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

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, 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 14 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1301. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4260635)
By the way I think it great that all the pollsters have suddenly decided to stop biasing their polls and are now (finally!) posting legitimate results.* That way our resident poll-truther can start trumpeting and not tearing down all these poll results. Of course I still think next week we will be back to having biased polls in need of unskewing.

* Sarcasm, not to be taken literally.
   1302. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4260639)
I only wish that there would be a liberal Catholic or two who would take the time to engage with him on his own terms.


The vast majority of us Catholics have essentially decided to try to ignore the Snappers of the world and hope they go away... it has not been a very effective tactic.

   1303. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4260640)
Your clear allocation of blame is awesome, as usual.

Are we going to pretend that women don't control access to sex now?


I'm pretty much with you snapper. To think that people actually believe a single parent is as capable of raising a well-adjusted, moral child, as is a mother and father is really silly. Of course there are many exceptions, but the decline of the traditional nuclear family is a bad thing.
   1304. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4260641)
I'd be curious to hear more on this line of thought. Not that I disagree, just that I've always been fascinated by the economic and social legacies of the Black Death. Perhaps this isn't the forum for a lengthy digression into 14th century economic history...but I want one dammit!


Later tonight I will try to write something up.
   1305. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4260647)
So the conclusion is that in unskewed guy's world, Obama won the debate and has a 5 point debate bounce.

Well, you guys can't have it both ways. The same people who scoffed at the allegations of the polls being skewed also told us the debate would matter little or not at all.
   1306. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4260648)
I also know I'm not that good a person, and haven't led that good a life, so, a long stay in purgatory is probably my best hope.


What?? Are you too proud to ask forgiveness? Although I'm far from Catholic, I'm not being facetious. If you don't think you've been a good person, man up and make the change. Its literally as simple as that.
   1307. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4260650)
Mainline Protestantism abandoned basic Christian teaching, and followed the Liberal party line (pro-abortion, pro-divorce, pro-homosexuality); there's no mystery why it failed. We're still left with all those congregants who have lost their religious attachment


This is a little overstated, except for maybe the Unitarians, speaking as a member of the Mainline Protestants. The Episcopals are pretty liberal too.
   1308. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4260654)
What?? Are you too proud to ask forgiveness? Although I'm far from Catholic, I'm not being facetious. If don't think you've been a good person, man up and make the change. Its literally as simple as that.

No, I go to confession regularly; I ask for forgiveness all the time. But, I'm a sinner, like everybody else. I'm a lot better than I used to be.

But, still, even after your sins have been absolved, a debt remains. Confession removes the spiritual guilt, it doesn't remove the temporal guilt. Purgatory is still necessary to purge us of the sins and attachment to sins we committed in life.

To use a trite example, if you get mad at someone and threw a brick through their window. If you feel bad, and apologize, and they accept, you're forgiven. But, it's still your responsibility to fix the window. Purgatory is "fixing the window" for our sins.

   1309. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4260656)
This is a little overstated, except for maybe the Unitarians, speaking as a member of the Mainline Protestants. The Episcopals are pretty liberal too.

Obviously, there is a lot of variation across denominations, and even parish to parish within denominations.

Some Lutherans are very biblicaly conservative. Some High Church Anglicans are more conservative than the average Catholic, though many of those have been rejoining the Catholic Church recently.

I'd be interested in which denomination you belong to, and what the specific teaching you hear is on issues like abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, etc.
   1310. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4260662)
This is the first (correct - I believe you) explanation of purgatory I've ever heard. I always thought it was where you waited while God decided what he was going to do. Can especially good deeds on earth reduce your time?
   1311. BDC Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4260663)
To think that people actually believe a single parent is as capable of raising a well-adjusted, moral child, as is a mother and father is really silly

Well, except when you look around at the many, many, many adults you know who were raised by single (or re-partnered) parents. Seriously, I think of a random swath of my friends and co-workers, and I see no correlation between well-adjustedness and death-do-us-part parents. And death itself plays a role even today, when fewer parents die young; quite a few people are still raised perfectly good and functional by single and/or stepparents after widowhood.

the fact that she ends up with SPOILER ALERT! her step-brother should have clued the viewer in that it was adapted from an era with slightly different cultural norms

In Emma, Mr Knightley is not a stepbrother, but a brother-in-law. The translation to late-20th-century in Clueless is I think pretty clever in making him into a stepbrother; it's the best analogue for the story. Still one of the best high-school-literary movies, of which there are many good ones.
   1312. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4260664)
To use a trite example, if you get mad at someone and threw a brick through their window. If you feel bad, and apologize, and they accept, you're forgiven. But, it's still your responsibility to fix the window. Purgatory is "fixing the window" for our sins.


What if I actually fix the window?
   1313. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4260674)
This is the first (correct - I believe you) explanation of purgatory I've ever heard. I always thought it was where you waited while God decided what he was going to do. Can especially good deeds on earth reduce your time?

Yes. Good works, prayer, fasting, the prayers of others, even the much maligned "indulgences" (no, you don't have to pay for them) can reduce your time in purgatory.

That's why Catholics pray for, and have Masses said for the dead, to reduce their time in purgatory. If they are in Hell, we can't help them, and if they are in Heaven, they don't need our help.

The confusing part is that there are actually 2 judgements you face. When you die, you face your "particular" judgement; Heaven, Hell or purgatory. Then, at the end of the world, there will be the "Last Judgement" when the fate of every person is revealed to everyone.


What if I actually fix the window?


Then you don't serve time for that sin in purgatory.
   1314. Lassus Posted: October 09, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4260676)
I'm pretty much with you snapper. To think that people actually believe a single parent is as capable of raising a well-adjusted, moral child, as is a mother and father is really silly. Of course there are many exceptions, but the decline of the traditional nuclear family is a bad thing.

The idea tbat single parents of either sex are entirely to blame for their partnerships - legal or otherwise - disintegrating is stupid. The idea that a couple with one or more crappy human beings in it is somehow superior by default to one good, responsible, caring parent is also stupid. (And, anticipating the response, the idea that a single parenti s better by noble default than two good parents is also stupid.)
   1315. BDC Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4260679)
What if I look on my neighbor's window to lust after breaking it?
   1316. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4260682)
To think that people actually believe a single parent is as capable of raising a well-adjusted, moral child, as is a mother and father is really silly

Well, except when you look around at the many, many, many adults you know who were raised by single (or re-partnered) parents. Seriously, I think of a random swath of my friends and co-workers, and I see no correlation between well-adjustedness and death-do-us-part parents. And death itself plays a role even today, when fewer parents die young; quite a few people are still raised perfectly good and functional by single and/or stepparents after widowhood.


Maybe then what I was getting at was the single parent (mother, 90% of the time) families that seem to be a direct product of their environment. I think there is a lot more leeway in terms of parent quality for single parent kids who grow up surrounded by good neighbours, go to a decent school, etc., than there is for kids growing up with a single mother in the hood. And it seems a disproportionate amount of single mothers live in the hood.
   1317. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4260683)
The idea tbat single parents of either sex are entirely to blame for their partnerships - legal or otherwise - disintegrating is stupid. The idea that a couple with one or more crappy human beings in it is somehow superior by default to one good, responsible, caring parent is also stupid. (And, anticipating the response, the idea that a single parenti s better by noble default than two good parents is also stupid.)

It's not that every single parent did something blameworthy, or that every child does poorly in a single parent home. We're talking averages, and society wide effects.

But, many single-parent families exist due to bad actions by one of the parents (abandonment, adultery, abuse, etc.), and many could have been avoided by not choosing a particular mate.

Also, on average, children of single parent families do worse on pretty much every achievement and development metric.

   1318. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4260689)
Of course there are many exceptions, but the decline of the traditional nuclear family is a bad thing.


The "traditional nuclear family" existed more or less from 1945-1975, plus/minus MOEs.
   1319. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:15 PM (#4260690)
But, I'm a sinner, like everybody else.


I've never committed a sin in my life.
   1320. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4260697)

The "traditional nuclear family" existed more or less from 1945-1975, plus/minus MOEs.


I don't know what MOE's are, but how do you figure? Up until the last 20 years, and especially the last 10, the vast majority of western families were made up of married mother and father, and kid(s). Having extended family in the household never affected that definition, at least not my interpretation of it.
   1321. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4260698)
I've never committed a sin in my life.


I guess you can throw the first stone then ;-)
   1322. BDC Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4260701)
The "traditional nuclear family" existed more or less from 1945-1975

Uncoincidentally, roughly the overlap between modern medicine and stringent divorce laws: just talking about this country, mind you.

I look just at my own ancestors – granted, a frightful bunch of bohunks on the one side and hillbillies on the other :) – and before my own death-do-us-part parents duly married in 1957, there was every possible arrangment: widows and widowers, kids raised by grandparents and aunts & uncles, miscellaneous attached orphans, children conceived well beyond the vicinity of wedlock, divorces, longterm mistresses and boyfriends, gay & lesbian cousins, you name it. The baby-boom nuclear family is a temporary and often imaginary construct.
   1323. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4260707)
I don't know what MOE's are, but how do you figure? Up until the last 20 years, and especially the last 10, the vast majority of western families were made up of marred mother and father, and kid(s). Having extended family in the household never affected that definition, at least not my interpretation of it


MOEs = margins of error.

Your last sentence is doing a *lot* of heavy lifting for you. You're basically saying "the nuclear family has always been the nuclear family, even before it was the nuclear family because I've arbitrarily decided to write my definition of "nuclear family" backwards into time even though there's no historical alignment between the concept as understood in common usage and what existed prior to the post-War period."

The idea of the Daddy-Mommy-children single unit family - the "nuclear family" - evolved in post-War America. It's called "nuclear family" because the idea of the thing developed in the "nuclear age" - post atom bomb and all that.

The conceptualization of family prior to that was far different - extremely extended in agrarian cultures, going back to feudal conceptions of kith and kin before that.

I disregard your attempt to conflate pre-nuclear family standards with nuclear-family standards. You can't just hand-wave away all of history prior and then pretend you've established a "nuclear family" in replacement of that previous history.
   1324. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4260711)
I guess you can throw the first stone then ;-)


It wouldn't be the *first* stone, mind you.
   1325. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4260721)
OK, let me say that the vast majority of families began as a traditional nuclear family, before Daddy got killed in the mine and Mommy died in childbirth. There were few or no single parents-by-design, same-sex parents, or single mothers because of divorce. That's what I meant.
   1326. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4260723)
"My particular way of thinking about the world is gradually fading out of style, therefore the world is doomed."
-Every person ever in the history of the world.
   1327. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4260726)
This is a little overstated, except for maybe the Unitarians, speaking as a member of the Mainline Protestants. The Episcopals are pretty liberal too.

Obviously, there is a lot of variation across denominations, and even parish to parish within denominations.

Some Lutherans are very biblicaly conservative. Some High Church Anglicans are more conservative than the average Catholic, though many of those have been rejoining the Catholic Church recently.

I'd be interested in which denomination you belong to, and what the specific teaching you hear is on issues like abortion, fornication, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, etc


Methodist (there are also variations and denominations within this general sect)

Abortion- Fairly strongly against, not as absolute as the Catholics

Fornication- Against. Not a "you will go to hell" prohibition though. Good thing for me.

Homosexuality- Against. Really against. Out of favor now to preach against it though.

Divorce- Against, but again they are not absolutists. You can be divorced and be in the church. Again, a good thing for me.
   1328. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4260728)
What if I look on my neighbor's window to lust after breaking it?


Then you need counseling.


   1329. Tilden Katz Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4260729)
What the hell is going on in Arkansas?

From a state representative, i.e. someone with real power in this country:

The 14th Amendment completely destroyed the Founders’ concept of limited government and was coerced on this nation by radical people and in my opinion was never legally ratified as required by Article V of the Constitution. It was essentially a Karl Marx concept and would have never come from the pen of Madison or any of the patriots from Virginia.


If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?


[Robert E.] Lee will be mentioned in the same breath as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while [Hermann] Goering will be equated with Lincoln, Josef Stalin and Karl Marx.


The Confederate flag to me is not only a symbol of our brief period of independence and our loyalty to the 1789 Constitution, but also a symbol of Christian liberty vs. the new world order.


   1330. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4260737)
I guess you can throw the first stone then ;-)


You're too late, he's already threw hundreds of stones before moving on to neck stabbing.
   1331. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4260739)
OK, let me say that the vast majority of families began as a traditional nuclear family, before Daddy got killed in the mine and Mommy died in childbirth. There were few or no single parents-by-design, same-sex parents, or single mothers because of divorce. That's what I meant


No, prior to the nuclear-family boom of the mid-20th century, most families began as contractual arrangements where daughters were sold to other families and children were bred as either 1) laborers or 2) potential heirs or 3) potential trade chits for other family connections.

The concept of a "family" such as you are nostalgically reifying didn't really pop up until after the Wars. It just didn't. You're writing your preferred conceptualization onto all of history rather than looking at what history really was.
   1332. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4260741)
OK, let me say that the vast majority of families began as a traditional nuclear family, before Daddy got killed in the mine and Mommy died in childbirth. There were few or no single parents-by-design, same-sex parents, or single mothers because of divorce. That's what I meant.

Exactly my meaning.

The key factor was the large majority of children being born to, and raised by a married couple, even if there was death and remarriage in the mix.

Interestingly, when they study children of widow/widower single-parent families, they do just about as well as children of intact married families. Children of never marrieds do the worst, and children of divorce are in between.
   1333. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4260742)
The idea of the Daddy-Mommy-children single unit family - the "nuclear family" - evolved in post-War America.


I'm pretty sure the "puritans" believed in the idea of the Daddy-Mommy-children single unit family- in fact they saw that as the smallest acceptable household- as far as they were concerned people were not meant to live alone- not even bachelors
   1334. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4260744)
What the hell is going on in Arkansas?


It would be wrong to accuse them of racism, naturally.
   1335. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4260745)
Methodist (there are also variations and denominations within this general sect)

Abortion- Fairly strongly against, not as absolute as the Catholics

Fornication- Against. Not a "you will go to hell" prohibition though. Good thing for me.

Homosexuality- Against. Really against. Out of favor now to preach against it though.

Divorce- Against, but again they are not absolutists. You can be divorced and be in the church. Again, a good thing for me.


Thank you. So, that's pretty conservative for Methodists, right?
   1336. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4260746)
I'm pretty sure the "puritans" believed in the idea of the Daddy-Mommy-children single unit family- in fact they saw that as the smallest acceptable household- as far as they were concerned people were not meant to live alone- not even bachelors


Being the "smallest acceptable household" doesn't make it the *preferred* household. In the 1700s it would have been odd for multiple generations of kin to not live together. The idea of a single Mommy-Daddy-me household would have been as odd and improper to them as the idea of a single mother apparently is to some around here.
   1337. Rants Mulliniks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4260747)

No, prior to the nuclear-family boom of the mid-20th century, most families began as contractual arrangements where daughters were sold to other families and children were bred as either 1) laborers or 2) potential heirs or 3) potential trade chits for other family connections.


Most? OK, I see what I'm dealing with now.
   1338. Ron J2 Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4260749)
Interesting note I saw on Obama's debate prep. John Kerry was recruited to play Romney.

And apparently the debate preps left Obama's staff worried. (from a Ta-Nehisi Coates (piece) From what I gather from the piece, Kerry anticipated Romney's overall style pretty well and Obama seemingly didn't handle it very effectively.
   1339. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4260753)
No, prior to the nuclear-family boom of the mid-20th century, most families began as contractual arrangements where daughters were sold to other families and children were bred as either 1) laborers or 2) potential heirs or 3) potential trade chits for other family connections.

Yes, the human emotion of love only developed in the 20th c. Do you really know that little, or think human emotions change on a dime? For ####'s sake, the ideals of romantic love were commonplace in the Middle Ages.

You're describing the mating behavior of an infinitesimally small population of nobles. The average person throughout history fell in love with some other peasant in the village, got married, and loved their children. Human nature doesn't change like that.
   1340. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4260761)
Yes, the human emotion of love only developed in the 20th c. Do you really know that little, or think human emotions change on a dime? For ####'s sake, the ideals of romantic love were commonplace in the Middle Ages.


I haven't said a word about "love," jackass. We're talking about "marriage."
   1341. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4260765)
The "traditional nuclear family" existed more or less from 1945-1975, plus/minus MOEs.

Right, but that was arguably the best era in American and world history, coinciding with a far more fair and balanced economy (the "Great Compression" is the term often used), and a more optimistic society with brighter hopes for the future.(*)

Essentially no one thought it wasn't a massive improvement over the decades before, with its nationalisms, extremisms, wars, and genocides -- so it's kind of pointless to say that certain institutions only popped up or thrived from 1945-1975.

(*) Our jaded, cynical, snarky, polarized age is a lesser era, by any serious measurement.
   1342. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4260767)
The average person throughout history fell in love with some other peasant in the village, got married, and loved their children.


None of which was, typically, consecrated as "marriage" by a church or noted as such by any state.
   1343. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4260768)
he average person throughout history fell in love with some other peasant in the village, got married, and loved their children.


the average person throughout history fell in love with some other peasant in the village, shacked up, and loved their children.

   1344. Lassus Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4260769)
The average person throughout history fell in love with some other peasant in the village, got married, and loved their children. Human nature doesn't change like that.

Children who quite frequently were sent away to work, to live with strangers of extended family, things were very, very often less than nuclear.
   1345. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4260770)
Right, but that was arguably the best era in American and world history, coinciding with a far more fair and balanced economy (the "Great Compression" is the term often used), and a more optimistic society with more hope for the future.


I'm sure it's because of something like nuclear-family concepts, or maybe car culture. It couldn't possibly be a random 30 year fluctuation in the million-year history of humanity on the planet. I mean, it was *30 YEARS,* amirite?!
   1346. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4260773)
It couldn't possibly be a random 30 year fluctuation in the million-year history of humanity on the planet. I mean, it was *30 YEARS,* amirite?!

It was no such thing and the suggestion is laughable as history.
   1347. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4260776)
Right, but that was arguably the best era in American and world history, coinciding with a far more fair and balanced economy (the "Great Compression" is the term often used), and a more optimistic society with more hope for the future.


"world history"

you do know that the US represented just some 5% of the world's population?
Far more people were living under Communist dictatorships then than now

If you polled the Chinese and Indians, I'm sure you'd find that most would say NOW is better than the 50s-
China may still be a "communist" dictatorship in name, but political repression has not gotten worse- and the economy is far freer now than then- and standards of living fro most has risen
Eastern Europe is far better off now than then
   1348. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4260778)
No, prior to the nuclear-family boom of the mid-20th century, most families began as contractual arrangements where daughters were sold to other families and children were bred as either 1) laborers or 2) potential heirs or 3) potential trade chits for other family connections.


But nobody cares, because no one is interested in reviving that nonsense. They spent the years 1945-75 getting rid of it and celebrating the fact that it had been gotten rid of.
   1349. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4260780)
In the Middle Ages, the middling and lower sorts would often live together after a basic marriage agreement was made but before the negotiations were completed. If the woman got pregnant within a reasonable amount of time they'd go ahead with the wedding, if not then the efforts would be abandoned and everyone would try someone different. The lowest classes would often do something like this and never really go through with a formal wedding, because everyone figured that you were married if you lived together (and you weren't if you didn't).

The parties to marriage were supposed to at least like each other and to demonstrate at least enough sexual compatibility to crank out the next generation, but there was also a very strong property aspect to them. I think that to argue the primacy or love or property is to view the Middle Ages through an inappropriate modern lens.
   1350. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4260783)
If you polled the Chinese and Indians, I'm sure you'd find that most would say NOW is better than the 50s-

Maybe. But the world will be, and is, worse off with the sunset of the 1945-75 West and its leadership role.
   1351. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4260785)
It was no such thing and the suggestion is laughable as history.


Of course not. It was clearly G*d's will and ####. Silly me.
   1352. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4260789)
Of course not. It was clearly G*d's will and ####. Silly me.

That's your typical move -- be called on your ########, then smear the people that called you on it as Jesus freaks and God nuts -- even though they haven't said a word about God or Jesus.

Not working.
   1353. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4260790)
But nobody cares, because no one is interested in reviving that nonsense.


1: A good chunk of the world still operates that way
2: There are groups (mostly Islamist) who want to re-institute that type of social arrangement in areas where it has... lapsed...
   1354. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4260792)
I think that to argue the primacy or love or property is to view the Middle Ages through an inappropriate modern lens.


You think? But... IT'S HUMAN NATURE! We know it's human nature because that's the only way Snapper has ever conceived of humanity, and thus, that's the only way humanity has ever existed. It's like, divine and ####.
   1355. jack the seal clubber (on the sidelines of life) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4260793)
Thank you. So, that's pretty conservative for Methodists, right


Actually I am in the United Methodist Church, which is kind of the garden variety Methodist denomination, I think the second largest. Wesleyan influenced. They are relatively liberal, socially, as compared to say, the Baptists.
   1356. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4260794)
1: A good chunk of the world still operates that way
2: There are groups (mostly Islamist) who want to re-institute that type of social arrangement in areas where it has... lapsed...


And now, because the West has lost its way since 1975, it's more susceptible to that claptrap. We should suspect that things will get worse as the economic ills of our time continue apace.
   1357. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4260795)
That's your typical move -- be called on your ########


You haven't called me on anything, son. You haven't even made a cogent argument yet.
   1358. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4260797)
That's your typical move -- be called on your ########, then smear the people that called you on it as Jesus freaks and God nuts -- even though they haven't said a word about God or Jesus.

Not working


Neither of you were actually discussing the issue, rather you were each descending into

No you're wrong it's X

No you're wrong it's not X

### for tat "argument"



   1359. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4260798)
You can't have a serious discussion with Sam. Goodnight folks.
   1360. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4260800)
You haven't called me on anything, son.

Yes, the United States from 1945-75 was just a random historical accident. It was either that, or living like the Australian outback Aboriginals.

Just like I got up this morning, walked around, hopped on some trains, and happened to arrive at work -- in lieu of randomly shooting three people dead.
   1361. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4260805)
You can't have a serious discussion with Sam. Goodnight folks.


Well, *you* can't.
   1362. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4260809)
And now, because the West has lost its way since 1975, it's more susceptible to that claptrap.


It is?
The reason the Islamist are getting so fanatical about re-instating old social norms
is because they are, in fact
LOSING

India has over a million people, for most of recorded history, family relations in India could fairly be described as

"contractual arrangements where daughters were sold* to other families and children were bred as either 1) laborers or 2) potential heirs or 3) potential trade chits for other family connections."

that has only really begin breaking down for most of India within the past 30 years, after your 1945-75 time frame.

Look, whether or not the "West" has lost or will lose its leading role in the world is almost immaterial, we've already corrupted/infected the rest of the world with ideas like democracy, free speech, religious freedom, the scientific method, etc etc etc- oh sure there has been and will continue to be pushback, but the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in.


*Actually in India families had to pay other families to take the girls off their hand, but you get the idea.


   1363. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4260819)
I'm sure it's because of something like nuclear-family concepts, or maybe car culture. It couldn't possibly be a random 30 year fluctuation in the million-year history of humanity on the planet. I mean, it was *30 YEARS,* amirite?!
A random 30 year fluctuation? If you mean that because of medicine, technology, transportation ease, and above all else knowledge of where diseases come from then yeah it is kind of random. The same way that me talking to you across many miles instantly is a random change in modern times. The basic principles of the "nuclear family" have been around for a very long time. It was much more common for a death to make that family change over time but a mother figure and a father figure being present in the home has been the norm across time. What is different is today, there being a lack of one of the figures in a single household is much more common than ever before. Be it because of divorce and no re-marriage or there being a parent figure just missing.
   1364. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4260823)
I think the whole idea of going to a "confessional" is archaic and would rather make my own peace with "God" for my sins if I believed that such a deity existed.
   1365. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4260827)
I think the whole idea of going to a "confessional" is archaic and would rather make my own peace with "God" for my sins if I believed that such a deity existed.
Actually I feel much better when I am able to tell someone else what I think I did wrong, be it a priest, friend, neighbor, or stranger. It feels good to get crap off your chest, it feels more sincere.
   1366. Lassus Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4260829)
You can't have a serious discussion with Sam. Goodnight folks.

Sam is not the only person here.
   1367. zenbitz Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4260830)
Our free society is direct descendant of the enlightenment


And the Enlightenment is a direct result of caffeine, imported as Tea and Coffee from India and other colonies.

As for the rest of this Snapper-Drive-By. Correlation is not causation, and the reason single parents have it bad is because they don't have the RESOURCES to devote time to both raising their families and providing food for them. Back in the Nukular Family era - you still had teenagers knocking each other up. The difference is that they got married, stayed married, unhappym bitter and abusive (abused). Not that great on the kids either, but hey that which does not kill you...

A Funny time USA 1945-1975. Really... that last 7 years or so doesn't really count - it's of course the anti-war protests and feminist movement that cracked this egg wide open. But a rotten egg is a rotten egg. You want to be Black or Latino in 1967? Or a woman? Or gay? Hell, just go watch Mad Men -- or even Dolly Parton in 9 to 5 (early 80s). Is Snapper's point just the inverse of "Hitler was good at the beginning, but then he went too far" -- Freedom and Equality were good at the beginning -- until the great enlightened christian ideas culminated in the perfection that was 1955 Topeka Kansas, but now they've gone too far.

If society / western civilization must be destroyed to prevent forcing these (now) protected classes to live as second-class citizens, then it deserves a painful death.



   1368. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4260832)
India has over a million people,


Who are you, Dr Evil?
   1369. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4260835)
If society / western civilization must be destroyed to prevent forcing these (now) protected classes to live as second-class citizens, then it deserves a painful death.
OK, I admit I have not read all previous pages, did Snapper say this?
   1370. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4260838)
You want to be Black or Latino in 1967? Or a woman? Or gay?

Sure. You had every reason to believe the future would be very bright, for yourself and for your "group." You would have been correct.

Freedom and Equality were good at the beginning -- until the great enlightened christian ideas culminated in the perfection that was 1955 Topeka Kansas, but now they've gone too far.

Christianity -- the fundamentalist wacko kind -- is a much bigger part of political life today than it was in, say 1965. Measured by susceptibility to nutjob ideas, we've declined dramatically since then. Look at the wide swaths of people who are anti-science and who affirmatively avert their eyes from science now, and compare that to the mid-60s and the faith in science and progress that prevailed.

Hell, just go watch Mad Men -- or even Dolly Parton in 9 to 5 (early 80s).

Go watch Compliance today.
   1371. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4260839)
Right, but that was arguably the best era in American and world history, coinciding with a far more fair and balanced economy (the "Great Compression" is the term often used), and a more optimistic society with brighter hopes for the future.(*)

Essentially no one thought it wasn't a massive improvement over the decades before, with its nationalisms, extremisms, wars, and genocides -- so it's kind of pointless to say that certain institutions only popped up or thrived from 1945-1975.

(*) Our jaded, cynical, snarky, polarized age is a lesser era, by any serious measurement.


This is a very common sentiment. And wrong. Very very wrong. For white heterosexual males living in the US it is perhaps true, but for pretty much every other demographic it is really wrong.

Are you suggesting Blacks, GLBTQ, Hispanics, Asians, and Women (Even in the US) would rather live in the 1945 to 1974 time periodf than today? You do realize that world wide violence is pretty much at an all time low right? Technology at a high?

Income, productivity, overall life expectancy, education levels, literacy rates, infant mortality and availability of porn all are MUCH higher than in the 1945 to 1974 time period. It takes some rose colored glasses (and being a white heterosexual male in the US) to think that time period was better than today.

So I have listed plenty of measurements where today is better than then - are they all unserious?

The Post WWII era was a historical anomoly (The rest of the world recovering from WWII being a big part of it). The US was king of the hill and it was great to be a heterosexual white male from the USA then. This is not news, but it does not make that time period some golden age.
   1372. Bitter Mouse Posted: October 09, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4260841)
Look, whether or not the "West" has lost or will lose its leading role in the world is almost immaterial, we've already corrupted/infected the rest of the world with ideas like democracy, free speech, religious freedom, the scientific method, etc etc etc- oh sure there has been and will continue to be pushback, but the genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in.


Consumerism. You forgot consumerism, which is one of our greatest "gifts" to the world. It is the most successful 'isms' ever.
   1373. Lassus Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4260844)
Sure. You had every reason to believe the future would be very bright, for yourself and for your "group." You would have been correct.

Holy crap.
   1374. McCoy Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4260847)
This is a very common sentiment. And wrong. Very very wrong. For white heterosexual males living in the US it is perhaps true, but for pretty much every other demographic it is really wrong.

This always gets conveniently ignored during all of these Archie "those were the days" lectures.

Plus it wasn't white heterosexual males living in the US. It was white middle class middle aged or older protestant males living in the US that had the good times from 1945 to 1975.
   1375. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4260848)
You forgot consumerism.... It is the most successful 'isms' ever.
I don't know, the amount of narcissism seems to be uneffected in any period :)
   1376. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4260852)
Who are you, Dr Evil?


:-)


but it does not make that time period some golden age.


It does for White Hetero Males
   1377. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4260854)
It does for White Hetero Males

Not that I agree with the premise (in fact, it's ridiculous), but I fail to see the point of this disclaimer. Do "white hetero males" not count? IS your methodology utilitarian ... or something else?
   1378. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4260855)
Plus it wasn't white heterosexual males living in the US. It was white middle class middle aged or older protestant males living in the US that had the good times from 1945 to 1975.


white middle class middle aged or older Catholic males living in the US didn't have it so bad either...

   1379. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4260856)
Sure. You had every reason to believe the future would be very bright, for yourself and for your "group." You would have been correct.
WAT
   1380. McCoy Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4260857)
white middle class middle aged or older Catholic males living in the US didn't have it so bad either...

Well you still had hate groups like the KKK not being overly fond of you, but yeah, compared to someone living in Bombay at the time things were pretty swell.
   1381. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4260858)
Sure. You had every reason to believe the future would be very bright, for yourself and for your "group." You would have been correct.

Holy crap.


Seriously. Wow.
   1382. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4260861)
Plus it wasn't white heterosexual males living in the US. It was white middle class middle aged or older protestant males living in the US that had the good times from 1945 to 1975.
I recently read something that said you could predict the kind of era that could be expected by looking at the ratio of men to women. The 40's and 50's had less men than women (I think the age was set at 18-30 for this ratio) and it was a very conservative time. The tide turned in the 60's and 70's very drastically in favor of woman and a liberal era happened. It was an interesting read, I would have to see way more data to be convinced either way but it was interesting. By the way the next 15 years or so the ratio is dead even, which the author said will bring an era of cooperation….
   1383. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4260862)
Well you still had hate groups like the KKK not being overly fond of you


The KKK was being progressively marginalized as the 1945-75 time frame rolled along, and I'm pretty sure they didn't really operate in areas that had large numbers of white (non-hispanic) Catholics
   1384. bunyon Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4260863)
I'd just like to note that white hetero women in that time period weren't miserable. They weren't liberated and women looking back from today at the time of their grandmothers wouldn't like to go back to it. But most women - those married to the white hetero men who were doing so well - did pretty well themselves. It absolutely was an anomalous time but the idea that most women were unhappy with it is false, I think. A survey of grandmothers when I was a young adult would show that despite their not getting to do a lot of stuff, they felt that homemaking was the most important thing a woman could do.

I have no idea if they are right or wrong and, as a man married to a professional woman and one who teaches a lot of women, I like today over that period. But women weren't oppressed in nearly the same way that minorities were.
   1385. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4260865)
The KKK was being progressively marginalized as the 1945-75 time frame rolled along, and I'm pretty sure they didn't really operate in areas that had large numbers of white (non-hispanic) Catholics
There still was a large anti-Catholic contingency, it may not compare to women and non-whites but it was definitely there.
   1386. formerly dp Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4260866)
Are we back to where Snapper pretends Catholicism enabled, rather than actively suppressed, the free pursuit of knowledge? That's always fun.

The ####### ####### Catholic church routinely executed people, in dramatic fashion, for exploring and writing about taboo ideas (like math, physiology, and science). That's the opposite of an institution devoted to advancing human knowledge. Snapper's position on this is in that middle ground between religious zealotry and outright lying.
   1387. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4260869)
I'd just like to note that white hetero women in that time period weren't miserable. They weren't liberated and women looking back from today at the time of their grandmothers wouldn't like to go back to it

Nor were all blacks, latinos, or gays miserable in 1967 or 1974. That's a bizarre conceit constructed by people with ideology, rather than understanding, in mind.

   1388. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4260873)
Nor were all blacks, latinos, or gays miserable in 1967 or 1974. That's a bizarre conceit constructed by people with ideology, rather than understanding, in mind.
WAT
   1389. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4260876)
I recently read something that said you could predict the kind of era that could be expected by looking at the ratio of men to women. The 40's and 50's had less men than women (I think the age was set at 18-30 for this ratio) and it was a very conservative time.


1920s-1930s UK* had a very skewed male/female ratio (there was a reason for it, on the tip of my tongue), I'm not sure the 20s and 30s were more conservative there- in fact Labor gained the PM office for the first time ever in the 30s

*As did France and Germany, and even Italy... hmmm, there was some kind of reason for that...
   1390. McCoy Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:26 PM (#4260877)
WAT

Well, perhaps Bill Cosby enjoyed himself.
   1391. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4260883)
Well, perhaps Bill Cosby enjoyed himself.

Yes, every single black American was perpetually and permanently unhappy until 2008. Since then, every day has been eternal bliss for every single one.
   1392. McCoy Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4260885)
Yes, every single black American was perpetually and permanently unhappy until 2008. Since then, every day has been eternal bliss for every single one.

I don't think the standard is that a person must be always unhappy every single day of their life during a time period.

This really is a stupid argument.
   1393. Biscuit_pants Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4260886)

1920s-1930s UK* had a very skewed male/female ratio (there was a reason for it, on the tip of my tongue), I'm not sure the 20s and 30s were more conservative there- in fact Labor gained the PM office for the first time ever in the 30s
Yes, but it still has to be looked in context. The Woman's suffrage movement in those countries had really just "won" in the 1910's. Like I said though I am not parroting the idea, just thought it was interesting.

Also, the conservative vs. liberal has nothing to do with our countries view that labor is a liberal political point. The author was not saying that it favored what the Democratic party stands for vs what the Republican party stands for.
   1394. SteveF Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4260887)
Roughly 20% of atheists go to church (and I'm not talking Unitarians!). I know plenty of people who go to church, insist their children go to church, and do not believe in God.

I suspect that if participation in religious organizations declines, other social organizations will develop to take their place and serve the same social function. Caligula wouldn't have been such a bad guy had he had access to support groups, reality programming like 'Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew,' and the newsfeed from 500 Facebook friends.
   1395. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4260892)
I recently read something that said you could predict the kind of era that could be expected by looking at the ratio of men to women. The 40's and 50's had less men than women (I think the age was set at 18-30 for this ratio) and it was a very conservative time.


For age 20-44, the male:female ratio was 96.2:100 in 1950 and 95.1:100 in 1970 (source), which doesn't seem to line up with anything.
   1396. formerly dp Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4260895)
Nor were all blacks, latinos, or gays miserable in 1967 or 1974. That's a bizarre conceit constructed by people with ideology, rather than understanding, in mind.


Not all. But I'm pretty sure, like most times you talk about history, you're not drawing on empirical accounts of the people who lived through the era to inform your analysis. I think this is in the realm of "ignoring facts you find inconvenient". African Americans who had just left the segregated south during the Great Migration, for instance, weren't exactly met by thriving economic opportunities in their new homes, nor were they always welcomed by tolerant white folks happy to have more bodies competing for the same jobs. This was the high point for institutional racism, FFS. Why would you pretend it's otherwise?
   1397. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4260899)
Black men and women's median wages compared to whites' are worse now than in 1975. That's real improvement!!!
   1398. McCoy Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4260901)
Did some digging and apparently Obama's big bird ad is nor running on TV at all. It is basically a viral video meant for internet nerds who I seriously doubt old farts on MSNBC really understand all that much.
   1399. McCoy Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4260903)
Black men and women's median wages compared to whites' are worse now than in 1975. That's real improvement!!!

Well, everyone's inflation adjusted salaries are worse now than in 1975. Doesn't mean it was Good Times for a ton of groups from 1945 to 1975.
   1400. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 09, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4260905)
1920s-1930s UK* had a very skewed male/female ratio


I remember reading a piece (In the Atlantic I think), written by an American author who live din London fro a few years in the 50s, mentioned done thing he noticed was a huge number of childless middle aged single women, not divorced/widowed, but women who'd never been married, very active in clubs and "causes" and so on, he termed them busybodies, and thought it was very odd, wondered what had gone on in English culture to cause this- says he mentioned this to someone when he got back in the US, and noted that he thought it likely had to do with greater numbers of male homosexuals in the UK- except he hadn't really noted any more of them in the UK than in the US...

His friend stared at him, "single middle aged women????"

"yes"

"never married, no children?"

"Yes"

"and you think it may be because the men there don't like women?"

"Well, I don't know, but what else could it be?"

"Did you ever hear of a little dust up called World War One?"

The author then said he literally slapped himself in the head.
Page 14 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogVIDEO: Brewers, Pirates brawl after Carlos Gomez triple
(63 - 10:09pm, Apr 20)
Last: GuyMcGuffin

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(100 - 9:56pm, Apr 20)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(370 - 9:55pm, Apr 20)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for April 20, 2014
(76 - 9:48pm, Apr 20)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogDaniel Bryan's 'YES!' chant has spread to the Pirates' dugout
(130 - 9:34pm, Apr 20)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(951 - 9:23pm, Apr 20)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(54 - 9:15pm, Apr 20)
Last: Canker Soriano

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(404 - 9:12pm, Apr 20)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(95 - 9:05pm, Apr 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(70 - 8:49pm, Apr 20)
Last: Booey

NewsblogJohn Torres: Baseball must bag sickening farewell tours
(50 - 8:43pm, Apr 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogZander Hollander, Sports Trivia Shepherd, Dies at 91
(10 - 8:25pm, Apr 20)
Last: Jose Canusee

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(160 - 8:21pm, Apr 20)
Last: SteveF

NewsblogChris Resop - The Most Interesting Reliever in the World
(22 - 8:13pm, Apr 20)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(58 - 7:55pm, Apr 20)
Last: Ray (RDP)

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.6105 seconds
52 querie(s) executed