Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

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.

Page 37 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 >  Last ›
   3601. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4418483)
What about Bosnia and that whole mess?

I don't consider that to be a major US war effort. And the fact that it wasn't is a testament to Clinton's proper level of engagement.
   3602. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:28 PM (#4418484)
Wars the Bitter Mouse was in favor of: I was in favor of taking out the Taliban. That is pretty much it for my lifetime. WWII was pretty clearly OK. The Civil War and the Revolutionary War. I would need to do research to determine other US wars I would be in favor of.

I don't remember my explicit feelings about Gulf War I. I suspect I was against, but I am not 100% sure honestly.
   3603. Greg K Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:29 PM (#4418485)
It doesn't therefore "make war a good idea," it means that they have nothing to add. Kind of like how the Bush admin looked at the 20 pieces of evidence that supported its conclusion, and ignored the 80. The anti-war people do the same thing, by starting with their conclusion and then picking and choosing the evidence that supports it.

But how do you distinguish between people who are anti-war because they're nutjobs and people who are anti-war because they have doubts about the legitimacy of a particular war?

As referenced above, Afghanistan and Iraq had very different levels of opposition. Did some nutjobs sit it out in 2001 because they were bored, or did large numbers of anti-Iraq War protestors manage to draw a distinction between the two wars?
   3604. Greg K Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:32 PM (#4418487)
Wars the Bitter Mouse was in favor of: I was in favor of taking out the Taliban. That is pretty much it for my lifetime. WWII was pretty clearly OK. The Civil War and the Revolutionary War. I would need to do research to determine other US wars I would be in favor of.

I'm pretty much the same, with one glaring exception...which I'm sure anyone familiar with my posting history can guess at!
   3605. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:33 PM (#4418488)
But how do you distinguish between people who are anti-war because they're nutjobs and people who are anti-war because they have doubts about the legitimacy of a particular war?


The protests. All protestors in this day and age, on any issue (war or social), are nutjobs.

Protests were a useful tool decades ago. Now, with technology and with the standard of living in the U.S. so vastly improved (along with increased opportunity for all and reduced discrimination including the elimination of institutional discrimination), protests are just lame, and show the level of delusion latter-day protestors are operating under.
   3606. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4418492)
Protests were a useful tool decades ago. Now, with technology and with the standard of living in the U.S. so vastly improved (along with increased opportunity for all and reduced discrimination), protests are just lame, and show the level of delusion latter-day protestors are operating under.


But Ray, its not that people think Steve Treder's views are stupid, they just NEVER HAD THE CHANCE TO CONSIDER THEM. PROTESTING WILL CHANGE MINDS.

Actually, I vaguely disagree with you. I think protests are healthy and good, but I think the arrogant stupidity of a protester is off the scale.
   3607. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:36 PM (#4418493)
Now, with technology and with the standard of living in the U.S. so vastly improved, protests are just lame, and show the level of delusion latter-day protestors are operating under.

Unlike you, who is never deluded about anything.

So how about answering Bitter Mouse's question: which major US war efforts have you opposed?
   3608. formerly dp Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:38 PM (#4418495)
All protestors in this day and age, on any issue (war or social), are nutjobs.
Ray, at some point in your life, your emotional development became retarded. You need help. I mean that very sincerely, and also, as an insult.

Plus, both the Occupy and the Tea Party movements sort of prove you wrong.

Edit: plus, I don't think you understand the aims of protest politics one bit, also owing to your emotional retardation. They are as much about building political communities as they are about affecting policy change. Even in an age of digital communication, face-to-face interaction helps to cohere bonds between people and facilitate the emergence of solidarity on issues. s a robot, this will be tough for you to comprehend.
   3609. Lassus Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:40 PM (#4418497)
The protests. All protestors in this day and age, on any issue (war or social), are nutjobs.

Vietnam being such a brilliant idea.
   3610. Srul Itza Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:41 PM (#4418498)
IMO, part of the problem with the neocons was the militant Jewish orientation of many of them- Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Grossman, Libby, Abrams, Bolten and the two Kristols, whow ere working in the Bush II administration, and you had Kagan, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Pipes and folks like that providing the intellectual fodder in the mass media to support an overtly militant foreign policy reorienting. These guys conflated US and Israeli interests


Bull. Israel was not looking for a fight with Iraq. Israel has always been more concerned with Iran.

Typical Jew-Hating BS. Go Fuck Yourself

As to the general topic under discussion -- are we really still fighting the battle of whether the war with Iraq made sense? Really? Anyone who knew anything was pretty sure that Saddam did not have nukes, and was nowhere close to them. Chemical and biological weapons are no reason to go to war.

And we knew, absolutely knew, that Saddam was wholly containable and deterrable. We knew, because we attacked him in Desert Storm, bombed his country up one side and down the other, then beat the living crap out of his army, and he did not respond with any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, because we let him know that if he did, that would be the end of him.

Saddam was not an ideologue. He did not believe in socialism, ba'athism, radical islam, pan arabism, or anything else. He believed in Saddam. His cause was Saddam. First, last and always. He could be intimidated, and he could be bought.

The biggest danger in dealing with Sadddam was that, aside from being ruthless and vicious, he was stupid and incompetent. The danger was always that he would miscalculate -- like 10 years of wasted war with Iran, like invading Kuwait. But he could be kept on a leash, and he was.

The biggest danger of going to war with Iraq was the one I repeated, over and over, at the time -- that anybody who could count noses could see that Iraq was majority Shi'ite, and that if Saddam was overthrown, the Shi'ites would take power and would almost certainly feel a lot closer to Iran (where many of their religious and political leaders had taken shelter at times) than Saddam ever did. Now, I believe in democracy, and I believe that eventually the Shi'ites would take over, and they would align pretty much as we are seeing them align. I just did not see the need to speed the process up radically, at an enormous cost, while we were still having so much trouble with Iran.

This was a stupid, incredibly costly war, for no good reason, with a predictably bad outcome. Better we had concentrated on Afghanistan.

And if you want to know, I supported Desert Storm, I supported Bosnia, I supported taking out Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies, and I support most of the secret War on Terrorism, including the vast bulk of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. But Iraq was a mistake in concept, a mistake in planning, and a mistake in execution (except for the excellent work by our military in rolling up Saddam's Army in short order), with a predictably bad long-term result.
   3611. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:42 PM (#4418499)
IMO, part of the problem with the neocons was the militant Jewish orientation of many of them- Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Grossman, Libby, Abrams, Bolten and the two Kristols, whow ere working in the Bush II administration, and you had Kagan, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Pipes and folks like that providing the intellectual fodder in the mass media to support an overtly militant foreign policy reorienting.

Blaming the Jews never goes out of style.
   3612. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4418500)
When Jesse Jackson is reduced to protesting the hiring of white coaches, you start to see how silly it all is.


   3613. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:46 PM (#4418502)
This was a stupid, incredibly costly war, for no good reason, with a predictably bad outcome. Better we had concentrated on Afghanistan.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.
   3614. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4418504)
Ray, so how about answering Bitter Mouse's question: which major US war efforts have you opposed?
   3615. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4418505)
Yes, Ray, this is not in dispute. But there was vocal and visible opposition to the war before it started, and the argument we were making was precisely that the war would very likely be a huge cost/benefit fail. And it was.


The protests in February '03 were huge and covered practically every Western nation. Combined, it was probably the biggest set of organized protests ever, dwarfing Vietnam.

*checks Wiki*

Confirmed: On February 15, millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history, protests occurred among others in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Republic of Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica. Perhaps the largest demonstration this day occurred in London, with up to one million protestors gathering in Hyde Park; speakers included the Reverend Jesse Jackson, London mayor Ken Livingstone, and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy.[31][32] A large demonstration, also attended by perhaps around a million, took place in Barcelona.[31]

The fact that Ray could be so deluded about this is testament to the absurd media bootlicking in the run-up, already noted in this thread by plenty. The strange thing is that the video of the things was everywhere and it didn't look a thing like a bunch of hapless, aging hippies trying to relive the 60s.
   3616. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:48 PM (#4418506)
Its a cabal of kikes that lead us into wars! Of course! Those filthy yids. There's one thing a Jew loves more than money, its illegitimate war!
   3617. formerly dp Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:49 PM (#4418510)
When Jesse Jackson is reduced to protesting the hiring of white coaches, you start to see how silly it all is.
So there was a protest you think was unimportant, ergo protests become categorically unimportant? That is some busted-ass 'logic' Ray.
   3618. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4418511)
The fact that Ray could be so deluded about this is testament to the absurd media bootlicking in the run-up, already noted in this thread by plenty. The strange thing is that the video of the things was everywhere and it didn't look a thing like a bunch of hapless, aging hippies trying to relive the 60s.

They fed Ray horsesh!t and told him it was ice cream, and he said, "Yummy! Can I have some more?"
   3619. formerly dp Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4418513)
The protests in February '03 were huge and covered practically every Western nation. Combined, it was probably the biggest set of organized protests ever, dwarfing Vietnam.
It was impressive. Equally impressive was the mainstream media's insistence on giving equal coverage to pro-war demonstrations attended by 70 people, in the interests of "balance." But the MSM types did a lot of navel-gazing after toeing the line in the Iraq war buildup. A lot of the major personalities have pretty much admitted that they failed in their function as journalists by becoming cheerleaders for the administration. There was a roundtable on C-Span about this a few years back-- a lot of journalists take that charge of objectivity seriously as a matter of professional ethics, and when they were embedded in Iraq, for example, or cheering the deaths of Iraqis, they were rooting, instead of covering.
   3620. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:55 PM (#4418514)
Equally impressive was the mainstream media's insistence on giving equal coverage to pro-war demonstrations attended by 70 people, in the interests of "balance."

This runs counter to the dictum that the MSM is liberally biased. Therefore it must not be true.
   3621. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4418516)
Steve, could you list the major US war efforts you have supported?


Oooh, I wanna! But I'm going to include other interventions I supported even if we didn't take action.

Gulf War (I was 8, family supported intervention)
Bosnia I-For (I was for military intervention from a fairly early point, when I was probably 11 or so, even as my parents both explained the difficulty of it I was still stubbornly for at least arming the Bosnians and I was PISSED at the UN over Srebrenica)
Somalia (I was 11, didn't think we should pull out after battle of Mogadishu)
Haiti (I was 12)
Rwanda (Still 12, and pissed that Clinton didn't do anything)
Timor Leste (I got in on this one before it was cool, in 1997 or 1998 when I was 15 or 16)
Kosovo (I was 17)
Afghanistan (I was 19)
COIN operations in Afghanistan (I was 26, but soured quickly after we were forced to back Karzai's stolen election... an election he would have won without cheating)
Libya (I was 28)

I think that should give you an idea that I'm not a non-interventionist, much less a pacifist. One reason I ####### hated going to war with Iraq was because it was going to destroy the hopes for humanitarian based military intervention in the future. And I was ####### right. And yet so many of the people who pushed humanitarian intervention rushed to support the war. I really questioned whether I was wrong or not, because hey, I was a 20 year old who was well on his way to failing out of college for the second time. But I didn't trust the Bush administration to get the aftermath right, because of all the incredibly, obviously wrong things they said, the blatant lies they told to gin up the case for war, and because we still had (AND STILL HAVE) an active war in Afghanistan where we still hadn't caught the perpetrators of 9/11. I was right, and they all biffed it.

In retrospect, the lessons I took from Iraq and Afghanistan is to scale back ambition about changing things, because it's incredibly hard, and to first do no harm. So, for example, I supported the Arab Spring knowing full well that it's going to take years to sort out, and I don't support intervention in Syria because I don't see how we do so in a way that doesn't make the situation worse.
   3622. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4418517)
Ray, so how about answering Bitter Mouse's question: which major US war efforts have you opposed?


Afghanistan and Vietnam spring to mind. Not that I am out annoying people by forcing them to "Look at me!" and blocking traffic by protesting. (And Vietnam was of course before my time.) But I don't support them.

Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish. We can never win there. We're losing lives for no damned reason. Obama should have pulled out long ago.
   3623. formerly dp Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4418518)
it didn't look a thing like a bunch of hapless, aging hippies trying to relive the 60s.
A lot of the usual radical/fringe groups got marginalized at the Iraq war protests, because the bulk of the crowd was not interested in their various pet causes. I mostly went to the protests in NYC, so far from a representative sample, but the demographic was a lot different than at the Bush inauguration protest in 2001. Just a bunch of people who did not want to pointlessly kill Iraqis.
   3624. Srul Itza Posted: April 18, 2013 at 06:59 PM (#4418519)
Wars the Bitter Mouse was in favor of: I was in favor of taking out the Taliban. That is pretty much it for my lifetime. WWII was pretty clearly OK. The Civil War and the Revolutionary War. I would need to do research to determine other US wars I would be in favor of.


How do you stand on the Mexican-American War? It was totally illegitimate, for base reasons of greed.

But it got us California and the American Southwest.

So yeah, we stole the best 1/3 of Mexico. Serves them right for setting up shop next to a bloodthirsty bunch like us. Next time, they'll know better.
   3625. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:00 PM (#4418521)

This runs counter to the dictum that the MSM is liberally biased. Therefore it must not be true.


If the media isn't full of liberal bias how come they never demanded to see Hussein X's birth certificate?
   3626. Srul Itza Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4418522)
Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish. We can never win there. We're losing lives for no damned reason. Obama should have pulled out long ago.


So he's in favor of going after the Iraqis, who never attacked us.

But not Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies, who did attack us.

Makes perfect sense to me.

No question that we failed to put enough boots on the ground in the beginning (since we needed the men to go after Saddam), allied with the wrong people (shades of Vietnam), and then stayed too long. But if you don't respond to an attack like that, what is the point of having a military?

   3627. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4418523)
But if you don't respond to an attack like that, what is the point of having a military?


Not to send them to their pointless deaths in pursuance of an unattainable goal.

   3628. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4418524)
Afghanistan and Vietnam spring to mind. Not that I am out annoying people by forcing them to "Look at me!" and blocking traffic by protesting. (And Vietnam was of course before my time.) But I don't support them.

Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish. We can never win there. We're losing lives for no damned reason. Obama should have pulled out long ago.


so we actually get attacked from Afghanistan, but it was a quagmire "from start"

and Iraq, which didn't attack us, and posed no threat to us, doesn't make your list?
Then there's been your defenses of the Post

I'm just speechless, you can't possibly be as clueless or stupid as the persona you've been airing out the last couple of days
   3629. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4418526)
Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish. We can never win there. We're losing lives for no damned reason. Obama should have pulled out long ago.

That word you keep using, "deluded"? I do not think it means what you think it means.

Look, a Western power not being able to win a traditional land war in Afghanistan isn't exactly a piercing insight on your part. Criminy, Vizzini knew that. But the US military engagement in Afghanistan post-9/11 didn't start out that way, and wasn't presented to the public that way, and didn't need to be that way, and quite plausibly never would have turned out that way had the US military not needlessly distracted and distressed itself by plunging into Iraq. Which you, who are notably never deluded, supported. Good grief.
   3630. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:11 PM (#4418527)
Look, a Western power not being able to win a traditional land war in Afghanistan isn't exactly a piercing insight on your part. Criminy, Vizzini knew that. But the US military engagement in Afghanistan post-9/11 didn't start out that way, and wasn't presented to the public that way, and didn't need to be that way


If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd have seen all that coming.
   3631. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4418528)
Look, a Western power not being able to win a traditional land war in Afghanistan isn't exactly a piercing insight on your part.

See this all the time. What is there to win? We certainly don't want Afghanistan as property, they have little of value that we could take, how would we know if we had won? We kicked some ass and are now leaving it such that it will be a little less likely to re-emerge as a terrorist Disneyland. What else could be reasonably expected? I agree that just doing nothing wasn't really an option.

   3632. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:14 PM (#4418529)
Blaming the Jews never goes out of style.


Unfortunately. It's definitely something that keeps me more pro-Israel than I probably would be otherwise; every time I get a good head of steam up against Israeli policies I read something that I am sympathetic towards on Israel which then says at the end "and that's because you can't trust those Jewish bastards." Just. Come the #### on.

I have to think Ray is a troll, but he never breaks character. So if he is a troll he's a very, very skilled one.
   3633. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:15 PM (#4418530)
Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish. We can never win there. We're losing lives for no damned reason. Obama should have pulled out long ago.


Well I would have been against the war that happened. I was in favor of showing up in Afghanistan, pounding the heck out of the Taliban and anyone who got in our way, and then (within a few months at most) leaving.

This is not Pottery Barn. You attack us, or hide those who do, we show up, beat the crap out of you and leave. Why we wanted to use native forces and then (try to) stay around and turn that mess into a country I have no earthly idea.

The only reason to go into Afghanistan is to make it clear that attacking the US or harboring those who do is a really bad idea. I had no desire do anything else there, and yes we should have left years and years ago, shortly after having killed OBL and his crew using US forces.
   3634. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4418531)
If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd have seen all that coming.

Yes, that's true, Ray. I was absolutely not smart enough to foresee the galactic-scale stupidity that would be delivered by the W administration. Clearly I am at fault.

But not you, by all means never you.
   3635. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4418533)
It was totally illegitimate, for base reasons of greed.


Base reasons of greed AND the expansion of slavery! Two great tastes that taste great together. But it was worth it, I've been to San Diego in January.
   3636. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:18 PM (#4418535)
How do you stand on the Mexican-American War? It was totally illegitimate, for base reasons of greed.


Against in theory, but it is tough to muster up much outrage for it I admit.
   3637. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:21 PM (#4418537)
I'm happy to admit that younger me in a counterfactual world where he was more than a wastrel without power would probably have gotten stuck in the quagmire of Afghanistan. I was younger and believed that things could be changed more easily and quickly. Heck, you can see that in my support for the Afghanistan surge in 2009, though I can provide emails from the time saying that I was very divided as to whether that was the right decision. At this point I can say that younger me was an overconfident twerp.

I'd also say that it seems pretty clear part of our recalcitrance to leave Afghanistan involves the stability of the Pakistani government and their nuclear arsenal. Now THAT would be a ########### of world threatening proportiuons if even one of those bombs fall into the wrong hands. Because that bomb won't be used on us, it'll be used on Amritsar or another northwestern Indian city, and then we're talking World War 3.

eta:
Vizzini knew that


yeah, but he also knew not to go in against a Sicilian when death was on the line, and DiPierna sounds at least Italian.
   3638. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4418540)
The New York Post is proud of today's immediately discredited "BAG MEN" front page photo:
"We stand by our story. The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported. We did not identify them as suspects."

Obviously, the Post's editorial policy is to always be very cautious about misidentifying innocent people as suspects. And no one can say that the Post called the BAG MEN "suspects." Why, the article that was accompanied by the front page photo said so in plain English:
"“It was not immediately clear if the men in the law-enforcement photos are the same men in the surveillance videos.”

We have no idea if these are the guys. Enjoy the photo. Now that's reporting. But at least the Post has given up on its second-day claim:
"The official death toll remained at three, but a law-enforcement source told The Post it could be as high as 12."

On Day Three, the Post can now confirm that three people have died.
   3639. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:26 PM (#4418541)
Against in theory, but it is tough to muster up much outrage for it I admit.

A war in the 1840s has to be judged by the historical standards and context of the 1840s. That acknowledged, that one was pretty unsympathetic, though along with red-blooded American greed and lust it exposed just how hollow, corrupt, and weak the Mexican state was (a reality that has implications to this very day).
   3640. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:28 PM (#4418544)
I still think that we should have snuck attack Canada last summer on the bicentennial of the War of 1812. That's a much better war to support than the Mexican-American war.

Is the Mexican-American war our worst war ever, or does Vietnam or Iraq top it?
   3641. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:28 PM (#4418546)
The New York Post is proud of today's immediately discredited "BAG MEN" front page photo:
"We stand by our story. The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported. We did not identify them as suspects."


I told you this pages ago. This is all the Post ever said about the guys. That a source told them that the photos were being passed around law enforcement in an email for ID/investigation purposes.

And the only reason law enforcement was able to ID them to clear them is because the Post printed their photos. Not that that's relevant to a defamation claim, but it did move the ball forward as far as the investigation goes. The authorities were all too happy that the Post printed the photos.
   3642. zenbitz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:29 PM (#4418549)
Incidentally, those supporting Afghanistan in this thread are deluded. It was a quagmire from start to never-finish. We can never win there. We're losing lives for no damned reason. Obama should have pulled out long ago.


Possibly the smartest thing Ray ever posted here, non-steroids division.

At the time, my exact line was "Not going to shed any tears for the Taliban". But this was, of course, short sighted and more or less 9/11 trauma driven. And I am about the most level headed person I know on the subject.
Maybe (probably?) it's worth while (since we control the air) to go in there, blow up some training camps and GTFO. Overthrowning the Taliban at the time seemed like a bonus, but I am not sure it can be done with a *MINIMUM* of involvement.

I have not supported any US military action in my lifetime, although I have not been vehemently opposed to a lot of them. Maybe Libya or Serbia, although I have legitimate questions on the effeciveness of air power-only "Clinton War", let alone it's outright morality.

In hindsight, I support US involvement in WW2 and the ACW. I am OK with ending the sentence there.

As for protesting, my parents dragged me to all sort of protests in SF in the 70s and 80s. Total waste of time in my opinion, mostly post-vietnam withdrawl withdrawl from the hippie/commie crowd. I think it's accepted that the Vietnam war protests "worked" - although really it took 15 years so that's a pretty low bar. Probably a much better argument that they work for Internal, Domestic social policy and awareness (Civil RIghts Movement, etc.).
And the fact of the matter is all, all the US casualties were volunteers, not draftees.

I wonder if everyone of those hundreds of thousands of US protesters (in aggregate) just wrote a letter to the their congresscritters if it would have a greater effect. But I doubt it.
   3643. Steve Treder Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:30 PM (#4418550)
Is the Mexican-American war our worst war ever, or does Vietnam or Iraq top it?

The Spanish-American War is insulted by your lack of inclusion. It bids you good DAY sir!
   3644. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:31 PM (#4418552)
The fact that Ray could be so deluded about this is testament to the absurd media bootlicking in the run-up, already noted in this thread by plenty. The strange thing is that the video of the things was everywhere and it didn't look a thing like a bunch of hapless, aging hippies trying to relive the 60s.

Yeah, the SF protests in 2003 were huge (in the hundreds of thousands) and were attended by pretty much every demographic imaginable. DCs were supposedly even bigger. There were definitely aging hippies and black bloc morons in attendance but they were a distinct minority.

Count me as a small-hall go to war person. If the reasons for war aren't blindingly obvious then you probably shouldn't do it. WWII certainly counts, Afghanistan is debatable. The second Iraq War didn't even come close. We thought that he might have had WMDs (though the weapons inspectors in the country disagreed with us), and we thought that maybe those WMDs included a nuclear program (again the inspectors disagreed), and there was extremely tenuous evidence that he might have some connections to al qaeda, and therefore it's remotely possible that he might at some point in the future give WMDs to terrorists who might use them on us (despite him never having done anything remotely like that in the past). And for that we invaded a country, killed hundreds of thousands of people and spent trillions of dollars. The risk/reward of that decision was so incredibly tilted at the time, that I personally think it's fair to permanently question the judgment of anyone who supported the war (except for those who stood to benefit economically, I suppose, at least they had a logical reason). I'm not saying you're all morons, just that you're a little bit slow.

Also, as someone who didn't have a big problem with how the Post handled the Saudi student story, they deserve to be sued for putting that photo on their front page.
   3645. zenbitz Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:33 PM (#4418554)
Now THAT would be a ########### of world threatening proportiuons if even one of those bombs fall into the wrong hands. Because that bomb won't be used on us, it'll be used on Amritsar or another northwestern Indian city, and then we're talking World War 3.


Oh please. Because the CURRENT Pakistani government has just great respect and love for India? And why the hell would any other nuclear power get involved with a nuclear Indo-Paki war??? THAT would be insane.
   3646. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:40 PM (#4418563)
Maybe (probably?) it's worth while (since we control the air) to go in there, blow up some training camps and GTFO.


At most.
   3647. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4418570)
The current Pakistani government is not going to start World War 3. Just like the current Iranian government isn't going to sneak Hezbollah a nuke or try to attack Israel directly. Look, the DPRK is ####### bonkers, and they're not going to intentionally start a confrontation that could end up with them getting thrashed, much less nuked.

I should ratchet back from "World War" to "war with the highest casualties in the history of humankind." But given that we're talking literally hundreds of millions of dead and wounded, and the nuclear fallout of dozens or scores of nuclear weapons, the effects would be worldwide.

Count me as a small-hall go to war person.


I like this turn of phrase.

The Spanish-American War is insulted by your lack of inclusion. It bids you good DAY sir!


The Spanish-American War has great Propaganda, Greed, and Imperialism scores, but falls behind on Bodycount and Quagmire levels, even if you count the Moro Rebellion.* It's a poor man's Mexican-American War. I mean, even once you adjust for era (which is why the Iraq war is even in the equation, Iraq's WAR+ would be vastly lower if it took place in 1850) it still doesn't break the top 3.

* second Moro Rebellion reference of the day, I'm on fire!
   3648. Srul Itza Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:22 PM (#4418585)
A war in the 1840s has to be judged by the historical standards and context of the 1840s.


There were plenty of people back then, even among those who fought it, who realized what an immoral land grab it was. Then again, I am reminded of the commentary on Maria Theresa viz a viz the partition of Poland -- She wept, but she took.
   3649. Srul Itza Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:37 PM (#4418603)
Overthrowning the Taliban at the time seemed like a bonus, but I am not sure it can be done with a *MINIMUM* of involvement.


Actually, it was done with a minimum of involvement, using local proxy forces and overwhelming US Air Power. We only put a lot of boots on the ground afterwards.

We either should have declared victory at that point, set up some clandestine bases to continue hunting Al Qaeda, and otherwise not gotten involved; or gone in heavy, spent a year or two REALLY killing everything in sight that we didn't like, and then gotten out, leaving a puppet behind us and the bases. But the idea that we were going to do Nation Building in Afghanistan was a bad idea. The thought was to keep the Taliban and Al Qaeda from coming back. The way to do that was what we are doing now -- killing them where we find them, so it is hard for them to come back.
   3650. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:38 PM (#4418604)
Where did the quote from 3610-11 come from?
   3651. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4418607)
Post #3558 by Publius Publicola.
   3652. Srul Itza Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4418608)
From 3558. Publius Publicola
   3653. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:43 PM (#4418610)
#3641, re "BAG MEN":
And the only reason law enforcement was able to ID them to clear them is because the Post printed their photos. Not that that's relevant to a defamation claim, but it did move the ball forward as far as the investigation goes. The authorities were all too happy that the Post printed the photos.

The FBI already had a man on television this morning, shortly after the Post edition appeared, emphasizing that the photos published by the Post were not the suspect photos they'd be releasing. For almost three days, investigators have publicly criticized the media mistakes and overreaches, and asked them to stop doing it. Your "The Post is helping the investigation along" theory is moronic.

The Post's editor, Col Allan, pleaded his case to Media Matters:
"With regard to today's front page emails containing images of the two young men were sent to law enforcement offices, federal and state, at 3pm yesterday seeking information about them. I have a copy of one of those emails sent to a regional office of the FBI. At no point did the Post state they were 'suspects.' Today it is clear they were not involved ... Had you loaned us your powerful crystal ball we would have known this before the presses ran.
Common sense would suggest if the FBI emailed pictures of these men standing around the Boston marathon to law enforcement offices asking for information about them it might be newsworthy. We made no judgment about the men. We simply reported the facts. Their photos were emailed by the feds. Information about them was sought. If it is your idea that we or anyone else in the media wait until the complete truth is clear then there is little need for journalists. Only historians."

Allan also had this to say about the Post's "12 dead" claim:
"Our sources were federal authorities who have been reliable in the past. In this event, they and thus we, were wrong. Later Monday our reporting online and in Tuesday's paper accurately reflected the official toll... Give your crystal ball a good hard polish and drop it over sometime."

And as for their exclusive Saudi "suspect" label:
"The Post said a Saudi student WAS detained in hospital after the bomb blast. He was not free to go. At 2 am the following morning the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided his flat and took away several bags of material. The next day the authorities stated he was cooperating and not considered a suspect. The Post would have required one of your hindsight crystal balls to have known this."

The New York Post: It's Not Like We Have a Crystal Ball.
   3654. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4418617)
IMO, part of the problem with the neocons was the militant Jewish orientation of many of them- Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Ledeen, Grossman, Libby, Abrams, Bolten and the two Kristols, whow ere working in the Bush II administration, and you had Kagan, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Pipes and folks like that providing the intellectual fodder in the mass media to support an overtly militant foreign policy reorienting. These guys conflated US and Israeli interests

Bull. Israel was not looking for a fight with Iraq. Israel has always been more concerned with Iran.

Typical Jew-Hating BS. Go #### Yourself


I rarely agree with Srul, but he's dead on here. No wonder I have that poster on ignore.
   3655. GregD Posted: April 18, 2013 at 08:56 PM (#4418621)
The Post's editor, Col Allan, pleaded his case to Media Matters:
"With regard to today's front page emails containing images of the two young men were sent to law enforcement offices, federal and state, at 3pm yesterday seeking information about them. I have a copy of one of those emails sent to a regional office of the FBI. At no point did the Post state they were 'suspects.' Today it is clear they were not involved ... Had you loaned us your powerful crystal ball we would have known this before the presses ran.
Common sense would suggest if the FBI emailed pictures of these men standing around the Boston marathon to law enforcement offices asking for information about them it might be newsworthy. We made no judgment about the men. We simply reported the facts. Their photos were emailed by the feds. Information about them was sought. If it is your idea that we or anyone else in the media wait until the complete truth is clear then there is little need for journalists. Only historians."
Absurd. 1) Putting pictures of people on the front page is making a judgment, and no one knows that better than the editors of the Post who spend most of their time in fact debating what to put on the front page. If they don't think it's a judgment call to put something on the front page, they have no business working in journalism, much less for a tabloid.

2) The whole point of serious journalism is to ask "What if we're wrong?" To act as if it is ridiculous to expect them to ask that question is just beneath contempt. Apparently every other news organization did have a crystal ball, since there's no evidence that the Post was the only one to get this email and the Post was the only one to run that front page.
   3656. SteveF Posted: April 18, 2013 at 09:32 PM (#4418652)
Part of the drone discussion has to at least acknowledge some of the impracticalities of achieving justice/due process in countries that are either unwilling to police terrorist organizations (Pakistan) or unable (Afghanistan).

Now it may be the answer in those cases is to do nothing. It may be that drone strikes only give rise to more terrorists you need to kill with drone strikes. But the reason drone strikes are happening in Pakistan and not France or the UK is at least partly because those countries are willing to police themselves.

As for the self-defeating nature of combating terror with drones, it's hard to tell based on data. The number of terror attacks against US targets has dropped to the lowest levels in many years, but I suspect that's mostly attributable to troop withdrawals than anything else. Either way, that's an empirical question (only) to the extent you're wiling to allow such questions to be answered by math.
   3657. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 09:51 PM (#4418678)
Interesting story of a man who had just crossed the finish line at the Boston Marathon when the bombs went off then flew back home to West, Texas.

He's no Tsutomu Yamaguchi, but sheesh.
   3658. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:09 PM (#4418706)
Oh man, Yamaguchi died? I remember learning about him several years ago, what an extraordinary (and extraordinarily unfortunate) experience he had. I guess I shouldn't be surprised he died, he was already in his mid-80s when I learned about him.
   3659. Publius Publicola Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4418714)
Bull. Israel was not looking for a fight with Iraq. Israel has always been more concerned with Iran.


I never said Israel was looking for a fight. If you can point me to a comment I made that would suggest that, please do. My comment was directed towards the names in the Bush admin. I cited, not towards Israel.

And, it DID serve Israel's security interests Saddam was taken down. Whether Israel viewed Iran or Iraq as a bigger threat is irrelevant. They were both threats. Israel viewed him enough of a threat to blow up his nuclear reactor and assasinate Gerald Bull, who was designing a supergun for Saddam with a range that could reach Israel.

Saddam aspired to be the regional power in the Middle East and used the Palestinian issue to rally support. That meant a decidedly anti-Israel political posture. Of course you recall that in trying to gather Arab support during the Gulf War, he bombed (ineffectually it turned out) Israel with scuds. And you will also recall that Saddam was paying support to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel and I think also was supplying the vests they used to blow themselves up. So whether Iran was a bigger threat or not, Iraq was a significant one as well and his being taken out eased somewhat the external pressure of hostile neighbors.

Typical Jew-Hating BS. Go #### Yourself


Not a rational or appropriate response (see TOS). I'm part Jewish and align with the liberal wing of the American Jewish intelligentsia.
   3660. Morty Causa Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:23 PM (#4418716)
A war in the 1840s has to be judged by the historical standards and context of the 1840s.

There were plenty of people back then, even among those who fought it, who realized what an immoral land grab it was. Then again, I am reminded of the commentary on Maria Theresa viz a viz the partition of Poland -- She wept, but she took.


3648:

You are a staunch supporter of Israel, are you not?
   3661. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:35 PM (#4418729)
Go back to defending childfuckers, Morty.
   3662. Morty Causa Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:38 PM (#4418732)

He's no Tsutomu Yamaguchi, but sheesh.

And he lived to be 93.

Pernicious nonsense
   3663. Morty Causa Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:39 PM (#4418733)
3661:

Why, you in a legal bind, scott?
   3664. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:44 PM (#4418740)
So why didn't you mention any of the numerous non-Jewish neocons who had the exact same policy goals as the Jewish neocons, PP? Come on.
   3665. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4418745)
Just gonna leave this here. You scrub your hard drives recently, Morty?

Actually, this seems more applicable.
   3666. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4418760)
The Post's editor, Col Allan, pleaded his case to Media Matters:
"With regard to today's front page emails containing images of the two young men were sent to law enforcement offices, federal and state, at 3pm yesterday seeking information about them. I have a copy of one of those emails sent to a regional office of the FBI. At no point did the Post state they were 'suspects.' Today it is clear they were not involved ... Had you loaned us your powerful crystal ball we would have known this before the presses ran.
Common sense would suggest if the FBI emailed pictures of these men standing around the Boston marathon to law enforcement offices asking for information about them it might be newsworthy. We made no judgment about the men. We simply reported the facts. Their photos were emailed by the feds. Information about them was sought. If it is your idea that we or anyone else in the media wait until the complete truth is clear then there is little need for journalists. Only historians."

Allan also had this to say about the Post's "12 dead" claim:
"Our sources were federal authorities who have been reliable in the past. In this event, they and thus we, were wrong. Later Monday our reporting online and in Tuesday's paper accurately reflected the official toll... Give your crystal ball a good hard polish and drop it over sometime."

And as for their exclusive Saudi "suspect" label:
"The Post said a Saudi student WAS detained in hospital after the bomb blast. He was not free to go. At 2 am the following morning the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided his flat and took away several bags of material. The next day the authorities stated he was cooperating and not considered a suspect. The Post would have required one of your hindsight crystal balls to have known this."


Co-signed.
   3667. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:00 PM (#4418762)
Not a rational or appropriate response (see TOS). I'm part Jewish and align with the liberal wing of the American Jewish intelligentsia.


Here's a response that also violates the terms of service. Self hating Jews are more pernicious than the usual anti-semitic pigs; and yet, they are still anti-semtic pigs. I wish that you were a self-hating pedophile so that you'd cut your own dick off, you piece of ####.
   3668. Morty Causa Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4418766)
3665:

You do need representation, don't you? Fess up. There's no shame in admitting it.
   3669. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:04 PM (#4418770)
Are you Jewish, 'zop? Because I really hope so, after that. At least then you've got half a leg to stand on.
   3670. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4418772)
Yes Morty, I ###### a 12 year old, but she consented, because you told me12 year olds can consent to sex.

I expect you to use this quote at my trial:

Yes, they can, yes they can, yes they can. Anyone who's ever had a twelve-year old child knows they have definite take on what they can and should do. They can consent and (more often) they can dig their heels in like Balaam's ass.

What they can't give is legal consent. And that's an entirely different matter. A fiction really having little to do with psychological capabilities. Before one gets too righteous about this, one should at least reflect that at one time she very probably could have given legal consent.


I learned it from you, Morty, from you!

eta: include this as well!

if she wanted to participate at the time (I'm saying "if"), what exactly was the harm? It was sex. Why is that bad? Why does it become terrible if it is someone 40 and 12, but not if it is someone 13 and 12.


I'm coming to you because I know you understand the love Lolita and I have, Mr. Humbert.
   3671. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4418773)
The Post's editor, Col Allan, pleaded his case to Media Matters:
"With regard to today's front page emails containing images of the two young men were sent to law enforcement offices, federal and state, at 3pm yesterday seeking information about them. I have a copy of one of those emails sent to a regional office of the FBI. At no point did the Post state they were 'suspects.' Today it is clear they were not involved ... Had you loaned us your powerful crystal ball we would have known this before the presses ran.
Common sense would suggest if the FBI emailed pictures of these men standing around the Boston marathon to law enforcement offices asking for information about them it might be newsworthy. We made no judgment about the men. We simply reported the facts. Their photos were emailed by the feds. Information about them was sought. If it is your idea that we or anyone else in the media wait until the complete truth is clear then there is little need for journalists. Only historians."


Absurd. 1) Putting pictures of people on the front page is making a judgment, and no one knows that better than the editors of the Post who spend most of their time in fact debating what to put on the front page. If they don't think it's a judgment call to put something on the front page, they have no business working in journalism, much less for a tabloid.


You've misfired badly here. Allan used the word "judgment" above within the phrase "judgment about the men," not "judgment as to whether to put this on the front page."

The Post made no judgment as to whether they were guilty. I would have preferred they hadn't used the headline "BAG MEN" but it was the same silly play on words that they always engage in.

2) The whole point of serious journalism is to ask "What if we're wrong?" To act as if it is ridiculous to expect them to ask that question is just beneath contempt.


But they weren't wrong. They said the two guys were being sought. And they were.

Their hard news reporting was 100% accurate. Whether the headline "BAG MEN" is going to get them in trouble re defamation remains to be seen.
   3672. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:11 PM (#4418781)
So, why did Nieporent stop posting here?
   3673. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:15 PM (#4418786)
why did Nieporent stop posting here?


Trolling Lawyers, Guns and Money and the Volokh Conspiracy was more fun?

eta: I don't comment on either of those sites, nor do I usually read the comments, but seeing him posting just like he does on BBTF made the world feel a little smaller.
   3674. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4418791)
Are you Jewish, 'zop? Because I really hope so, after that. At least then you've got half a leg to stand on.


You're god-damn right I am. Grandson of two survivors, too. And a ###### like this, who thinks that holding thinly-veiled anti-semitic beliefs makes him a Superior Jew, deserves the same epithet my great-aunt used to give to the cooperators she remembered from the camps.
   3675. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:28 PM (#4418796)
You're god-damn right I am.


Then I am going to back straight away from this, because however many seders or bar/bat mitvahs I've attended I, a Gentile, do not have anything approaching standing in this dispute.

eta: edited for clarity
   3676. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:32 PM (#4418800)
But they weren't wrong. They said the two guys were being sought. And they were.
"Two men bombed the Boston Marathon! Here are two men on the front page! ... not that we're saying there's any connection between these two nuggets. We'll just put them right next to each other and, you know, whatever. NEWS!"
   3677. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:37 PM (#4418802)
Hey, everyone, appreciate that Ray is open to the chance that the Post is potentially liable for libel. That's as close as you'll ever get to him admitting "yeah, this is ###### up."
   3678. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:39 PM (#4418803)
"Two men bombed the Boston Marathon! Here are two men on the front page! ... not that we're saying there's any connection between these two nuggets. We'll just put them right next to each other and, you know, whatever. NEWS!"


What are you talking about?
   3679. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM (#4418805)
What are you talking about?


You would totally be one of my peremptory strikes during jury selection if I were plaintiff's counsel. But I would fight like hell to keep you on the jury if I was defense counsel.
   3680. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4418811)
Hey, everyone, appreciate that Ray is open to the chance that the Post is potentially liable for libel. That's as close as you'll ever get to him admitting "yeah, this is ###### up."


I don't think the Post defamed them, since (A) the Post did not post an untrue statement, and (b) even the front page simply said that the two men were being sought by the authorities. That said, this isn't the area of law I specialize in, so I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

Make no mistake: the Post _will_ be sued over this. Whether the plaintiffs would prevail in a judgment is a different matter.
   3681. GregD Posted: April 18, 2013 at 11:57 PM (#4418816)
You've misfired badly here. Allan used the word "judgment" above within the phrase "judgment about the men," not "judgment as to whether to put this on the front page."

The Post made no judgment as to whether they were guilty. I would have preferred they hadn't used the headline "BAG MEN" but it was the same silly play on words that they always engage in.
The judgment to put them on the front page is a judgment about the men, not about their ultimate guilt but about their centrality to the case. It was a wrong judgment, and a judgment no other news organization made, and it was a judgment anyone could predict could have dire consequences for the people involved. After falling down that badly, the least a grown-up editor can do is admit it and not give bullshit excuses about crystal balls. (Just to be clear, CNN should be firing people today since there's no way a reputable organization can be so wrong and then so mealy-mouthed in their backtracking.)

It is the nature of journalism that you get bad information, whether it comes sincerely or not, and it is the job of the journalist to weigh it, not to just pass on any damn thing they hear. There's a reason real organizations 1) look for independent verification of consequential claims and 2) correct instead of make excuses.
   3682. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:27 AM (#4418872)
   3683. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:36 AM (#4418876)
The crude-for-food scandal demonstrated that the sanctions policy had failed.


Have at it guys, but this is like arguing with Ray about food stamps. Hussein was beaten and bankrupt, a threat to no one. But sanctions had failed!

Brother.

#3488 It's a little more complicated than that. It's absolutely clear that they genuinely believed there were WMDs...

No. There is zero evidence they genuinely believe there were WMDs. They wanted an excuse, sure, but that has nothing to do with "believing".

If it was the Times you'd have a strong point. But no card-carrying leftist gives a damn about being in lock step with the Daily News (the Post's slightly less trashy cousin).


the left and the News? That's along the lines of Joe K.'s brilliant claim that whatshisname everyone thought had died, Fox's nominal lefty, was a major liberal spokesman.

To which the universal response was "...who?"

Was Powell in on the cover-up and lies? I know he said later he was upset at having presented it, but how could an astute man of his stature not have seen that these were lies

I've been rethinking the "astute" part of my image of Powell ever since, and his stature in my eyes has diminished accordingly.

If you want to think even less of him, re-watch the UN presentation. You couldn't convict a recidivist junkie of burglary with the 'evidence' Powell presented. Watch him wave at an indeciperhable photo mounted on an easal while mouthing meaningless generalities as though it actually proved something. In all seriousness, never mind that Powell was a General pushing for a major war, but imagine instead that he was a plaintiff's attorney whose job was to show merely a preponderance of evidence in favor of his client's case. He failed, and failed badly.

It was a singularly pitiful display, one that was disgracefully obviously farce.
   3684. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:44 AM (#4418877)
3682 / what Dayn said
   3685. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:45 AM (#4418878)
double post, somehow

   3686. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:51 AM (#4418880)
Not sure what relates to the marathon but: dead cop at MIT, reports of explosions, and one suspect reportedly arrested. Going down in Watertown MA
   3687. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: April 19, 2013 at 01:57 AM (#4418882)
Someone on Reddit described it as reading a liveblog of GTA, which is so right on.
   3688. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:03 AM (#4418883)
Steve, you have to admit that the left was fairly supine on this....

No it wasn't.

I don't remember much resistance....

There was plenty.

There wasn't a lot of fulminating in the press....

The press is not liberal. The press is mainstream. There was nothing remotely comparable in 2002-3 to msnbc, for instance. The nominally 'left' component of the mainstream press will always get in line in cases like this.

Key liberal pundits were OK with it...

There were very few, actually liberal pundits of any note in 2002 and 2003.

I think it would be more accurate to say the left was divided (as it often is), and the left being divided gave the right an open door to proceed...

Only the Congressional left was divided.

Part of it was the previous Iraq war, its popularity, and that it was such a cakewalk (figuratively speaking).

No one on the (non-mainstream) left thought the war moving Iraq out of Kuwait was at all comparable with occupying a good-sized country.
   3689. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:03 AM (#4418884)
I haven't played GTA but - yeah. Wow - pretty f-ed up.
   3690. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:23 AM (#4418888)
Yeah, I have no idea what's happening a couple miles from me, but this really sucks. Unfortunately, I don't think this is even the first mass shooting in Boston since the Marathon bombing. Guh.
   3691. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:25 AM (#4418889)
Boston.com reports 1 Marathon bombing suspect in custody, the other still on the lose.
   3692. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:31 AM (#4418891)
Try twitter, if you're not - it's killin' it

Baseball author Seth Mnookin is on the scene and tweeted:
"@sethmnookin: Likely staging area will be Arsenal Mall. Two suspects accounted for. Explosive devices believe used. Multiple scenes, haven't cleared all."
   3693. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:35 AM (#4418892)
It's crazy how calm the BPD are on the scanner. I would sound like Dave Stewart on crack right now.
   3694. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:38 AM (#4418893)
If this is the Marathon bombers, I'm sick that they increased their bodycount by at least 25% tonight.
   3695. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:43 AM (#4418894)
A TV station (7) reported that the arrested suspect has died.
   3696. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:49 AM (#4418895)
The police definitely think it's the marathon bombers. Dude with the white hat is still at large.
   3697. Dan Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:54 AM (#4418898)
They think they have White Hat locked down to a 20 block area though. Seems impossible for him to escape this. Just a matter of time now...
   3698. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:55 AM (#4418899)
If no one's mentioned it yet, I'd say this Boston Globe reporter twitter feed one of the best sources right now.
   3699. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 19, 2013 at 02:58 AM (#4418901)
My twitter feed has multiple people retweeting multiple other people listening to police scanners. And a couple of people talking about Project Runway. It's kind of weird!
   3700. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: April 19, 2013 at 03:00 AM (#4418902)
@WesleyLowery: Local here telling stories of being pulled from houses. Each person in homes being laid on ground, questioned by officers
@MichaelSkolnik: wow! the 2nd suspect they are saying is the missing Brown student.
Page 37 of 66 pages ‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Martin Hemner
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogLester return to Boston a long shot; Cubs, Yankees are likely players
(30 - 10:05am, Aug 21)
Last: RickG

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(4619 - 10:03am, Aug 21)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogPosnanski: The Royals might actually know what they are doing
(49 - 10:00am, Aug 21)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogAstros slugger Chris Carter: The most 2014 player of 2014
(3 - 9:59am, Aug 21)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-21-2014
(4 - 9:59am, Aug 21)
Last: Greasy Neale Heaton (Dan Lee)

NewsblogCurt Schilling Reveals He Was Diagnosed With Mouth Cancer in February, Believes Chewing Tobacco Was the Cause
(29 - 9:56am, Aug 21)
Last: Rusty Priske

NewsblogSabermetrics Gets Soft «
(6 - 9:54am, Aug 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(457 - 9:46am, Aug 21)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogPrado at second base not how Yanks Drew it up
(48 - 9:37am, Aug 21)
Last: Russ

NewsblogSellout Crowd Turns out in AAA Charlotte for Native Son Carlos Rodon
(7 - 9:30am, Aug 21)
Last: TJ

NewsblogLA Times: Angels' Garrett Richards Suffers Knee Injury in Win Over Red Sox
(14 - 9:23am, Aug 21)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Newsblog[Ubaldo] Jimenez to the bullpen
(18 - 9:04am, Aug 21)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogBrisbee: The 10 most underrated players in baseball, part 2
(24 - 8:52am, Aug 21)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogGiants plan to protest bizarre loss at Wrigley
(78 - 8:24am, Aug 21)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(278 - 4:39am, Aug 21)
Last: RollingWave

Page rendered in 0.6773 seconds
52 querie(s) executed