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 20 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1901. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4706719)
every time she won it was a controversy, and the media picked up the same angle every time, the impilcation was more often than not that she was "cheating" etc..to try and suggest she was warmly accepted and welcome is divorced from the way the story was presented and the "outrage" that surronded it.


I think one could figure that out from the fact that she needed to go to court to be able to play, and once she did play, on more than one occasion her opponents quit mid-match in protest.
   1902. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4706723)
Some folks were asking for a new topical political conversation, instead of the hilarity of SugarBear On Film... Here's a really interesting piece by James Poulos on Rand Paul's recent statements and pre-2016 positioning.

These are not isolated acts of pandering. Yes, Paul is playing politics—after all, he thinks the GOP needs to be transformed to win and to govern. But there’s more. Implicit in Paul’s harsh view of his own party is a powerful condemnation of what America has also become. He hasn’t come right out and said it, yet, but actions speak louder than words: Just as Republicans must reform or lose hope, so must America.

It may offend some people that Rand Paul, of all people, might reveal the centrality of an agenda for African Americans to the recovery of both kinds of hope. Well, stranger things have happened.
   1903. Rob_Wood Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4706724)

omg, anybody who thinks the renee richards reaction was anything other than over the top probably did not live through those times
   1904. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4706725)
I think one could figure that out from the fact that she needed to go to court to be able to play, and once she did play, on more than one occasion her opponents quit mid-match in protest.


A similar controversy erupted over a transgender woman who was denied entry into the female division of the CrossFit games, just this year.
   1905. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4706726)
Your point here is as empty and vapid as your rantings about silent film.

ESPN was not a major cultural signifier until the mid to late 80s.


Concession accepted.
   1906. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4706728)
Concession accepted.


Your ability to read has already been discussed, Babydoll.
   1907. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4706731)
Your ability to read has already been discussed, Babydoll.

Concession still accepted.
   1908. JE (Jason) Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4706732)
More silliness from those quixotic treehuggers over at the Pentagon:

Newsflash, Kevin: The President of the United States get to nominate politicos for the Pentagon too. Remember Rummy? Wolfy? Feithy?
   1909. BDC Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4706733)
did not feel the urge to repeatedly congratulate itself

Maybe that's because a lot of people in the late '70s weren't OK with Richards. At the same time, quite a few people did congratulate Anita Bryant in those days. I'm not sure we're remembering the same 1970s :-D
   1910. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4706736)
Concession still accepted.

Based on multiple eyewitness reports, I don't suppose you'll concede Renee Richards' transgenderism wasn't a non-issue?
   1911. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4706737)
Newsflash, Kevin: The President of the United States get to nominate politicos for the Pentagon too. Remember Rummy? Wolfy? Feithy?


Newsflash, Jason. Anthropomorphic climate change is simply true. STOP IT!
   1912. Ron J2 Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4706738)
#1874 Well what would you call those human interest time fillers that we get during the Olympics? The Sam coverage was mostly the same thing. Interesting stories are kind of thin on the ground at that point of the draft and ... well they had time to fill.
   1913. Shredder Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4706742)
Newsflash, Jason. Anthropomorphic climate change is simply true. STOP IT!
I think you mean anthropogenic. Unless you think we're talking about climate change as if it's a human.
   1914. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4706746)
Maybe that's because a lot of people in the late '70s weren't OK with Richards.

So the test is that every single person has to be "OK" with something for the culture to be able to congratulate itself about it?

Upon further reflection that's kind of a strange test, right? Kind of a tough one to pass?

I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that she played under conditions of virtual normalcy, since she did. It was an extremely laudable episode in American history -- America at its very finest.

   1915. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4706748)
I think you mean anthropogenic. Unless you think we're talking about climate change as if it's a human.


That would be more awesome.
   1916. JE (Jason) Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4706751)
Newsflash, Jason. Anthropomorphic climate change is simply true. STOP IT!

I think you mean anthropogenic.

Shorter Sam H: "Hodor."
   1917. Ron J2 Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4706752)
#1903 I'd suggest reading Tank McNamara from that time frame
   1918. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4706761)
   1919. Rob_Wood Posted: May 14, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4706765)

When someone claims that renee richards played under virtual normalcy, they have lost whatever shred of sanity they might have had left. she was heckled mercilessly for a long time (it eventually died down when some of the star players supported her), tournaments were cancelled if she entered, opponents refused to play against her, and she was hounded by the press non-stop. And let's be honest, all of this was 100% negative, invasive, personally insulting, etc. I cannot believe that anyone thinks that her tennis experience was anything but the most non-normal experience in the history of professional tennis.
   1920. Mefisto Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4706769)
@1902: Paul has already backed away from his comments. Here's the statement by his spokesperson:

"Senator Paul was having a larger discussion about criminal justice reform and restoration of voting rights, two issues he has been speaking about around the country and pushing for in state and federal legislation.

In the course of that discussion, he reiterated a point he has made before that while there may be some instances of voter fraud, it should not be a defining issue of the Republican Party, as it is an issue that is perhaps perceived in a way it is not intended. At no point did Senator Paul come out against voter ID laws. In terms of the specifics of voter ID laws, Senator Paul believes it's up to each state to decide that type of issue."
   1921. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4706772)
The U.S. Tennis Association created a new rule that all women entrants in the U.S. Open had to take a sex chromosome test, specifically designed to block Renee Richards. She had to sue them, and win, to play the following year. The Women's Tennis Association withdrew is sanction for the Tennis Week Open when Richards was in it, and encouraged players to stage a walkout. It was an extremely laudable episode in American history -- America at its very finest.
   1922. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4706774)
Paul has already backed away from his comments. Here's the statement by his spokesperson:


Politician gonna politic, sure. But at least someone on that side of the aisle is trying to be the adult in the room. I have a lot of misgivings about Rand Paul, but I'm not unwilling to listen to him.
   1923. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4706782)
A similar controversy erupted over a transgender woman who was denied entry into the female division of the CrossFit games, just this year.


MMA has Fallon Fox
   1924. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4706788)
The U.S. Tennis Association created a new rule that all women entrants in the U.S. Open had to take a sex chromosome test, specifically designed to block Renee Richards. She had to sue them, and win, to play the following year. The Women's Tennis Association withdrew is sanction for the Tennis Week Open when Richards was in it, and encouraged players to stage a walkout. It was an extremely laudable episode in American history -- America at its very finest.

Faced with a case of first impression, the authorities were -- for obvious reasons -- worried about the potential competition-distorting possibilities of permitting someone who had played professional men's tennis to play as a woman. As Anita Bryant herself said at the time, "Transsexuals have every right to play [as women], but maybe not on a professional level because it's not a level playing field."(*)

Once that issue was run through the courts, she played under conditions of virtual normalcy and the culture that had every reason to celebrate itself, really didn't. It was an extremely laudable episode in American history -- America at its very finest.

And quite sophisticated, to boot.

(*) Or might have said anyway. You know who actually did say it? Renee Richards, in 2011.

   1925. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4706794)


The only people who really "care" about that kiss, en masse, are the folks outraged by it.


I haven't been following the "Wings"/1927 discussion, but this is flatly untrue. It's basically a lie. Intellectual dishonesty.
   1926. Publius Publicola Posted: May 14, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4706816)
The U.S. Tennis Association created a new rule that all women entrants in the U.S. Open had to take a sex chromosome test, specifically designed to block Renee Richards. She had to sue them, and win, to play the following year. The Women's Tennis Association withdrew is sanction for the Tennis Week Open when Richards was in it, and encouraged players to stage a walkout. It was an extremely laudable episode in American history -- America at its very finest.


That's a tough one. Was what the US Tennis Association did pro-women or anti-women?

I can understand why they did it, to prevent pseudo-men from dominating women's tennis.
   1927. bunyon Posted: May 14, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4706871)
Jill Abramson out at NYT. Anyone know why?
   1928. Mefisto Posted: May 14, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4706878)
If Paul means his positions so feebly that he won't take even the slightest step towards actually solving the problem, I don't see any reason to listen to him.
   1929. tfbg9 Posted: May 14, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4706883)
Jill Abramson out at NYT. Anyone know why?


She snarked Mrs. Pinch?
   1930. tfbg9 Posted: May 14, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4706887)
You know who actually did say it? Renee Richards, in 2011.


Didn't Dick Young say of RR, "A gelding is not a filly"?
   1931. simon bedford Posted: May 14, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4706915)
this bear persons logic seems to be "she wasnt accepted as a she and not allowed to play, she won a court case and everyone accepted her and america rules",,,except any and all of us who were alive can tell you thats not what happened. there was still storms of protest, she never appeared in the press or tv without "controversial" attatched to her name, she was openly mocked and derided in some circles, was a punchline to less then sensitive jokes in others. I was alive and aware of this stuff when it went on, and the mainstreem press and networks did not present her as a sympathetic figure in the least, and it was said in more than one place ( i was in canada at the time and we heard all about it constantly) that once again the courts had screwed up.
sbbs continued stance that it was somehow positive for richards or tennis or gender politics is denial at its finest
   1932. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4706926)
The only people who really "care" about that kiss, en masse, are the folks outraged by it.

While Ray is flatly wrong on everything he says about gay issues and gay people and gay experience, he's right in disagreeing with this statement as written on the response, I think.


And SBB needs to load up on Red Bull or something before he launches into a response to #1919 and #1931. But it's coming. I hope.
   1933. Howie Menckel Posted: May 14, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4706935)

I hope the Rams got a heads-up from Oprah on her new documentary series:

Per OWN: "Cameras will follow Sam as he works to earn his spot... while under the intense scrutiny of being the first openly gay player"

...........

Jill A clashed bigtime with the guy who replaced her today. looks like this is a pretty bloody uncoupling, one might say

   1934. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4706936)
And SBB needs to load up on Red Bull or something before he launches into a response to #1919 and #1931. But it's coming. I hope.


this bear persons logic seems to be "she wasnt accepted as a she and not allowed to play, she won a court case and everyone accepted her and america rules",,,except any and all of us who were alive can tell you thats not what happened. there was still storms of protest, she never appeared in the press or tv without "controversial" attatched to her name, she was openly mocked and derided in some circles, was a punchline to less then sensitive jokes in others. I was alive and aware of this stuff when it went on, and the mainstreem press and networks did not present her as a sympathetic figure in the least, and it was said in more than one place ( i was in canada at the time and we heard all about it constantly) that once again the courts had screwed up. sbbs continued stance that it was somehow positive for richards or tennis or gender politics is denial at its finest

There's no evidence proffered in 1931 other than memory, but any search of the media archives of the time (NYT, SI, etc.) will confirm my account. Not only did they not "always" attach "controversial" to her name, they virtually never did.

I'll also briefly address the claim that "the mainstream press and networks did not present her as a sympathetic figure in the least." Yes, that's accurate. And therein lies the difference between then and now. That era treated her as a human in full, which means that it didn't interpret her life or situation as particularly worthy of, or needing "sympathy" beyond that generally given to the situational plight of human beings. It not define her as transsexual, or permit the fact of her transsexuality to swallow up what she was doing in her life. Her "status" as a transsexual was a small component of who she was and perceived to be -- she was an accomplished eye surgeon and tennis player -- not to be fixated and obsessed upon, and certainly not to be the fountain of unceasing and un-asked for "sympathy." Given who she was and what she'd accomplished, she had no need for the untargeted "sympathy" of everyday people who didn't know her, and such "sympathy" would have been a sign of incomprehension, if not disrespect.

Feature, not bug.

Contrast and compare our maudlin and "sympathetic" era for the obvious differences.


   1935. simon bedford Posted: May 14, 2014 at 06:36 PM (#4706957)
ok heres what u remeber clearly vs what you think happened
richards was the butt of jokes in prime time tv shows and also late night tv, including one rather unpleasent bunch of comments from bob hope on the tonight show..cant find clips of this but it happened and i can recall it clear as day
years after she started playing opponents would either walk off mid set or refuse outright to play against richrards , the reasons given ran from religious reasons to feeling she had an unfair advantage not being a woman.
as late as 3 years into her short career two opponents showed up wearing matching t shirts that read " i am a real woman"
you may think this was the "outsider" position on richards and everyone else just loved her story but the 70s were nothing like that at all.
remeber only a few years earlier the entire riggs vs king circus happened.
   1936. Rob_Wood Posted: May 14, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4706969)

sbb has reached a new high (low) -- he could not be more wrong on the entire renee richards episode
   1937. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 14, 2014 at 07:21 PM (#4706982)
Her "status" as a transsexual was a small component of who she was and perceived to be -- she was an accomplished eye surgeon and tennis player

Yes, Renee Richards, the well-known eye surgeon. SugarBear has accurately captured the public and media zeitgeist of the mid-1970s.

Having American tennis change a rule specifically to exclude her must have been part of "the situational plight of human beings." When Wimbledon just plain banned her, saying that their bylaws allowed them to do so without explanation, they were merely "treating her as a human in full." And though the L.A. Times wrote that she was "frequently" called a freak, it must have been in admiration for her freakish ability in tennis and/or ocular surgery. As for the sportswriter who called her "an it," he was probably pressed for column space.

The one thing we know is that the commotion wasn't because anyone was "fixated and obsessed" about her sexuality. The jokes about Richards playing mixed doubles by herself were only a small component of the totality of Renee Richards' "status." The "zoo-like atmosphere" she described to the Associated Press only came about because people were amazed by the breadth of her accomplishments. And when she said "I became a caricature, a notorious public figure. I was stripped naked in front of the whole world... like a monkey in a glass cage," it sounds like Richards was expressing gratitude that she never had to put up with today's disrespectful and unenlightened "sympathy."
   1938. BDC Posted: May 14, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4706992)
I dunno, Bear. You are starting from the premise "Factors imperceptible to anyone but me mean that inevitably life in 1927 or 1977 was exponentially better than today," but since that always leads to the same conclusion whatever the facts, and I can't follow your evidence, I don't know what to say :)

I will grant (as I did upthread) that tennis is one of the few sports where the Richards experience was even possible, in any era. Imagine a transsexual player in the NFL today! Though you would probably say that in 1979 that would have been no big deal. And at that she went through hell.
   1939. Amit Posted: May 14, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4706997)
Here is a link to a 1976 SI article on Richards:
SI Article
   1940. Publius Publicola Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:03 PM (#4707000)
As a post-adolescent living through the Renee Richards episode, all I remember is that I thought the whole thing was kind of funny.
   1941. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:10 PM (#4707003)
sbb has reached a new high (low) -- he could not be more wrong on the entire renee richards episode

Listen, that kiss she had with Bow was totally hot.
   1942. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:20 PM (#4707007)
Having American tennis change a rule specifically to exclude her must have been part of "the situational plight of human beings." When Wimbledon just plain banned her, saying that their bylaws allowed them to do so without explanation, they were merely "treating her as a human in full." And though the L.A. Times wrote that she was "frequently" called a freak, it must have been in admiration for her freakish ability in tennis and/or ocular surgery. As for the sportswriter who called her "an it," he was probably pressed for column space.

The one thing we know is that the commotion wasn't because anyone was "fixated and obsessed" about her sexuality. The jokes about Richards playing mixed doubles by herself were only a small component of the totality of Renee Richards' "status." The "zoo-like atmosphere" she described to the Associated Press only came about because people were amazed by the breadth of her accomplishments. And when she said "I became a caricature, a notorious public figure. I was stripped naked in front of the whole world... like a monkey in a glass cage," it sounds like Richards was expressing gratitude that she never had to put up with today's disrespectful and unenlightened "sympathy."


Is that all there is? The "zoo-like atmosphere" at her first match (shock!!), an LA Times summary and guess, a random mean statement by one sportswriter, a bad joke, and a single context-free reflective comment among all the things she's said?

You scoured the archives ... and that's it?

The "rule" thing is just silly. It wasn't because of her sexuality; it was because of the competitive advantage people feared she'd have and that she herself said later in life that she did have. The reactions of many of the players were also based on that -- shock!!! What's next -- Greg Louganis was subjected to invasive drug testing at the Olympics because he was gay?

Here's a hint: "Normalcy" doesn't mean "No one anywhere, anytime ever says anything mean about you."



   1943. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:28 PM (#4707016)
Transgender woman being mocked openly and heckled mercilessly if she were even aloud to play: "normalcy"

Gay man being praised for being out before the NFL draft, and being drafted while being out: maudlin excess

SBB starts from the premise "everything was better in the late 70s" and works his mythology back from that point.
   1944. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:34 PM (#4707019)
SBB starts from the premise "everything was better in the late 70s" and works his mythology back from that point.

Not everything, or even close.

Transgender woman being mocked openly and heckled mercilessly if she were even aloud to play: "normalcy"

Don't you ever get embarrassed by your inability to communicate other than by wild exaggeration?
   1945. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:52 PM (#4707025)
Don't you ever get embarrassed by your inability to communicate other than by wild exaggeration?

I don't see why he should when you don't.
   1946. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 14, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4707027)
I didn't "scour the archives," SugarBear, I looked up four articles. And yet my minimal efforts took far more time than the in-depth 3-minute research behind your "Wings" thesis.

I share your inherent distrust for feel-good #yayforus pap. That soccer woman who pulled off her USA jersey didn't rock history, and I kinda think the gay football guy won't, either, no matter what Deadspin wrote about it two seconds ago.

But even after retrofitting and rewriting history, SugarBear, your Wings/NFL/tennis arc of gay/transgender societal reaction and overreaction is incoherent. You're making shit up and it still doesn't hang together. Okay, this is the internet, and admitting even the smallest error online is more emasculating than anything Renee Richards ever experienced. So no retractions are needed. And at this point I'm guessing you're just screwing around for laughs. But if you're the slightest bit sincere about this mess, try adjusting or slowing down. Right now, your posts have left you like this guy while saying, "I totally meant to drive here, and I am cruising."
   1947. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:16 PM (#4707030)
That wasn't my arc.

My arc was that I'm not going to get all atwitter about a video depiction of two guys kissing when I know gay guys kiss each other and it's been depicted in pixels many times before, and that the cultural reaction to Renee Richards was healthier and more centered than the cultural reaction to Michael Sam and Jason Collins.

That's it. There's nothing really even that provocative about that "arc," and I'm not even sure it deserves the honorific. It's not entirely in tune with the modern liberal conception of culture and the world -- a world in which a guy kissing his boyfriend on TV in 2014 is one of the most "iconic" and "significant" moments in sports and cultural history. They tend to defend that conception quite fiercely, with varying degrees of honesty, and they haven't disappointed here.
   1948. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:21 PM (#4707033)
It's not entirely in tune with the modern liberal conception of culture and the world

I was wondering when you were ever going to slip that in. We're now down to 92 bottles of beer on the wall.
   1949. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4707037)
I was wondering when you were ever going to slip that in.

It's an almost sublime term to describe the world in which a guy kissing his boyfriend on TV in 2014 is one of the most "iconic" and "significant" moments in sports and cultural history.
   1950. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:27 PM (#4707039)
. . . if she were even aloud to play . . .

More evidence of "the decline".

   1951. RollingWave Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4707041)
So South China sea dispute turns ugly as Vietnam protesters burn down Chinese factories in Vietnam (oh and for good measure Taiwan / Korea / Japan once as well.)

Well now that they burned down their work place, I guess they'll have to go work abroad in .............


Taiwan / Korea / Japan ........wait.....
   1952. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4707042)
...and that the cultural reaction to Renee Richards was healthier and more centered than the cultural reaction to Michael Sam and Jason Collins.

This has to be performance art at this point. There is no other explanation.
   1953. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4707043)
So South China sea dispute turns ugly as Vietnam protesters burn down Chinese factories in Vietnam (oh and for good measure Taiwan / Korea / Japan once as well.)

Between this and the Russians abandoning any bipartisanship in the ISS, it's pretty clear why planet Earth can't have nice things.

You'd think the fact that everybody fucking hates everybody else would speed up the FTL and exoplanet settlement plan, but we can't even focus our hatred decently enough to escape this rock.
   1954. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:35 PM (#4707047)
This has to be performance art at this point. There is no other explanation.

So "The Kiss" is one of the most iconic and significant moments in sports and cultural history?
   1955. simon bedford Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:43 PM (#4707054)
i suppose if rene richards had kissid, i dont know, jimmie connors it might have meant more,,,honestly mr bear person, i assume you werent around for richards. it wasnt a proud moment, she was mocked, openly ,at her tennis events, on tv by sports people, by comedians, it became fair game for everyone and if you think there were legions of people saying "she is right on! up with people!" you couldnt be more wrong. even Richards herself has said as much. even some of the pros who had good reason to be in richards corner , werent realy at the time.
you wont find anyone from the 70s who will tell you that renee richards was a proud moment in american history when it comes to accepting a change in sexual approaches. i guess jimmy carter is to blame somehow...
   1956. Lassus Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4707057)
So "The Kiss" is one of the most iconic and significant moments in sports and cultural history?

Outside of making your argument on hyperbole, you ignore era adjustment and can't even manage to grasp the difference in population, media outlets, and park effects across the decades.

I mean, if you were serious you couldn't, but I can no longer accept that you are actually serious.
   1957. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4707058)
Jill Abramson out at NYT. Anyone know why?

Here's the story. Looks like personality clashes did her in.
   1958. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:51 PM (#4707061)
   1959. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:53 PM (#4707063)
In this book NYT science writer Nicholas Wade advances two simple premises: firstly, that we should stop looking only toward culture as a determinant of differences between populations and individuals, and secondly, that those who claim that race is only a social construct are ignoring increasingly important findings from modern genetics and science. The guiding thread throughout the book is that “human evolution is recent, copious and regional” and that this has led to the genesis of distinct differences and classifications between human groups. What we do with this evidence should always be up for social debate, but the evidence itself cannot be ignored.[poster's emphasis]

That is basically the gist of the book. It’s worth noting at the outset that at no point does Wade downplay the effects of culture and environment in dictating social, cognitive or behavioral differences – in fact he mentions culture as an important factor at least ten times by my count – but all he is saying is that, based on a variety of scientific studies enabled by the explosive recent growth of genomics and sequencing, we need to now recognize a strong genetic component to these differences.


From the book review.

More:

"Wade also demolishes the beliefs of many leading thinkers who would rather have differences defined almost entirely by culture – these include Stephen Jay Gould who thought that humans evolved very little in the last ten thousand years (as Wade points out, about 14% of the genome has been under active selection since modern humans appeared on the scene), and Richard Lewontin who perpetuated a well-known belief that the dominance of intra as opposed to inter individual differences makes any discussion of race meaningless. As Wade demonstrates through citations of solid research, this belief is simply erroneous since even small differences between populations can translate to large differences in physical, mental and social features depending on what alleles are involved; Lewontin and his followers’ frequent plea that inter-group differences are “only 15%” thus ends up essentially translating to obfuscation through numbers."
   1960. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:54 PM (#4707064)
i suppose if rene richards had kissid, i dont know, jimmie connors it might have meant more,,,honestly mr bear person, i assume you werent around for richards. it wasnt a proud moment, she was mocked, openly ,at her tennis events, on tv by sports people, by comedians, it became fair game for everyone and if you think there were legions of people saying "she is right on! up with people!" you couldnt be more wrong.

Richards was treated by the tennis world more or less the way that Casey Martin was treated by the neanderthals of the PGA and USGA. Some organizations just have to be dragged kicking and screaming** into the 21st century.

**Or sued, or shamed. Ten years after beating the PGA in court for the right to use a cart as a player, the USGA tried to force him to do without a cart as a spectator. It then apologized and called it all a big "mistake".
   1961. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 09:59 PM (#4707066)
I remember Abramson from the old CNN pundit bashes. She always came across as smug, dull-witted, and uncharismatic. A robotic functionary. When she was selected as Times editor, I was at a loss to see would bring to the table.
   1962. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:05 PM (#4707067)
If the Times can survive the editorship of Howell Raines, it can survive anything. Great reporters don't always make for great editors.
   1963. Mefisto Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4707068)
A couple of other reviews of Wade's book here and here.
   1964. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:07 PM (#4707070)
Richards was mocked (Chevy Chase, I think it was, on SNL said her celebrity autobiography would be entitled Tennis Without Balls).

But, on which tour, the male or female, should she have played on? With all the talk of gender and sex being points on a spectrum rather than clear-cut box-like designations and all that, how do we decided this? Do we just take a person's word as to which sex or gender she/he is?
   1965. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:08 PM (#4707072)
Rangers get the Canadiens, not the Bruins, in the semis.

So modern liberal the night away, everyone!

Modern liberal, modern liberal, modern liberal, modern liberal, modern liberal!!
   1966. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:11 PM (#4707073)
   1967. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:58 PM (#4707093)
But, on which tour, the male or female, should she have played on? With all the talk of gender and sex being points on a spectrum rather than clear-cut box-like designations and all that, how do we decided this? Do we just take a person's word as to which sex or gender she/he is?


The modern answer to this seems to be "based on testosterone levels." If she's transitioned and done/doing the hormone therapy, she plays as a woman. If she's pre-transition and has high levels of testosterone, she doesn't.
   1968. BDC Posted: May 14, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4707094)
I do intend to read Wade's book, but it may have to wait till the hype clears and it shows up remaindered or in libraries. I almost never buy new books.

With that confession, I do wonder from the reviews how Wade would treat language. The reviewers cite this idea that selection works quickly on populations (which as I've said I find dubious, because the mechanism seems to be increased differential selection even as populations are coming more and more into contact genetically). But it seems empirical fact that all languages are based on identical genetic foundations (because any human child can acquire any human language). Why would such a central human feature be so universal, if race has such a pronounced effect?

Your basic lefty question from Chomsky to Pinker, I know, but it's a big one and I just wonder how it's answered.
   1969. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 11:18 PM (#4707099)
The modern answer to this seems to be "based on testosterone levels." If she's transitioned and done/doing the hormone therapy, she plays as a woman. If she's pre-transition and has high levels of testosterone, she doesn't.

Was that all that bouhaha hereabouts a few days ago about?
   1970. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 14, 2014 at 11:36 PM (#4707107)
   1971. tshipman Posted: May 14, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4707109)
For those of you who doubted SBB's abilities as the DaVinci of trolls, I redirect you to the last 200 posts of this thread.

Lesser trolls would have posted nonsensical hatespeech. Indeed, Joey B is an exemplar of the type. Does SBB fall for that trap? No. No, he hunts larger game than that. He posts obscure references, clearly false/misleading ones. It draws people out of the woodwork to argue with him. Why do they argue with him? Because he's so obviously wrong. It's so clear. Finally, you'll nail him, and force him to admit his fundamental dishonesty.

BUT NO, you have merely activated the next phase of his cunning plan. Now you're invested. His increasingly bizarre and illogical responses fill you with rage and confusion. Your pulse races, you hit refresh, but it is too late, you are caught in the spider's web.

Truly it has been a privilege to watch the master at work.
   1972. Morty Causa Posted: May 14, 2014 at 11:57 PM (#4707119)
My appreciation of the reviews as a class, good, bad, and mixed: they, for the most part, even those that hate Wade for bringing this up, with some quibbling, concede that genome clustering shows that there are what clearly can be designated as races (and, of course, subgroups, subgroups of subgroups, etc.). There is overarching, distinct, super familial groups. Evolution has been working recently in our history big time. There aren't many who deny this. We'd have to deny what genome mapping tells us.

Where those that object, strenuously or in part, want to draw the line at is allowing this to progress along line that suggest that these genetic differences could result in significant differences in intelligence and aptitude between those discrete groups, either between the groups as a whole or between individuals within groups and individuals across group lines. Most of these traditionalists who rise in arms think that it is at the least premature (and probably will always be premature, they hope, and would like everyone to go along with--sort of a nothing to see here, move along) to think that the genetic differences make a significant essential phenotypical difference--for important things, anyway. Wade is clear that he is not talking about superiority except in the Darwinian sense of the development of traits that allow success in certain different environments. He also speculates--theorizing and hypothesizing only--and at every step in his argument he issues caveats on the possible social and political misuse and abuse of this knowledge and how it connects to cultural outcomes. Still, those traditionalists fear the writing they see all to clearly on the wall. Some even come across as saying that the pursuit of scientific truth should defer to social policy. We dare not know. We should simply ignore thinking and exploring systematically what these differences might lead to because of the possible dire path it may lead us down socially and politically.
   1973. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4707127)
Richards should not have played as a woman. The notion that she should is as ridiculous as any notion ever proffered here. She plainly had an unfair advantage against natural women. She should have played either as a man or in a separate category as a make-to-female transsexual or -- here's a bold consideration -- not at all since she had made choices and sometimes in life you live with them.

   1974. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 12:26 AM (#4707130)
As to Casey Martin, if he couldn't walk the course he shouldn't play. Quite obviously since not walking gives him an unfair advantage. Duh. Sometimes in life you can't do what you want to do. Why liberals run screaming from that fact of life is left as an exercise for the reader.
   1975. Shredder Posted: May 15, 2014 at 01:02 AM (#4707136)
Quite obviously since not walking gives him an unfair advantage.
No, it really doesn't. Not over 18 holes a day. Probably not even over 36 holes per day. As long as someone else is dragging your bag, walking is really no more taxing than riding over 18 holes. And I say that as someone who walked 126 holes in one day. Hell, my best round of the day was my sixth, and my tee shot on the 125th was as good as any I hit all day. I walk 90% of my rounds, but walking is not integral to testing one's ability to play golf. I still play a lot of tournament golf, most of which is in events that allow carts, and I still choose to walk and carry, as do most of the competitors, who clearly believe that walking gives them an advantage over riding. I venture to guess almost every touring pro would do the same.
   1976. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 01:04 AM (#4707137)
Andy, walking the course is a significant part of PGA golf; it's more than just swinging a club. This would be like arguing that Bo Jackson should have gotten an automatic pinch runner because he had a hip problem.

And Sam's whether a transsexual tennis player should play agains men or women "based on testosterone levels" speaks for itself as to jus how ridiculous her playing against women is.
   1977. Morty Causa Posted: May 15, 2014 at 01:19 AM (#4707138)
Sometimes in life you can't do what you want to do.

A Libertarian says this? I'm aghast and agog.
   1978. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 15, 2014 at 01:44 AM (#4707144)
One of the Democratic talking points that gets considerable play here is that Senate Republicans unfairly filibuster Obama initiatives & Democratic legislation. However, as this article (and some posts here, even) indicates, this is often caused by Senate Democrats Shutting Down The Amendment Process:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday swiftly blocked Republicans from proposing any amendments to a tax breaks bill after the Senate proceeded to the legislation in a voice vote. Democrats will need at least five Republicans to join them in overcoming the final procedural hurdle before passage.

Reid prevented Republican amendments to the tax bill through a procedure known as "filling the amendment tree." He could still allow his “filler” amendments to be tabled in order to hold votes on other proposals, but it’s unclear whether he will. Reid has allowed few amendments on legislation this year, infuriating Republicans who say he is running the upper chamber like a dictatorship. [Emphasis added]

Those who have been around a while remember the Senate allowing not only unlimited debate but a robust amendment process. Harry Reid prefers to spare vulnerable Democrats what might be tough votes on minority party amendments, but he is the one who is departing from Senate traditions.




   1979. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 02:27 AM (#4707150)
Post 175 actual pro golfers disagreed. As did... the PGA.
   1980. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 15, 2014 at 06:09 AM (#4707159)
Richards should not have played as a woman. The notion that she should is as ridiculous as any notion ever proffered here. She plainly had an unfair advantage against natural women. She should have played either as a man or in a separate category as a make-to-female transsexual or -- here's a bold consideration -- not at all since she had made choices and sometimes in life you live with them.

Which she has said herself!

Yet, the late 70s culture let her play, and she played under conditions of virtual normalcy (*) once the courts said she could play.

In an almost macabre twist, the fact that the culture stopped and thought about it for a year or so is seen as a cultural demerit by the "honest" "non-trolls." "They made up rules to keep her from playing, man!!!" And a tiny remnant of players remained peeved for a piece -- and not really for very long -- about playing against someone they believed had a competitive advantage, a competitive advantage she herself has said she had. "They BOYCOTTED her!!!"

You really can't make this stuff up.

(*) Bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-bu-but Chevy Chase once told a joke about her on Saturday Night Live!!!! SNL never mocks anyone, yet it picked out poor Renee Richards and mocked her!!
   1981. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 15, 2014 at 06:59 AM (#4707160)
The modern answer to this seems to be "based on testosterone levels." If she's transitioned and done/doing the hormone therapy, she plays as a woman. If she's pre-transition and has high levels of testosterone, she doesn't.

That isn't the modern answer. The modern answer is to subject even actual women to gender testing. See Caster Semenya, championship 800 meter runner, subjected to gender testing after the track and field world championships in August 2009 and not cleared to return to international competition until July 2010.
   1982. SteveF Posted: May 15, 2014 at 07:08 AM (#4707162)
It's a tricky business because a small subset of people don't fit neatly into the biological sex binary, even putting the aside the issue of transgender/transexual people. I suppose in the edge cases you want to figure out what it is exactly that gives men the advantage in sports and apply that criteria accordingly. Current testosterone levels probably do make the most sense, but of course you could argue that past levels confer an advantage not undone by current levels.

There probably isn't a way to make it fair for everyone.
   1983. JE (Jason) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 07:36 AM (#4707165)
"Bonfire of the Humanities," by Henninger:
It's been a long time coming, but America's colleges and universities have finally descended into lunacy.

Last month, Brandeis University banned Somali-born feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as its commencement speaker, purporting that "Ms. Hirsi Ali's record of anti-Islam statements" violates Brandeis's "core values."

This week higher education's ritualistic burning of college-commencement heretics spread to Smith College and Haverford College.

On Monday, Smith announced the withdrawal of Christine Lagarde, the French head of the International Monetary Fund. And what might the problem be with Madame Lagarde, considered one of the world's most accomplished women? An online petition signed by some 480 offended Smithies said the IMF is associated with "imperialistic and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide." With unmistakable French irony, Ms. Lagarde withdrew "to preserve the celebratory spirit" of Smith's commencement.

On Tuesday, Haverford College's graduating intellectuals forced commencement speaker Robert J. Birgeneau to withdraw. Get this: Mr. Birgeneau is the former chancellor of UC Berkeley, the big bang of political correctness. It gets better.

Berkeley's Mr. Birgeneau is famous as an ardent defender of minority students, the LGBT community and undocumented illegal immigrants. What could possibly be wrong with this guy speaking at Haverford??? Haverfordians were upset that in 2011 the Berkeley police used "force" against Occupy protesters in Sproul Plaza. They said Mr. Birgeneau could speak at Haverford if he agreed to nine conditions, including his support for reparations for the victims of Berkeley's violence.

In a letter, Mr. Birgeneau replied, "As a longtime civil rights activist and firm supporter of nonviolence, I do not respond to untruthful, violent verbal attacks."

Smith president Kathleen McCartney felt obliged to assert that she is "committed to leading a college where differing views can be heard and debated with respect." And Haverford's president, Daniel Weiss, wrote to the students that their demands "read more like a jury issuing a verdict than as an invitation to a discussion or a request for shared learning."

Mr. Birgeneau, Ms. McCartney, Mr. Weiss and indeed many others in American academe must wonder what is happening to their world this chilled spring.

Here's the short explanation: You're all conservatives now.

Years ago, when the academic left began to ostracize professors identified as "conservative," university administrators stood aside or were complicit. The academic left adopted a notion espoused back then by a "New Left" German philosopher—who taught at Brandeis, not coincidentally—that many conservative ideas were immoral and deserved to be suppressed. And so they were.

This shunning and isolation of "conservative" teachers by their left-wing colleagues (with many liberals silent in acquiescence) weakened the foundational ideas of American universities—freedom of inquiry and the speech rights in the First Amendment.

No matter. University presidents, deans, department heads and boards of trustees watched or approved the erosion of their original intellectual framework. The ability of aggrieved professors and their students to concoct behavior, ideas and words that violated political correctness got so loopy that the phrase itself became satirical—though not so funny to profs denied tenure on suspicion of incorrectness. Offensive books were banned and history texts rewritten to conform.

No one could possibly count the compromises of intellectual honesty made on American campuses to reach this point. It is fantastic that the liberal former head of Berkeley should have to sign a Maoist self-criticism to be able to speak at Haverford. Meet America's Red Guards. ...
   1984. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 15, 2014 at 07:42 AM (#4707166)
Richards was treated by the tennis world more or less the way that Casey Martin was treated by the neanderthals of the PGA and USGA. Some organizations just have to be dragged kicking and screaming** into the 21st century.

**Or sued, or shamed. Ten years after beating the PGA in court for the right to use a cart as a player, the USGA tried to force him to do without a cart as a spectator. It then apologized and called it all a big "mistake".


As to Casey Martin, if he couldn't walk the course he shouldn't play. Quite obviously since not walking gives him an unfair advantage. Duh. Sometimes in life you can't do what you want to do. Why liberals run screaming from that fact of life is left as an exercise for the reader.


Exhibit A of the class of neanderthals I was referring to. This from someone who thinks that steroids don't help ballplayers gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.

---------------------------------------

Post 175 actual pro golfers disagreed. As did... the PGA.

And those neanderthals were shot down unceremoniously by the Supreme Court, in a 7 to 2 decision with only Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting, presumably on the basis that the Constitution doesn't mention golf.

   1985. Publius Publicola Posted: May 15, 2014 at 07:48 AM (#4707168)
Jill Abramson out at NYT. Anyone know why?


Front page article on the Times this morning suggests she had issues with interpersonal skills and was alienating her staff, especially those who reported directly to her.
   1986. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 15, 2014 at 07:49 AM (#4707169)
"Bonfire of the Humanities," by Henninger:

Jason, this is one time I completely agree with the right wing. There's a huge difference between peacefully protesting commencement speakers and creating an atmosphere where only "acceptable" speakers can be invited. The right wing itself has engaged in this sorry practice on occasion, particularly at Catholic colleges and universities, but the overwhelming amount of blame here goes to the Left. And yes, a lot of it does trace back to Marcuse.
   1987. formerly dp Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:04 AM (#4707175)
So is the issue that these folks are being denied their constitutional right to be commencement speakers? No dialogue happens in a commencement speech. There's no corresponding seminar where differences of opinion will be exchanged, where new understandings will be forged. It's "fly into town, give a platitude-filled speech, applause, shake hands, get a big check, fly away". Maybe that's a problem with the commencement speech as a format-- I would certainly be in favor of tying the commencement speech to a wider visit, where the speaker gives a talk and students/faculty can respond. But a commencement speech is a public honoring of the speaker, and the campus community has a right to express their opinion on if that is a person they think deserves to be publicly honored.

And the writer puts scare quotes around force-- why? Is there any question that hitting students with batons is "using force"? Maybe you can understand why a bunch of students wouldn't want their school to honor a guy who, during his time as Chancellor, sent police in riot gear to beat the #### out of some other students?

Everything else in the article seems to be typical conservative whining about the Humanities, with no recognition that B-schools, law schools, engineering programs, computer science, ect are filled with right-leaning people who aren't exactly hide their politics. The Business school at my uni is literally a temple to capitalism.
   1988. Dr. Vaux Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:16 AM (#4707179)
From dp's previous posts in the thread, he seems to be one of the crazier sort of liberals (I'm sure he's a great person, in all seriousness), but I tend to agree that this is one of those situations where freedom of speech is going on, but the freedom is of the negative sort. That is to say, the students are exercising their freedom to turn down speakers who they don't like for whatever reason. That's freedom, too, even though in several of the cases it ranges from silly to ridiculous. Freedom when the sun's shining, freedom when it's raining.

   1989. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:23 AM (#4707183)
So is the issue that these folks are being denied their constitutional right to be commencement speakers?

No, since there is no such right, and never was. The issue is whether protesters should have a de facto veto power over the choice of speakers. There's no legal issue involved here, but rather the sort of atmosphere that we should want universities to be creating.

If there's a problem with a university only seeming to honor prominent conservatives, to the exclusion of prominent liberals, either keep proposing prominent liberals as future commencement speakers, or organize silent protests during the commencement against the speakers you don't like, or both.

I realize that at some colleges like Charleston, right wing administrators have pretty much established a de facto veto power of their own against any sort of liberal speakers, but the great majority of speaker withdrawals and cancellations haven't come from places like that.

P.S. I haven't read the WSJ article itself, but this isn't a new issue.
   1990. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:33 AM (#4707187)
Don't worry patriots, freedom is rolling to Washington DC!

One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office...Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, should comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.


Prediction: 100 fatbodies and hirsute yokels triumphantly circle their Hoverounds while playing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" on kazoos purchased from Glen Beck's website for $10 a pop.
   1991. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4707188)
Henninger's examples are a mixed bag, and they don't really stand for the proposition he asserts.

Pulling Hirsi Ali's invite is an illiberal embarrassment -- the idea that criticizing parts of Islam vitiates your hall pass to polite society emblemizes the utter corruption of portions of the Left, particularly when we remember things like the Columbia president insisting that the spirit of tolerance for which the university stands extends to fully priviliging Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to whom we had to listen.

The other two weren't rejected because of politcal views. I'm not sure I have a problem with either. There's noting wrong with disfavoring the heads of international elite organizations like the IMF -- and, frankly, any movement to reform the world's problems and imbalances would rightly start (and has started, sort of) with disempowering people like Lagarde. She's the titular head of the 1%.

Similarly with the UC Berkeley chancellor. If you sent riot police out to beat students, that's conduct, not speech and not viewpoint -- and utterly dishonorable conduct. I'm not sure the facts support the charge though. I haven't looked beyond the article, but the article said the Berkeley police. Does he have authority over them?
   1992. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:38 AM (#4707190)
This shunning and isolation of "conservative" teachers by their left-wing colleagues (with many liberals silent in acquiescence) weakened the foundational ideas of American universities—freedom of inquiry and the speech rights in the First Amendment.


Tough titty, we ain't teaching Creationism in biology departments.
   1993. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:39 AM (#4707191)
Prediction: 100 fatbodies and hirsute yokels triumphantly circle their Hoverounds while playing "Battle Hymn of the Republic" on kazoos purchased from Glen Beck's website for $10 a pop.

Here's their #1 "Rule of Engagement", quoted verbatim:

(1) No weapons. No ammunition.

The Communist forces that control Washington DC do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district. Do not give them the opportunity to arrest you and prosecute you. Leave your guns and ammo within the safe proximity of a free state. When the government is changed constitutionally so will the laws in Washington DC when we return our country back to a republic that recognizes the constitution. Bring Bibles and constitutions. Of course your 2nd Amendment Rights are God given and no man can disarm you but at this point we must follow the rules laid out by the Communists until we vote them out of office. You do have a right to self defense.
   1994. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:46 AM (#4707194)
Pulling Hirsi Ali's invite is an illiberal embarrassment -- the idea that criticizing parts of Islam vitiates your hall pass to polite society emblemizes the utter corruption of portions of the Left, particularly when we remember things like the Columbia president insisting that the spirit of tolerance for which the university stands extends to fully priviliging Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to whom we had to listen.


Oh, right. I remember the WSJ's impassioned defense of that decision:

In Mr. Bollinger's view, "the university has an obligation, deeply rooted in the core values of an academic institution and in First Amendment principles, to protect its students from improper discrimination and humiliation."

Mr. Bollinger's position might at least be coherent were he not now invoking the same principles to justify his invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose offenses to gay rights and any other form of human dignity considerably exceed the Pentagon's. After promising that he would introduce the president "with a series of sharp challenges" -- including Iran's "reported support" for international terrorism -- he went on to say that "it is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their expression."

We're all for free speech and the vigorous exchange of intellectual differences, though we don't see how Mr. Bollinger can be, given his decision to discriminate against young men and women who seek to make careers in the military. We also don't quite see how the right to free speech -- a freedom Mr. Ahmadinejad conspicuously denies his own people -- is tantamount to the right to an illustrious pedestal. Columbia is a selective institution in its choice of students as well as speakers; its choices confer distinction on those whom it selects. Were it otherwise, Mr. Ahmadinejad would surely have better uses for his time.
   1995. formerly dp Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:46 AM (#4707195)
The issue is whether protesters should have a de facto veto power over the choice of speakers. There's no legal issue involved here, but rather the sort of atmosphere that we should want universities to be creating.
The sort of atmosphere where students are empowered to speak out against their institutions honoring people they find disagreeable? Yeah, that's terrible.

I'm all for bringing conservative speakers to campus for events, lectures, whatever. I've gotten to see both daddy and junior Paul, the Mitt Romney lite dude from Utah no one seemed to care about, and a bunch of other prominent conservative politicians at events. The talks themselves are typically quite boring (in that there's no position stated you couldn't learn about on their web site), but question-and-answer sessions are super-valuable for students: by teaching them to engage with their leaders, to not be afraid to ask them questions in public (this is easy for the activist types, but most students are not that), the events help craft better citizens IMO.

But the commencement speech, as a format, is not that at all, and students, faculty, staff, admin, ect should absolutely be empowered to express their views on the types of speakers they want their institution honoring. WRT Birgeneau, this is a guy who was controversial for how campus police, under his direction, responded to student protests on a college campus. Can you see why students might not want to honor someone who ordered student beatings? Again, bringing him to campus for a debate on the question of administration response to student protests would be a different story-- not allowing him to speak at an event would censor a potentially valuable contribution to the discussion, and it that instance, students would be hurting themselves and the community by giving air time/responses to his perspective.
   1996. Lassus Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:48 AM (#4707197)
The Communist forces that control Washington DC do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district.

I am reasonably sure Nancy Pelosi has no need for guns, as she emits firey death rays from her eyeballs.
   1997. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:51 AM (#4707198)
WRT Birgeneau, this is a guy who was controversial for how campus police, under his direction, responded to student protests on a college campus. Can you see why students might not want to honor someone who ordered student beatings?


Is not a disinvitation to speak an emotional assault which wounds as deeply as any truncheon, stings as angrily as any pepper spray?
   1998. formerly dp Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:56 AM (#4707201)
stings as angrily as any pepper spray?
It's a food product, essentially. Used it on my eggs this morning.
   1999. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 15, 2014 at 08:58 AM (#4707203)
Exhibit A of the class of neanderthals I was referring to. This from someone who thinks that steroids don't help ballplayers gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.


And that from someone who thinks that steroids do, but amps don't.

At least I've been honest enough to say that if amps do, steroids do, since it's the same issue in the abstract. I am not dishonest enough to say that one does but the other doesn't. But, then, you've got your boyhood heroes to protect.

As to why someone is "neanderthal" if he states that if one can't abide by the rules one shouldn't be allowed to enter the competition, that's anyone's guess. Letting Martin golf on the PGA tour is akin to giving Derek Jeter four strikes because he's lost a step.
   2000. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: May 15, 2014 at 09:08 AM (#4707207)
Mr. Bollinger's position might at least be coherent were he not now invoking the same principles to justify his invitation to Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose offenses to gay rights and any other form of human dignity considerably exceed the Pentagon's. After promising that he would introduce the president "with a series of sharp challenges" -- including Iran's "reported support" for international terrorism -- he went on to say that "it is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open the public forum to their expression."

A textbook example of the axiom that to the Left, there is no principle -- only whimsy.
Page 20 of 45 pages ‹ First  < 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
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
(5221 - 8:28am, Dec 22)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9275 - 8:21am, Dec 22)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(345 - 8:20am, Dec 22)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogMurray Chass On Baseball » THE PIONEER AND THE GAME TODAY
(30 - 8:19am, Dec 22)
Last: villageidiom

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot
(98 - 8:14am, Dec 22)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(181 - 8:05am, Dec 22)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(15 - 7:40am, Dec 22)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(47 - 3:26am, Dec 22)
Last:     Hey Gurl

NewsblogA Salute to Sy Berger, From a Card-Carrying Fan - NYTimes.com
(5 - 3:26am, Dec 22)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogDetermining Hall vote is no easy task | New York Post
(29 - 11:40pm, Dec 21)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogJUNICHI TAZAWA & CULTURE OF DENIAL
(4 - 11:37pm, Dec 21)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(776 - 11:33pm, Dec 21)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogMarty Noble's HOF Ballot
(45 - 11:32pm, Dec 21)
Last: bobm

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(25 - 10:12pm, Dec 21)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

Hall of MeritHerman Long
(11 - 9:22pm, Dec 21)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

Page rendered in 0.9113 seconds
48 querie(s) executed