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

Saturday, May 03, 2014

[OTP - May 2014] House stadium funding package advances with Cuban baseball player provision

A bill that would enable professional sports franchises to compete for sales tax subsidies cleared a major hurdle Friday, winning overwhelming support in the Florida House.

The tax breaks would be available to professional football, basketball, hockey and soccer teams, as well as professional rodeos and NASCAR-sponsored events.

But baseball teams would have to stay on the bench — unless Major League Baseball changes its rules about Cuban baseball players.

Lawmakers added the stipulation in response to media reports that Cuban outfielder Yasiel Puig had been held hostage by human traffickers while trying to establish residency in Mexico in 2012.

Under Major League Baseball rules, players from Cuba must live in another country before they can become free agents. Cuban players who come directly to the United States are forced into the amateur draft, which limits their salaries.

“Major League Baseball [has] inadvertently created a market for human smuggling and the unequal treatment of Cuban baseball players,” said Rep. José Félix Díaz, R-Miami, who introduced the provision with Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach. “We’re not going to give away our taxpayer dollars until this ill is corrected.”

In response, the MLB issued the following statement: “While the sponsors of the bill in Florida blame MLB policies for the role of human smugglers, they do not provide any support for their premise that Cuban players must rely on traffickers to defect to countries other than the U.S. such as Mexico or the Dominican Republic, but would not need the assistance of traffickers to reach U.S. soil.”

 

Tripon Posted: May 03, 2014 at 09:38 AM | 4455 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: otp, 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 16 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1501. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4705120)
I don't "dislike" Clinton as much as I find it bizarre that you people don't see her for who she is.

A longtime public servant who just wants to help people?


A Clinton.
   1502. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4705123)
If you have figured out a way to kill terrorists without risking civilian lives, I'd like to hear about it.

Capture them and put them on trial. If you can't without killing civilians, then you can't capture them I guess.

There's no principle of law or morality that says you can kill 10 civilians so long as you kill a "terrorist" with them.
   1503. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4705124)
I don't "dislike" Clinton as much as I find it bizarre that you people don't see her for who she is.


Ray, there is much to dislike about Hillary. She's a pol to the core. I have never been able to discern in her a set of core values, never mind core values ai can buy into. She's as ambitious as Lucifer and will say and do anything to get elected, IMO.

However, at the very least, she doesn't hold any meaningful policy positions that are removed from reality or are diametrically opposed to the interests of the American people, unlike the vast majority of Republicans.

I will be somewhat disappointed if Hillary gets elected. I'lll be horrified if a Republican, any Republican, is elected. If Hillary gets elected, we'll move forward in some areas, tread water in others, and backslide a little. If a Republican gets elected, we'll move forward not at all and have to endure some treading of water and a lot of backslididng that will take decades to repair, after the problems that have been exacerbated become so serious that some cataclysm occurs that forces drastic corrective action.
   1504. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4705126)
I don't recall saying initially that if she doesn't run it "proves my point." Regardless, I said "goes to proving my point" above because if she doesn't run it's evidence that is relevant to what I'm trying to prove. And obviously whether she can win factors in heavily to whether she runs, so I see no reason why I shouldn't in all fairness be paid out on the bet if she decides not to run.

Okay, Ray, you say that if she doesn't run it'll be because she sees herself as unelectable, due to some sort of scandal that would be reflected in the polling data. That's certainly one possible reason why she'd sit it out. It happened to Gary Hart, and I suppose it could happen to her.

Fair enough, and I'll tell you what: If she declares herself a non-candidate, I'll bet you that at that point she'll be ahead in the RCP average against the leading Republican candidate, whoever that may be at the time.

And if she declares herself a candidate, I'll take her against the field. You can choose one bet or the other, or both.
   1505. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4705127)
To the contrary, you have seen several liberals post about their belief that AUMF should be restrained or ended, while also acknowledging that--like lots of other bad laws--it is the law. You have a Democratic president who--while he has done things I dislike on this front--has for the first time called for it to be modified and eventually repealed.

He has the power to de facto repeal it -- by not assassinating any more Americans on his own whims. So his words ring hollow.
   1506. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4705129)
I have no problem pointing out different positions. Obama's position is, to my view, more worrisome than either what I understand of Rand Paul or Russ Feingold's at this point. Obama's position is more reassuring than Cheney and Rumsfeld's celebration of the continuation--forever as far as I can see--of AUMF. There are lots of other ways one could break this down.
   1507. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4705132)
Hearts and minds. We've ensured we're going to be fighting this war forever, because every drone strike, every dead cousin/sibling/child/parent, breeds anti-US sentiment and future generations of "terrorists".


Infidels will never, ever win hearts and minds anyway so there's no real point in trying.
   1508. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4705137)
But in any event, your reading of the AUMF would easily legitimize Bush's invasion of Iraq and torture of prisoners.


There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq. It was stupid, not illegal. Torture, occurring by necessity after a prisoner has been taken off of the battlefield and secure in US custody elsewhere, is different.
   1509. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4705138)
Capture them and put them on trial.


Yeah, we'll just ask them to turn themselves in. That should work since we all know how reasonable they are once you get to know them.
   1510. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4705140)
There are dozens of other reasons she might not want to run.


Hell, she's not all that young anymore. She could have a heart attack tomorrow and fall over stone dead. Who knows?
   1511. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4705141)
you can't have it both ways. Either the country is racist at its core, in which case she couldn't beat a black man in a racist country, or the country is not racist at its core, in which case liberals should STFU

This is a bit like saying either the Red Sox were good last year, in which case they should have been able to win a season series from the Orioles, or they weren't good, in which case Sox fans should STFU.
   1512. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4705142)
Can we at least reach a compromise?

Bookmark this thread and at some point in the next two years one person can come back and rub it in the other guy's face (I mean, that's what it's about right? Money's just the most convenient way to do it...linking to this thread and saying "told you so" would be satisfying too).


Oh, don't worry about that. It's already been done. It's right there next to a certain prediction about how the Eagles were going to beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl, which was then revised to the Patriots over the Saints, after the Saints had eliminated the Seahawks "in a blowout" to keep them out of the NFC title game. I only wish I'd saved the thread where there was all that talk about the "one year penalty" that HoF voters were going to impose on Mark McGwire.
   1513. formerly dp Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4705144)
I don't "dislike" Clinton as much as I find it bizarre that you people don't see her for who she is.
Ray, get off your damn horse. Everything you've said about her, especially WRT how she handled the Lewinsky situation, is filtered through a very obvious dislike of her that you're trying to pass off as analysis. What kind of special insight do you have that the rest of us don't?

And again, I'm asking this as someone whose opinion of HRC really soured while she was in NY, in spite of the fact that everyone I knew who worked with her spoke very highly of her dedication, passion, and performance. My read on her is that, even for a politician, she's a chameleon, and I don't really know where she stands on anything.
   1514. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4705145)
There's no principle of law or morality that says you can kill 10 civilians so long as you kill a "terrorist" with them.


Well, Mr. Sugarbear, I would say that Generals Harris/Arnold/LeMay have already invalidated that policy.
   1515. AuntBea Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4705146)
And why do they think that? Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution.


I don't really understand why the issue of presidential power is being made into a partisan argument. Both parties are increasingly guilty of expanding the power of the executive far beyond what was previously agreed to as constitutional. Defending the Obama administration on this point is disgusting, but pretending that a republican president would not be as bad or worse is delusional.
   1516. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4705149)
Torture, occurring by necessity after a prisoner has been taken off of the battlefield and secure in US custody elsewhere, is different.

Not under the AUMF, it isn't. It's using force against al-Qaeda.

There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq. It was stupid, not illegal.

Good to know. Intentionally killing 16-year-old Americans on your own whim isn't just stupid; it's immoral.
   1517. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4705151)
To the contrary, you have seen several liberals post about their belief that AUMF should be restrained or ended, while also acknowledging that--like lots of other bad laws--it is the law. You have a Democratic president who--while he has done things I dislike on this front--has for the first time called for it to be modified and eventually repealed.

And your only responses have been to deny there is a difference between a law's constitutionality and its wisdom, and to trumpet false equivalence.


Don't confuse Jimmy with the facts, man. He has a narrative to maintain.

I have, multiple times in this very exchange, stipulated that the AUMF is terrible law, and that drone warfare in general and specifically in this instance is terrible and should be severely limited from its current scope of use. What I don't do is pretend that my opinions on morality carry the weight of law, nor do I casually ignore the thirteen year history of the AUMF being read and leveraged exactly as I have been arguing, with nary a peep from constitutional corners.

If Rand Paul wants to take Obama to court over drone attacks of any kind, citing the "necessary and appropriate" language or whatever hook he can find, I'd support Paul's claim. But until someone calls the pot, the de facto state of the world exists, and Obama is legally as much a Caesar as was Bush.
   1518. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4705159)
Intentionally killing 16-year-old Americans on your own whim isn't just stupid; it's immoral.


Well, honey, you pray real hard and have your deity come down and whip the heretics into line and what you think is immoral will be worth more than a bucket of warm piss. Until then, your gods are as irrelevant as Ned Stark's.
   1519. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4705161)
I actually believe that Ray doesn't dislike HRC. He likes trolling liberals, that's all.
   1520. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4705162)
with nary a peep from constitutional corners. ...

If Rand Paul wants to take Obama to court over drone attacks of any kind, citing the "necessary and appropriate" language or whatever hook he can find, I'd support Paul's claim. But until someone calls the pot, the de facto state of the world exists, and Obama is legally as much a Caesar as was Bush.


The strikes against al-Alwaki were taken to court, by the ACLU. The lower court dismissed the suit, based on the longstanding tradition of the courts refraining from making decisions on what are legally termed "political questions" -- the same doctrine that kept them out of a lot of issues regarding Vietnam. The courts don't decide one way or the other on the constitutionality of the act -- here the "order" calling for al-Alwaki's killing -- but leave it to the "political branches" to work out.

The case was dismissed in April. I haven't heard one way or another if there will be an appeal.

So let's not pretend no constitutional issues are raised by AUMF or its application.

But until someone calls the pot, the de facto state of the world exists, and Obama is legally as much a Caesar as was Bush.


Even if true, which it isn't -- it's easy to note that Obama is exercising his powers immorally. You must agree, right?
   1521. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4705165)
I don't really understand why the issue of presidential power is being made into a partisan argument. Both parties are increasingly guilty of expanding the power of the executive far beyond what was previously agreed to as constitutional. Defending the Obama administration on this point is disgusting, but pretending that a republican president would not be as bad or worse is delusional.


Back in late 2001, early 2002, I was having drinks with some friends, and coworkers of those friends, one of which was a JoeyB level nutter. Like, probably somewhere in Nevada "defending liberty via illegal cattle grazing" or "joining Andy's old loony friend playing pool with rednecks in Florida" level cray cray. He was going on about how awesome it was that Bush and company were about to walk all over some dirty ragheads, and how my concerns about the AUMF and creeping executive authority was just appeasement and near treason. So I asked him how comfortable he was going to be when President Hillary had those same powers, at which point he nearly took a swing at me.

I have opposed executive authority longer than most here. This does not mean I am blind to the world.
   1522. Steve Treder Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4705166)
What kind of special insight do you have that the rest of us don't?

The objective kind, I believe it is.
   1523. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:04 PM (#4705167)
Because they prefer a Caesar, as long as he's a Democrat, to a Republican chief executive bound by the principles of the Constitution.


OK. There's the disconnect, why you don't understand. Free-thinking Democrats don't believe the Republicans can come up with anybody who respects the principles of the Constitution. They think the only type of candidate they can come up with is one who will feel dutybound to protect the interests of the plutocrats who bankroll their Party.
   1524. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4705170)
$474M For 4 Failed ObamaCare Exchanges:
Nearly half a billion dollars in federal money has been spent developing four state Obamacare exchanges that are now in shambles — and the final price tag for salvaging them may go sharply higher. Each of the states — Massachusetts, Oregon, Nevada and Maryland — embraced Obamacare, and each underperformed. All have come under scathing criticism and now face months of uncertainty as they rush to rebuild their systems or transition to the federal exchange.

Oregon didn't sign-up a single person on its disastrous exchange, which might cost the Governor his job:
Not too many months ago, Gov. John Kitzhaber's re-election chances looked bulletproof. A string of legislative victories, capped by an early October "grand bargain" to trim the bulging cost of public worker pensions, burnished the three-term Democrat's reputation as a deal-maker and kept top-tier Republican candidates from mounting a challenge.

Then came the stories about the colossal breakdown of Cover Oregon, a key component of the governor's health care innovations. They were the first of what turned into a gusher of bad press for Kitzhaber, 67, and the state's bug-ridden insurance exchange. Now a new poll shows about half of registered voters say the governor should not be re-elected.

This is the type of issue that is easily understood and can be readily used in various types of ads, so it'll be interesting to see how much traction it gets. Worst case for Oregon Democrats is that also slops over to what they had regarded as a secure Senate seat.
   1525. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4705173)
Well, honey, you pray real hard and have your deity come down and whip the heretics into line and what you think is immoral will be worth more than a bucket of warm piss. Until then, your gods are as irrelevant as Ned Stark's.

Didn't say a word about God or gods. Your imagination is extra loose today.
   1526. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4705175)
The strikes against al-Alwaki were taken to court, by the ACLU. The lower court dismissed the suit, based on the longstanding tradition of the courts refraining from making decisions on what are legally termed "political questions" -- the same doctrine that kept them out of a lot of issues regarding Vietnam. The courts don't decide one way or the other on the constitutionality of the act -- here the "order" calling for al-Alwaki's killing -- but leave it to the "political branches" to work out.

The case was dismissed in April. I haven't heard one way or another if there will be an appeal.

So let's not pretend no constitutional issues are raised by AUMF or its application.


I'm not the one pretending a constitutional issue exists. You are. I am the one calmly pointing out that by every existent metric of constitutionality in the world, barring "things that make SugarBear sad inside," Obama's actions have been legal and constitutional.

Even if true, which it isn't -- it's easy to note that Obama is exercising his powers immorally. You must agree.


When I say, as I have repeatedly, that the reason I supported Obama in 2008 was because I was hoping for something other than another rote DLC clone (i.e. Hillary), and that I have been disappointed not to get that, this is a prime reason. Obama made the realist calculation to appease the right wings by not ratcheting down the WOT as he should have. He decided quite clearly that he would not be attacked from his right on matters of the WOT, in much the same way George Wallace decided quite clearly that he would never be out-niggered again. I wish it were different. I wish Dem pols didn't feel they needed to appease the wackjobs of the right in every matter of 'national security.' I wish beggars could ride. Alas, wishes are not horses.
   1527. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4705177)
I have opposed executive authority longer than most here.

I'm sure you have. George W. Bush was president for 8 years, Obama for only 5.
   1528. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4705178)
Didn't say a word about God or gods


You said "immoral." And with that, you made a claim to knowing what the proper, universal morality for the nation is. You may not call it god or gods, but that don't make the ocean dry buddy.
   1529. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4705179)
Oregon didn't sign-up a single person on its disastrous exchange, which might cost the Governor his job:


And Kentucky did a great job with their exchanges, which might cost the Kentucky governor his job.

Yawn.
   1530. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4705180)
I'm sure you have. George W. Bush was president for 8 years, Obama for only 5.


And unlike you Come-Lately's I'm working on 13 years. But you know that. You are just spinning and bullshitting to save face now.
   1531. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4705182)
When a nation is at war, it is always a bad thing to state clearly and in detail what you will and will not do. Why load the enemy's gun for him? Much of Putin's success thus far has its source begins in a matrix of uncertainty--about what he has in mind and what he will do? We could name othes

War is different from business as usual. Why the insistence that we pretend it isn't? War is what happens when such a relationship is not possible or feasible.

EDIted for typos.
   1532. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4705183)
even for a politician, she's a chameleon

Wasn't Clinton a lifelong Cub fan till she ran for the Senate and suddenly realized her love for the Yankees? That says it all right there.
   1533. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4705184)
I am the one calmly pointing out that by every existent metric of constitutionality in the world, barring "things that make SugarBear sad inside," Obama's actions have been legal and constitutional.


You don't understand how the "political question" doctrine works.

You're in over your head.

When I say, as I have repeatedly, that the reason I supported Obama in 2008 was because I was hoping for something other than another rote DLC clone (i.e. Hillary), and that I have been disappointed not to get that, this is a prime reason. Obama made the realist calculation to appease the right wings by not ratcheting down the WOT as he should have.

Yes, even when a Democrat is in office, the very things he himself does are Republicans' fault.

That makes things pretty easy, right?

You're a complete fraud.
   1534. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4705185)
Free-thinking Democrats don't believe the Republicans can come up with anybody who respects the principles of the Constitution.


For the record, my faith in the GOP's understanding of constitutional "principles" ends about the same place where Cliven Bundy waves the federal Constitution around in his pocket while declaring that the federal state doesn't exist.
   1535. Mefisto Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4705186)
Both parties are increasingly guilty of expanding the power of the executive far beyond what was previously agreed to as constitutional.


And this will continue to be true as long as Congress fails to actually govern. Politics abhors a vaccuum.
   1536. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4705187)
You're a complete fraud.


No, Jim. You just can't read very well.
   1537. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4705188)
Wasn't Clinton a lifelong Cub fan till she ran for the Senate and suddenly realized her love for the Yankees? That says it all right there.


Yup.
   1538. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4705189)
War is difference from carrying on as usual

What I'd love to know about the Global War on Terror is how do we know if we're winning or losing, and how do we know when it's over? If it will last perpetually without progress or retreat, then it's not difference, it's usual. And a world where "usual" is the President deciding who needs assassinating today is kinda evil.
   1539. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4705190)
You said "immoral." And with that, you made a claim to knowing what the proper, universal morality for the nation is.

My morality: The President targeting and killing particular Americans, including minor Americans with no due process and at his own whim is immoral.

Your morality: The President is Caesar, anything bad a Democratic president does, including murdering minor Americans at his own whim, is Republicans' fault.

The choice is simple.
   1540. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4705191)
For the record, my faith in the GOP's understanding of constitutional "principles" ends about the same place where Cliven Bundy waves the federal Constitution around in his pocket while declaring that the federal state doesn't exist.

Right -- Republicans can't be trusted, Democrats can be trusted to be Caesars.

Snore.

Principle-free whimsy.
   1541. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4705193)
I am the one calmly pointing out that by every existent metric of constitutionality in the world, barring "things that make SugarBear sad inside," Obama's actions have been legal and constitutional.


No, I have too, citing historical precedent and military law statutes, which SugarBear either ignored, misinterpreted, misapplied or musunderstood.
   1542. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4705195)
Wasn't Clinton a lifelong Cub fan till she ran for the Senate and suddenly realized her love for the Yankees? That says it all right there.

I regard this as about as desperate as changing one's religion to appeal to more voters, but some politicians do it. Howard Dean, who was born on Park Avenue and was a life-long Yankee fan, claimed to be a Red Sox fan while campaigning in New Hampshire. Now granted, Red Sox fans were pretty riled up in the winter of 2003 & early 2004, but I don't think politicians changing their [pin]stripes like that have much credibility.
   1543. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:18 PM (#4705196)
My morality: The President targeting and killing particular Americans, including minor Americans with no due process and at his own whim is immoral.


This is perfectly fine. You have kept your claim limited to morality and your personal beliefs. In short, you have jettisoned your previous claim that it was not merely immoral, but illegal.

Your morality: The President is Caesar, anything bad a Democratic president does, including murdering minor Americans at his own whim, is Republicans' fault.


Not at all, as anyone reading for clarity will attest. You're confusing my legal reading of the facts on the ground with a moral position about the state of those facts. Those two things are significantly different, and your error is conflating two things that I have repeatedly and clearly distinguished into a single strawman for your rhetorical convenience.

Drone attacks, inclusive of the attacks in Yemen: legal
Drone attacks, inclusive of the attacks in Yemen: near universally morally abhorrent (the caveat of near universally does not apply to Yemen)
   1544. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4705200)
Both parties are increasingly guilty of expanding the power of the executive far beyond what was previously agreed to as constitutional.

I don't know. Jefferson bought the Lousiana territories. Lincoln told the Supreme Court to stick it when it told him he couldn't suspend habeas corpus. Eisenhower saw to it that Governor Faubus woke up to the 101st Airborne at the foot of his bed. There are other examples.

Then there are those firebombings in Dresden and Tokyo, not to mention you know what?

And a world where "usual" is the President deciding who needs assassinating today is kinda evil.

No one yet has explained why this is a legal crux. Presidents, or his agents, in war do decide who will be targets. Man graduated from hand to hand combat to mallets, to bows and arrows, to crossbows, to muskets, to repeating rifles, to gatling guns, to tanks, to airplane bombers, to ....and at every stage some pretend that this is going beyond some legal/moral pale. And we just keep doing it. And we always will. And you know what, I suspect we always better, if we know what's good for us.
   1545. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4705202)
And this will continue to be true as long as Congress fails to actually govern. Politics abhors a vaccuum.


This. The failure of principle happened in 2001, when the Congress punted everything to the Executive so that daddy could go beat up the bad guys who made us cry.

If Rand Paul would coalesce around repeal of the AUMF and a restrained, realist foreign policy, I'd seriously consider voting for him over Hillary Clinton. I abhor his domestic agenda and his positions and history WRT women is horrific, but I have always been a FP voter first and foremost. Of course, the GOP will never nominate anything but a party line neocon hawk for the Presidency.
   1546. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4705204)
Howard Dean, who was born on Park Avenue and was a life-long Yankee fan, claimed to be a Red Sox fan while campaigning in New Hampshire.


Whoa. Whoa. Dean was governor of Vermont, which is hardcore Red Sox country. Any sane person would dump the Yankees for the Red Sox if they had any excuse at all to do it.

Dumping an inherited but unwanted Yankee fandom is the sign of a sterling character.
   1547. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4705208)
This is perfectly fine. You have kept your claim limited to morality and your personal beliefs. In short, you have jettisoned your previous claim that it was no merely immoral, but illegal.

I've done no such thing. It's illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral. Courts won't interfere because of the long-standing political question doctrine, by which they don't interfere with even unconstitutional laws and actions -- as any student, professional or layman, of constitutional law knows.

I will gladly stipulate that Presidents taking action under AUMF have acted under color of law, an entirely different question. That appears to be what you're fixated on. No, neither Obama nor Bush said, "I'm going to kill Americans because reasons."

Drone attacks, inclusive of the attacks in Yemen: near universally morally abhorrent (the caveat of near universally does not apply to Yemen)

Impossible to comprehend.
   1548. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4705209)
Now granted, Red Sox fans were pretty riled up in the winter of 2003 & early 2004


Funny. Yankee fans were pretty riled down in the winter of 2004 and early 2005.
   1549. zenbitz Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4705210)
drone murders of 16-year-old Americans swell -- Barack Obama stroked his chin and thought really hard before he did it.


Of course it's totally immoral. But that sure as hell doesn't make it illegal. And it being legal doesn't make it GOOD.
And NEWSFLASH: It's immoral WHETHER OR NOT the "enemy combatant" is an American citizen in Yemen or a Saudi citizen in New Jersey.

   1550. zenbitz Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4705212)
Report from the Moonbat front: My 82 year old feminist ultra liberal aunt showed up to her birthday with an "Elizabeth Warren 2016" sweatshirt.

The consensus from Moonbatville is that Hilary is awful but certainly better than Jeb Bush (who is probably better than any other GOP likely candidate, we didn't bother to get that far).

I held my nose and voted for Hilary for Senate ... I imagine I will have to do the same (although thanks the the EC I can just vote for Buster Posey with a clean conscious)
   1551. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4705213)
Wasn't Clinton a lifelong Cub fan till she ran for the Senate and suddenly realized her love for the Yankees? That says it all right there.

People movie, they change a lot of things People from Texas go to LSU and become diehard Tiger fans. Might even learn to Cajun dance and eat boiled crawfish. And vice versa.
   1552. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4705214)
why this is a legal crux. Presidents, or his agents, in war do decide who will be targets

No doubt, but lately they've also decided that it will never be peacetime again.
   1553. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4705215)
Oregon didn't sign-up a single person on its disastrous exchange, which might cost the Governor his job...
This is the type of issue that is easily understood and can be readily used in various types of ads, so it'll be interesting to see how much traction it gets.


"Obamacare is evil... and such small portions!"
   1554. formerly dp Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4705217)
No doubt, but lately they've also decided that it will never be peacetime again.
When you have people who believe #### like this:
Infidels will never, ever win hearts and minds anyway so there's no real point in trying.
It makes it easy to see why.
   1555. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4705218)
I've done no such thing. It's illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral.


You should have accepted the lifeline. Now you're back to idiotically arguing against the facts of the world, begging off that it's not "constitutional" but the courts refuse to rule it unconstitutional because of reasons and stuff. Again, for the last time, your internal feelings are not the arbiter of truth in the world. Until a law is ruled unconstitutional, it is constitutional by default. Your argument here is as empty and vapid as those nutters running around claiming that income tax is unconstitutional, or that the Civil War amendments are unconstitutional because Mississippi never voted or something. You're in nutjob territory here.

Impossible to comprehend.


Sigh. I'll type slowly.

Drone attacks. Near universally abhorrent. Rarely, if ever, moral. Drone attack in Yemen that killed the kid: abhorrent and immoral. (i.e. the caveat does not apply to that specific instance.)
   1556. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4705219)
This. The failure of principle happened in 2001, when the Congress punted everything to the Executive so that daddy could go beat up the bad guys who made us cry.

This, deferring to the Executive, happens when we perceived we are in a life-threatening crisis. It's not hard to understand, and it certainly isn't unusual. We don't have a system that allows concerted action unless there is a crisis being perceived. The rest of the time, it's clownsville, because no one can do anything under the system, so it's just posturing and petty corruptions and payoffs.

EDIT for typos.
   1557. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4705221)
Of course it's totally immoral. But that sure as hell doesn't make it illegal. And it being legal doesn't make it GOOD.


For example, the state execution debacle in Oklahoma was also LEGAL.
   1558. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4705222)
You should have accepted the lifeline. Now you're back to idiotically arguing against the facts of the world, begging off that it's not "constitutional" but the courts refuse to rule it unconstitutional because of reasons and stuff.

Not because of "reasons and stuff." Because of the political question doctrine. You remember that doctrine, right? It's the one a bunch of people, perhaps rightly, argued should have bound the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

Drone attack in Yemen that killed the kid: abhorrent and immoral. (i.e. the caveat does not apply to that specific instance.)

So you've been arguing all this time about the essentially irrelevant point that a morally abhorrent act was technically "legal"? Seems like kind of a waste of time.
   1559. Morty Causa Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4705223)
Morality is situational, and usually personal and subjective, and if legality isn't necessarily good, morality isn't always smart.
   1560. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4705227)
So you've been arguing all this time about the essentially irrelevant point that a morally abhorrent act was technically "legal"?


That it's taken you this long to figure out a distinction I've literally called out 5 times over the last few pages... You should read more closely and argue with the people in the room rather than the voices in your head, man.

Because of the political question doctrine. You remember that doctrine, right? It's the one a bunch of people, perhaps rightly, argued should have bound the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.


I'm aware of the doctrine in question. I agree that it should have held in BvG. My position is that when that doctrine is invoked by a court at any level, the court is defaulting to a ruling that the law in question is constitutional. If it were not, then the question couldn't be rightly deemed political. You disagree with the politics of the law, due to moral problems with executive authority. For the umpteenth time, WE AGREE ON THAT POINT. But that doesn't make the law illegal or unconstitutional.
   1561. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4705230)
My position is that when that doctrine is invoked by a court at any level, the court is defaulting to a ruling that the law in question is constitutional. If it were not, then the question couldn't be rightly deemed political.

That's incorrect. It's correct that the end result is that the court doesn't overturn the law. It isn't correct that the question couldn't be deemed "political" in this context if the court thought the law was unconstitutional.

Indeed, according to press reports, the federal judge in the Alwaki case expressed significant reservations about the constitutionality of all of it. But courts aren't in the business of interfering with the prosecution of war and peace -- that's for the executive and legislative branches to worry about and work out. AMUF isn't unconstitutional on its face, and it would be outside the proper constitutional role for a federal judge to rule that every assassination order is subject to court review before it's carried out -- for what should be obvious reasons. When courts can't fashion a workable remedy even if they find a law unconstitutional, they pass. And that's what appears to have happened here (at least according to press accounts).
   1562. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4705238)
When courts can't fashion a workable remedy even if they find a law unconstitutional, they pass. And that's what appears to have happened here (at least according to press accounts).


And when that happens, the law is operatively constitutional. You want to create this nebulous shadow territory of "unconstitutional in spirit, but not deemed so by either of the three branches of government." That's meaningless. It's a binary option. Either a law is constitutional, which means it stays on the books and is leveraged by the powers that be when they see fit, or it is unconstitutional and is not available for them to use. This law, and this use of the law, is not unconstitutional by any functional definition. It is therefore constitutional. If the line between "constitutional" vs "not" is how Barack Obama slept the previous night, the law is constitutional by every meaningful metric.
   1563. McCoy Posted: May 12, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4705240)
444. BourbonSamurai Is a Lazy Nogoodnik Posted: February 20, 2011 at 10:17 PM (#3754658)

best dc meals of the last six months

1. 1789 for restaurant week
2. The Chirashi at Sushi Taro
3. Turbot in an uni sauce at Bistro d'oc
4. Pho Viet in Columbia Hieghts
5. Rasika
6. The valentine's day special at red rocks pizzeria
7. Malaysia Kopitiam
8. Anything from Two Amy's
9. Vietnamese at Four sisters. cha gio and five spiced beef with vermicelli
10. flatbread and the brat burger at birch and barley


Having lived in DC now for almost 3 years and probably moving out soon I decided to look back at this. Still don't know all of these places but I know about most of them.

Sushi Taro is quite good. That place and Umi are my favorite sushi places.
Never found Red Rock to be all that great. Pizzeria Pardiso and the Two Amy's splinter stores are better
Never been to Two Amy's but I like Ghibellina and Etto which are restaurants started by former chefs of Two Amy's.
Never found Birch & Barley's food all that appealing.

For me right now Duke's is near the top of the list of great places to eat followed by Ghibellina, The Pig, Hill Country, & Jaleo in no particular order. Went to Lupo Verde yesterday and love the concept but will have to go back another time to see if their service has improved. Yesterday was the second time they did brunch and though they weren't busy when we got there the service was just incredibly slow and not very on the ball.
   1564. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4705250)
This law, and this use of the law, is not unconstitutional by any functional definition. It is therefore constitutional. If the line between "constitutional" vs "not" is how Barack Obama slept the previous night, the law is constitutional by every meaningful metric.

Again incorrect. Not all unconstitutional laws and acts have a judicially-cognizable remedy. And when they don't -- like here -- courts step aside. That doesn't make the unconstitutional laws constitutional.

Which is why, e.g., all federal officials, including the President, take their own oath to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution. Barack Obama would be violating that oath if Congress dissolved itself and bequeathed him with all its legislative powers and he ordered a change in the tax laws, or decreed the institution of a new currency. It simply isn't the case that judges are the final and only word on the constitutionality of every single act and law. Some acts don't lend themselves to it. Do you think a court could find the Vietnam War unconstitutional and issue an injunction against it? Of course not. So the courts step aside from questions like that.
   1565. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 03:26 PM (#4705259)
Wasn't Clinton a lifelong Cub fan till she ran for the Senate and suddenly realized her love for the Yankees? That says it all right there.


I regard this as about as desperate as changing one's religion to appeal to more voters, but some politicians do it.

If that's the measure of a politician's courage, not to mention a city's sense of proportion, then New York Mayor Bill de Blasio rates a chapter in a 21st century version of the JFK book. I'd love to see a Boston mayoral candidate openly proclaim his Yankee fandom and live to tell the tale.
   1566. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4705277)
1. 1789 for restaurant week

Even though I have never lived in DC, and am even there incredibly infrequently these days, this kind of consistency over the decades warms my heart.
   1567. Publius Publicola Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:02 PM (#4705288)
Rubio gets chopped off at the knees by IEA report:

IEA: Clean energy shift will save world $71 trillion through 2050

"It’s important that we look at this from a more systematic approach," said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in an interview with the Monitor.That requires better integrating all the components and sectors that make up an energy system – from low-carbon fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, from energy efficiency to smart grids, and from better cars to better buildings.

"If you think that only by having more renewables you can save the world – I think this is an illusion," Ms. Van der Hoeven said via telephone. "You have to do more than that. You have to look at the whole system of electricity generation and to see to it where you have the benefits and where the costs will be."


Only $71 trillion. Bah, probably not worth the trouble. Better to let the polar ice caps melt and California to desertify.
   1568. Ron J2 Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:03 PM (#4705289)
#1544 Quibble. Pretty sure it was Chief Justice Taney (sitting as a federal circuit court judge) whose ruling Lincoln ignored until Congress reconvened. The rest of the SC never got a chance to hear the case not least because Lincoln had ordered the release of Merryman (and everybody else detained)
   1569. Mefisto Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4705316)
1568 is correct. Also, it's doubtful Eisenhower violated the Constitution when he sent the troops into Little Rock. There's a pretty strong precedent in the Whiskey Rebellion.
   1570. Mefisto Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4705320)
Also, while Jefferson thought he violated the Constitution with the Lousiana Purchase, not many agreed with him. It's also a dubious example.
   1571. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4705329)
Jefferson made a treaty with a foreign power, which he was explicitly authorized to do. The Senate ratified the treaty, and Congress appropriated the money to implement it.

   1572. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4705331)
Gallup measures the 2014 enthusiasm gap:
Among registered voters, 42% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents currently say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while 50% are less enthusiastic, resulting in an eight-point enthusiasm deficit. But Democrats are even less enthusiastic, with a 23-point deficit (32% more enthusiastic vs. 55% less enthusiastic).

Typically, the party whose supporters have an advantage in enthusiasm has done better in midterm elections. Republicans had decided advantages in enthusiasm in 1994, 2002, and especially 2010 -- years in which they won control of the House of Representatives or expanded on their existing majority. Democrats had the advantage in 2006, the year they won control of the House. Neither party had a decided advantage in 1998, a year Democrats posted minimal gains in House seats.

Maybe there is so much 2016 talk here because some aren't enthused about 2014?

   1573. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4705333)
Calvin Coolidge was frequently in violation of the Looking Like an Idiot Amendment.
   1574. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 12, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4705339)
Maybe there is so much 2016 talk here because some aren't enthused about 2014?

I would guess it's because 2014's fait is pretty much accompli. The GOP is going to make gains; the question is whether they'll be enough to almost take the Senate, or to just barely take the Senate. Either way, those gains will be erased in 2016. The House is unlikely to careen anywhere. Republicans can't do shit to stop Obamacare; Democrats can't do shit to stop Benghazi IX; nobody can do shit about the economy. So the first genuinely unpredictable GOP nomination fight of our lifetimes and Hillary's brain scans are more attractive hypotheticals, for those who like to hypotheticate.
   1575. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 12, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4705355)
No comments on Mark Pryors 10 point lead in Arkansas Clappy?
   1576. starving to death with a full STEAGLES Posted: May 12, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4705358)
for anyone who wants to read the BBTF perspective on the michael sam kissing "controversy", this is from the jason collins thread about a year ago (the specific conversation starts with post 306):
but what if, instead of coming out in an article in SI, jason collins had a press conference and he stood at a podium and came out of the closet by kissing another man.

the reaction to that is what i want to see.
Well, unfortunately for you, Jason Collins is a mature adult.
   1577. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: May 12, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4705361)
I went to Et Voila in DC last night. Really fantastic meal. It's not the most creative place -- fairly traditional Belgian/French -- but the execution is great.

I like Etto a lot. 2 Amys is great. Haven in Bethesda is really good. (Mia's used to be great, but my last meal there was mediocre.) China Bistro out in Rockville is really good.
   1578. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 05:59 PM (#4705363)
I'm glad Michael Sam got drafted and I'm rooting for him to make the team and play well.

That said, what's with all the guys -- straight and gay -- bawling and crying after they got drafted? When did that become a thing? It started with Clowney at 1 and continued through to Sam at 250-whatever.
   1579. zonk Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:02 PM (#4705365)
I would guess it's because 2014's fait is pretty much accompli. The GOP is going to make gains; the question is whether they'll be enough to almost take the Senate, or to just barely take the Senate. Either way, those gains will be erased in 2016. The House is unlikely to careen anywhere. Republicans can't do #### to stop Obamacare; Democrats can't do #### to stop Benghazi IX; nobody can do #### about the economy. So the first genuinely unpredictable GOP nomination fight of our lifetimes and Hillary's brain scans are more attractive hypotheticals, for those who like to hypotheticate.


Actually, there's a spate of new polls from Marist today that signal some good Democratic news...

- Mark Pryor now has a 3rd poll showing him with a 10+ point lead in Arkansas

- Michelle Nunn is +1/-1 in trial matchups against all her potential Georgia opponents

- Grimes continues to be within a point of McConnell in KY


Edit: Added link...

Double Edit: I have no idea what mefisto is talking about :-)

   1580. Mefisto Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:03 PM (#4705367)
@1579: KY, not TN
   1581. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4705382)
Speaking of the draft, the first round did an 8.7 combined on ESPN/NFL Network, up 40+% from last year and doubling/tripling the ratings of the NBA and NHL playoffs played at the same time.

So much for the "television ratings must go down over time, what with all the other things to do in our modern, networked world" theory. And the "people only care about football because of gambling" theory. And the "people only watch football games on Sunday because it's the weekend" theory. And the "people only follow football because it's a once a week sport" theory.

Etc., etc., etc.
   1582. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:28 PM (#4705389)
In other words, setting aside Game 6, as many people watched the NFL DRAFT on television as watched the 2013 World Series.
   1583. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4705390)
That said, what's with all the guys -- straight and gay -- bawling and crying after they got drafted?


It's just another sign that we as a society are in decline.
   1584. Steve Treder Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4705402)
It's just another sign that we as a society are in decline.

Damn straight. That kind of stuff wasn't happening in 1979, that's for sure.
   1585. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4705404)
Gallup measures the 2014 enthusiasm gap:


See if I was gonna spin this I'd point out that Gallup's recent national polling performances have been abysmal, they had Romney winning the popular vote in 2012...

but no, Id agree, Reps in 2014 are more enthused than Dems in 2014, but their enthusiasm advantage (As polled by Gallup) is not as great as it was in 2010:

2014: GOP -8, Dems -23 (Advantage GOP by 15 points)
2010: GOP +34, Dems -0- (Advantage GOP by 34 points)
2006: GOP +1, Dems +14 (Advantage Dems by 13 points)
2002: GOP +8, Dems -5 (Advantage GOP by 13 points)
1998: GOP +2, Dems -5 (Advantage GOP by 7)
1994: GOP +3, Dems -15 (Advantage GOP by 18)

2006 aside, the GOP having an enthusiasm advantage in a mid-term seems to be the usual state of affairs- but the GOP has never actually had negative enthusiasm in a midterm before, perhaps they'll start to buck up a bit if YC's "Wave" election meme takes hold...
   1586. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 12, 2014 at 06:55 PM (#4705409)
Damn straight. That kind of stuff wasn't happening in 1979, that's for sure.

I've always felt that society's decline began when the entire ####### 1979 World Series was forced to be played in the freezing rain.
   1587. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 07:19 PM (#4705417)
Funny, I looked up the 1979 NFL draft. The #1 pick that year was Tom Cousineau, who was so underwhelmed by the honor that he went and played in the CFL instead. But now I'm trying to figure out whether that was the apex of history or the beginning of the sharp slide down.
   1588. Bitter Mouse Posted: May 12, 2014 at 07:22 PM (#4705419)
Let me go on record with two things. First voter enthusiasm is hugely overrated. Secondly Universal Studios is a lesser Amusement Park when compared to Disney. Minion Mayhem, Transformers and the Mummy Ride were all very enjoyable though.
   1589. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:02 PM (#4705437)
Funny, I looked up the 1979 NFL draft. The #1 pick that year was Tom Cousineau, who was so underwhelmed by the honor that he went and played in the CFL instead. But now I'm trying to figure out whether that was the apex of history or the beginning of the sharp slide down.

Well there were very persistent rumors that Cousineau was gay ....
   1590. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:05 PM (#4705440)
for anyone who wants to read the BBTF perspective on the michael sam kissing "controversy", this is from the jason collins thread about a year ago (the specific conversation starts with post 306):


Nice trolling attempt.

A gay guy got drafted and kissed another guy on national tv, yawn. I don't watch the NFL draft but I imagine draftees kiss their girlfriends all the time after hearing the news, although those kisses are probably not choreographed by some special interest group, as I imagine this one was.
   1591. Lassus Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:19 PM (#4705447)
although those kisses are probably not choreographed by some special interest group, as I imagine this one was.
Nice trolling attempt.
   1592. BDC Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4705449)
those kisses are probably not choreographed by some special interest group

Interesting. The warrant is that the endless procession of athlete wives and representations thereof across American culture for the past century or more, certifying men's heterosexuality, piety, and good-provider status, tidying up the boundaries of sport as role model for conformist Middle America, getting Jimmy Stewart back on his foot and Ronald Reagan out of the carnival sideshow, is just one of those things that happen spontaneously among straight people. But when a guy kisses a guy, it must have been arranged by the PC Equal-Time Osculation Police.

I think we have to allow that both straight and gay PDAs are both simpler and more complicated than your warrant suggests. We don't know what people "really" mean in private or public when they kiss each other. What we do know is that there was no public guy-on-guy kissing during the 1979 NFL draft, and that means that some symbolism has changed in order for you to be able to yawn in 2014.

   1593. GregD Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4705450)
Also, it's doubtful Eisenhower violated the Constitution when he sent the troops into Little Rock. There's a pretty strong precedent in the Whiskey Rebellion.
I think Eisenhower relied upon the 1866 civil rights act, didn't he? I don't think he issued a proclamation of a domestic insurrection, right?
   1594. Mefisto Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:32 PM (#4705451)
I think Eisenhower relied upon the 1866 civil rights act, didn't he? I don't think he issued a proclamation of a domestic insurrection, right?


Eisenhower's specific statutory justification for it wouldn't affect the Constitutionality. Even if he made a bad argument (and I'm not saying he did), he could still make a better one later.
   1595. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:32 PM (#4705452)
What we do know is that there was no public guy-on-guy kissing during the 1979 NFL draft, and that means that some symbolism has changed in order for you to be able to yawn in 2014.

I don't think the '79 draft was on TV.

The warrant is that the endless procession of athlete wives and representations thereof across American culture for the past century or more, certifying men's heterosexuality, piety, and good-provider status, tidying up the boundaries of sport as role model for conformist Middle America, getting Jimmy Stewart back on his foot and Ronald Reagan out of the carnival sideshow, is just one of those things that happen spontaneously among straight people.

There might have been a time when that was the warrant. Might have been. But that time has long passed. No one sees big-time athletes -- particularly NFLers -- as "providers" and paragons of bourgeois domesticity, but instead as players living large, bopping a cavalcade of hot chicks and baby mamas. (The heterosexual ones, anyway.)
   1596. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 12, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4705456)
But when a guy kisses a guy, it must have been arranged by the PC Equal-Time Osculation Police.


Well, was it or not?

The Collins thing was heavily "arranged," as was the other college athlete who came out on twitter after that (I'm blanking on his name; it might even have been Sam), and if the Sam draft thing wasn't, if the people who make it their job -- I mean that literally - to be concerned about these things just let it happen spontaneously, it would be a surprise indeed.

   1597. zonk Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:03 PM (#4705466)

The Collins thing was heavily "arranged," as was the other college athlete who came out on twitter after that (I'm blanking on his name; it might even have been Sam), and if the Sam draft thing wasn't, if the people who make it their job -- I mean that literally - to be concerned about these things just let it happen spontaneously, it would be a surprise indeed.


What's the problem with "people who make it their job"?

Rosa Parks wasn't a seamstress with tired feet - she was a a secretary for the NAACP and activist.

Historically, groups confined to the margins and shadows due to gender, race, religion, or now sexual orientation haven't had a lot of luck spontaneously becoming accepted in broader society - they've gotten to that point in no small part because a lot of people make it their job to be concerned about gaining that acceptance.
   1598. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:12 PM (#4705470)
Rosa Parks wasn't a seamstress with tired feet - she was a a secretary for the NAACP and activist.

No, but she didn't choreograph her refusal to move back -- it was completely genuine -- nor did she call in a bunch of TV cameras to mark the event.
   1599. zonk Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4705479)
No, but she didn't choreograph her refusal to move back -- it was completely genuine -- nor did she call in a bunch of TV cameras to mark the event.


Not really -

For one thing - there had been a number of cases prior to Parks that simply didn't capture the imagination. Her refusal at the moment it happened was spontaneous, but the NAACP immediately seized upon as their best test case... She and the NAACP most certainly did call a bunch of TV cameras, just as the marchers years later would carefully train and select marchers to yield maximum effect for a TV audience.

The mythmaking of the 'tired seamstress' was an important part of the narrative - but it's time we all grow up and recognize that plenty of people back in the 50s and 60s were of a mind that perhaps they didn't have a problem with black folks per se, but also didn't like rabble rousers stirring an imagined tranquility.

...or take the women's suffrage movement...

... or virtually any similar movement you like - such change has never just been 'given', it comes about in no small part because people make it their jobs to have it come about.

It confuses me as to why such people tend to be denigrated in their time - Parks, King, et al certainly were, and not just by the Bull Connors of the world. So, too, the Susan B Anthony's...
   1600. Mefisto Posted: May 12, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4705480)
@1597: You're right about some historical cases, but I've seen no evidence that this particular situation was staged in any way. Anybody who wants to argue that it is should produce some evidence of that. But even if it were staged, I wouldn't care and wouldn't see anything wrong with that.
Page 16 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5080 - 2:26pm, Dec 20)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(16 - 2:20pm, Dec 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(87 - 2:15pm, Dec 20)
Last: DA Baracus

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(318 - 2:03pm, Dec 20)
Last: frannyzoo

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(101 - 2:00pm, Dec 20)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(103 - 2:00pm, Dec 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogThe 4 surprisingly quiet teams of the MLB offseason
(36 - 1:58pm, Dec 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogZuckerman - Trea Turner Named Now, Plays Later
(6 - 1:51pm, Dec 20)
Last: Justin T steals bases with his bat

NewsblogGiants acquire McGehee to fill third-base spot
(1 - 1:46pm, Dec 20)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(131 - 1:40pm, Dec 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(2 - 1:19pm, Dec 20)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogAmazin' Avenue - Cohen: Mets and Rockies discussing Troy Tulowitzki deal with Noah Syndergaard as the centerpiece
(46 - 1:01pm, Dec 20)
Last: formerly dp

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1362 - 12:46pm, Dec 20)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(12 - 12:40pm, Dec 20)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim

NewsblogFull Count » Source: Red Sox close to deal sending Will Middlebrooks to Padres for Ryan Hanigan
(13 - 12:39pm, Dec 20)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

Page rendered in 0.9076 seconds
48 querie(s) executed