of North Carolina dramatically rightward in the 1960's. You talk about "political correctness." There was no greater enforcer of "political correctness" in that entire decade than Jesse Helms in the state of North Carolina. The slightest bit of deviation from racist orthodoxy brought out Helms's hounds in a manner that Mike Gold himself could only admire.

If you're going to push the boat out and use whom, say "To whom are you referring?"

To what do I owe the pleasure of your instruction?

/wiseass

All Andy snarked at was Dan finding Helms probabilisticly bad.

Seriously, can dish it but not take it? Let this apply to whom it may amongst you, but I've found that rightists love to play the bully as long as they are in the majority, but whine like Schwarzeneggerian girly-men when in the minority.

I'd take your arguments more seriously, Eso, if you and Orinoco didn't attempt to silence me with personal insults on a thread last week. The liberals may have laughed at some of my comments, but I've yet to see them complain that they are abused when opposed.

If you can't take any heat when the subject veers into politics, by all means, just stay out of the ring.

While I'm certainly sympathetic to your point of view, Dan, I'm not sure I agree. It's not just actions that matter, it's intent. Attempted murder is (and should be) a crime. It seems strange to defend Helms on the grounds that he didn't succeed in what he was trying to do.


In attempted murder, it's a crime because that person's free to do it again. Helms apparently didn't even know who he was - he was in no position to do anything again.

As I said, even if we accept for the sake of argument that Helms was an extremely dangerous person, that's an argument for cheering for his death at that time, not for cheering his death 30 years later when there was no practical consideration of preventing future harm.

I'd take your arguments more seriously, Eso, if you and Orinoco didn't attempt to silence me with personal insults on a thread last week.

You declared your philosophical allegiance to a man who believes in dynamiting dams and killing people in order to protect salmon...but can't quite bring himself to do it. And compares such beliefs to those of "good Germans" who failed to rise up against Hitler.

Perhaps I was too intemperate in mocking you for that (though your whole "tough-guy" act earlier in the thread, defending Chacon's inexcusable brutality, really set up the whole thing), and if so I apologize. But Derrick? He deserves every bit of mockery he gets and then some. Talk about being beneath contempt...I actually went to the library and read the first few chapters of his "the animals talk to me" book. My god.

BTW in case that Mike Gold reference was a bit obscure, here's the most relevant bit from that Wiki link:

As a critic, Gold fiercely denounced Left wing authors who he held deviated from the Communist Party line. Among those he denounced were Albert Maltz and "renegade psyche" Ernest Hemingway who once said, "Go Tell Mike Gold, Ernest Hemingway says he should Go F---- himself."

Flip the politics 180 degrees, and that's a perfect description of Helms's role on WRAL-TV---five nights a weeks, 52 weeks a year, for nearly an entire decade.

Do the math. Not influential, my asss. And that was all before his Senate career, which he owed entirely to that TV gig.

What is "probably" about any of that?

All Andy snarked at was Dan finding Helms probabilisticly bad.

That's simply because I have a great deal of reluctance, moreso apparently than many of the posters in this thread, at dividing a gray world into black-and-white compartments.

It's the people who believe rights to be an arbitrary whim of government that gives power to people like Helms.

This is really frustrating. No one said "arbitrary" or "whim" or limited the scope of rights-recognizing structures to "government".

Rights are, rather, a product of a variety of social structures which allow people to live according to these rights, of which government is merely one. This does not happen arbitrarily, but rather societies can be changed and reformed in order to recognize rights that people organize to get recognized.

The problem with presuming that rights inhere is (a) the complete lack of metaphysical argumentation for this belief and (b) the way that the presumption of inherent rights often functions to prevent the actual recognition of rights. I'd suggest that, in much pro-segregation rhetoric, one could see arguments that everyone had the right to a water fountain, but not to the same one. People who focused on whether a right was recognized and lived saw a different story - they saw that this separation lead inevitably to inequitable treatment, particularly in a society (more than just a government) which pervasively discriminated against African-Americans and other racial minorities. I think that creating societies and communities in which people can thrive requires such a focus, and it's one that comes more easily when we stop imagining metaphysical characteristics of humanity and start worrying about whether actual people are actually able to thrive, to live the good life, however we want to articulate it.

In that old thread, it was the "lefties" with their historical understanding of rights, not the libertarians with their metaphysical understanding of rights, who were arguing for wheelchair ramps. People who have the right to equal use of community businesses and services need to have access to these businesses and services in order for the right to truly exist and be recognized and respected. Otherwise, the right is an ideal which the society has failed to live up to. We need to see rights as goals, not inherent facts about an individual.

Flip the politics 180 degrees, and that's perfect description of Helms's role on WRAL-TV---five nights a weeks, 52 weeks a year, for nearly an entire decade. Do the math. Not influential, my asss. And that was all before his Senate career.

Except he was given that extended time because of the viewership. He was simply another racist talking to a bunch of other racists.

If you can't take any heat when the subject veers into politics, by all means, just stay out of the ring.

Also, I might point out that it's not about being unable to "take the heat." It's about being unable to fend of 20 different attacks from 20 different perspectives (most of them incorporating howlers of fact, reasoning, or moral judgment), and being unwilling to do so given that most of them come freighted with toxic levels of snark, and given that I can expect no reward greater than being dismissed as an idiot. What is the point of arguing with people who can't be convinced or persuaded, who will dismiss your arguments without even attempting to engage with them?

Not everyone here behaves like that - not at all - but too many of them do to make it worth my time in most situations. I find things to be far different when I'm arguing with someone in person, I might add...I can go all night when I don't have to type my responses and deal with 10 voices all writing in unison.

That's simply because I have a great deal of reluctance, moreso apparently than many of the posters in this thread, at dividing a gray world into black-and-white compartments.

...

It's the people who believe rights to be an arbitrary whim of government that gives power to people like Helms.

My philosophical leanings away from idealism lead directly toward the empowerment of racists, but that's really just a big gray area and who are you to judge?

That's simply because I have a great deal of reluctance, moreso apparently than many of the posters in this thread, at dividing a gray world into black-and-white compartments.

Huh. Helms dedicated his entire working career towards violating the natural rights of a significant portion of the population. That doesn't offend you? There are plenty of issues that flit between one side and the other. Racial bigotry isn't one of them.