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

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, 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 11 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›
   1001. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4203681)
Joe, are you sure you didn't go by the alias RossCW back in the day?


That is a low blow.

And yes, I am quite aware that I compared a certain poster to old RossCW a few days ago,

but unlike RossCW, Joe's posts do have a certain internal logic in them if you accept his premises.

Is there an argument you're trying to make? Perhaps that poor people shouldn't have to follow laws? Otherwise, what's your point? All laws are written by the rich, just as all governments above the tribal level are plutocracies (or will rapidly become one).

The more powerful the government, the more power you're giving to rich people to use it and abuse it to their advantage.


and do you see this as good or bad? or neither? or are you an anarchist at heart?
   1002. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4203682)
Joe, are you sure you didn't go by the alias RossCW back in the day?

Nope. I know opposing viewpoints shock your conscience and hurt your eyes, but there are more than five of us out here who hold them.

(By the way, I just looked up 'RossCW' at Wiki Gonzalez. That site is always hilarious.)
   1003. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4203684)
I understand what an immigrant-headed household is. I was replying to your claim that U.S.-born children of immigrants were being counted as "illegal immigrants receiving benefits" (see #931). The Census Bureau assuredly doesn't count U.S.-born kids as immigrants, and this particular story and study made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

Jesus Christ, the level of intellectual dishonesty here is just staggering. The Census does not track "illegal immigrants receiving benefits", or if they do, that is not the data being used by CIS. CIS is using data based on only the head of the household. Households with U.S. native children where the head of household is an immigrant are included in the numbers.

The fact that there is no distinction being made between legal and illegal immigrants is exactly MCoA's original point. If you are trying to compare immigrants with non-immigrants you need to look at only the legal immigrants - the illegal ones are obviously going to have trouble finding a job and providing for their families because they don't have proper documents.

As a reminder, here is what we are debating on this particular point:

Joe, 884: The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.


(We now know that is not really true - the study did not find that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits. It found that 43 percent of households headed by immigrants are receiving welfare benefits.)

Matt, 909: This is the key sleight-of-hand in the article. Undocumented immigrants have an extremely difficult time getting good jobs because they don't have papers. If you want to argue that more legal immigration will have ill effects, you have to look at only the legal immigrant population.

Joe, 914: Huh? 43 percent of all immigrants are on some form of welfare. You think all that's separating a high school-dropout immigrant from a "good job" is a piece of paper from the U.S. government?

Again, we know that 43% number is being misused.

Matt, 919: No, of course not. But if CIS wanted to demonstrate that, they should have looked only at legal immigrants. The fact that they didn't is a huge red flag for the study - they used the wrong data set, which suggests they selected a data set that could be massaged to get the results they wanted.

Joe, 926: This makes no sense. Yes, the study was of all immigrants, but since illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare, how could illegal immigrants have skewed the numbers? You seem to believe that a high percentage of illegal immigrants are on welfare but legal immigrants are not, but the opposite seems to be true.

This is where I came in to point out that yes, the numbers are skewed by illegal immigrants because they include households where the head of household is an immigrant, both illegal and legal, but the children are U.S. citizens. Households headed by illegal immigrants can be on welfare even though illegal immigrants themselves don't qualify for welfare. Again, the fact that the numbers include both legal and illegal immigrants was MCoA's whole point here, the fact that you now concede the point but still claim you're right shows you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Joe, the interesting thing is that I came into this thread generally agreeing with a lot of your views on the economy. But discussing this minor point with you has made it difficult to take anything you write seriously.
   1004. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4203687)
Schumpeter claimed that he had set himself three goals in life: to be the greatest economist in the world, to be the best horseman in all of Austria and the greatest lover in all of Vienna. He said he had reached two of his goals, but he never said which two...

My life goals are to be the greatest historian of masculinity and political authority of 1620s England in the world, the greatest firstbaseman in Nottingham, and the greatest lover in the room I am in at this moment.

High bars all, but I think I've got a fair shot at two of them!
   1005. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4203689)
My point was that liberals pushed harder for the harsh anti-crack laws in the '80s after Bias died, but now, 25 years later, no one seems to know or admit that liberals were involved at all.

Oh whatever. No one seems to know except the people you are actually talking to about it. You want to argue with those other someones, go somewhere else.

Your #915 was worded to place credit/blame for the drug war on liberals. You know that's how it read.
   1006. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4203693)
Jesus Christ, the level of intellectual dishonesty here is just staggering. The Census does not track "illegal immigrants receiving benefits", or if they do, that is not the data being used by CIS.

No kidding! That was my point in #935. You're the one who brought the phrase "illegal immigrants receiving benefits" into this discussion in #931.

CIS is using data based on only the head of the household. Households with U.S. native children where the head of household is an immigrant are included in the numbers.

No, one part — the immigrant-headed household part — discusses "only the head of the household." Other parts discuss immigrants rather than households.

The fact that there is no distinction being made between legal and illegal immigrants is exactly MCoA's original point. If you are trying to compare immigrants with non-immigrants you need to look at only the legal immigrants - the illegal ones are obviously going to have trouble finding a job and providing for their families because they don't have proper documents.

Obviously, further isolating the data would yield more accurate results, but hand-waving this study because of such concerns is silly. As the study plainly discusses, education level is a better predictor of socioeconomic status than immigration status.

(We now know that is a false claim - the study did not find that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits. It found that 43 percent of households headed by immigrants are receiving welfare benefits. Although that is incidental to the point I was making.)

Yes, it did. It's almost a verbatim quote from the study.

Again, we know that is a false claim, but sort of besides the point.

Nope, not a false claim. As both Census and CIS numbers show, education level is a better predictor of socioeconomic status than immigration status. Are you seriously claiming that huge numbers of children of illegal immigrants with less than a high school diploma would go off food stamps if only their parents got a green card? There's zero evidence of that.

This is where I came in to point out that yes, the numbers are skewed by illegal immigrants because they include households where the head of household is an immigrant, both illegal and legal, but the children are U.S. citizens. Again, the fact that the numbers include both legal and illegal immigrants was MCoA's whole point here, the fact that you now concede the point but still claim you're right shows you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm arguing because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare benefits, and neither are non-citizen legal immigrants, so separating the data would hardly change the conclusions we're debating here.
   1007. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4203695)
Your #915 was worded to place credit/blame for the drug war on liberals. You know that's how it read.

Why do you keep referring to "my #915"? #915 was written by Robert Machemer.

Regardless, despite your persecution complex, I never "solely" blamed liberals for the drug war. I simply pointed out their long-forgotten role in passing some of the harshest aspects of the drug laws.
   1008. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4203697)
Of course. I missed the edit, and kind of ended up skimming over your answer of the edit, as it was an edit.

Poorer people who legally game the system have more of my sympathy than richer folks who legally game the system, as the richer folks have greater means to live with not gameing the system.

If people are committing actual crimes of fraud, I have little sympathy regardless of income. I don't know if you remember, but I'm one of the harder liberals on crime.


Fair enough. Thanks for answering.

OK, your turn.


? I already answered.
   1009. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4203698)
Why do you keep referring to "my #915"? #915 was written by Robert Machemer.

Sorry, #975, my stupid.

Everything else you wrote, think what you want. Trot out liberals liberals liberals for months, and in that instance, there's no way anyone sees a qualifier.


? I already answered.

You did?
Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me what the people who are making (significantly) less money than you have to do for you to feel less persecuted by their very existence? Because something tells me that not being on public assistance and paying their taxes isn't going to do it.
Did I miss it (certainly possible), or are you referring to answering Machemer's question? It may have sounded rhetorical, my own snarky fault, but I was really asking.
   1010. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4203701)
So a Romney spokeswoman said people’s health-care problems would be solved under the Massachusetts model?

That campaign is amazing. In the same way the current Astros season is amazing.
   1011. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4203702)
Yes, it did. It's almost a verbatim quote from the study.

Please provide the quote. And then explain why that contradicts the footnote in the table which provides the source of the data.
   1012. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4203703)
It's good to know that if the KKK were to ever release a study on minorities that some people would take it seriously.
   1013. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4203707)
It's good to know that if the KKK were to ever release a study on minorities that some people would take it seriously.

It's ridiculous, isn't it? Everyone knows low-skilled immigrants with 8th-grade educations are prospering beyond belief, while those lazy MBAs and Ph.D.s are struggling to get ahead. And those stupid liberal elites tell us education is important. Ha!
   1014. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4203711)

No, one part — the immigrant-headed household part — discusses "only the head of the household." Other parts discuss immigrants rather than households.

Yes, but to MCoA's point, those also include both illegal and legal immigrants, so you can't use them to make an accurate comparison. Of course illegal immigrants are going to be predominantly poor - they can't get most jobs (not to mention other things) that require legal papers.

Nope, not a false claim.

It is a false claim. The Census doesn't track the numbers that you are claiming they do.

As both Census and CIS numbers show, education level is a better predictor of socioeconomic status than immigration status. Are you seriously claiming that huge numbers of children of illegal immigrants with less than a high school diploma would go off food stamps if only their parents got a green card? There's zero evidence of that.

No, I am just trying to agree on what the data says. How can you have an honest discussion when you're lying about the data?

No, I'm arguing because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare benefits, and neither are non-citizen legal immigrants, so separating the data would hardly change the conclusions we're debating here.

But their households are. And how do you know if it would change the conclusions if you haven't looked at the data?
   1015. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4203713)
You did?

Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me what the people who are making (significantly) less money than you have to do for you to feel less persecuted by their very existence? Because something tells me that not being on public assistance and paying their taxes isn't going to do it.

Did I miss it (certainly possible), or are you referring to answering Machemer's question? It may have sounded rhetorical, my own snarky fault, but I was really asking.


Oh, sorry, yeah I was referring to having answered Bob's question. Your question above... I'm not sure what there is to "answer" there. You've ascribed a false belief system to me and have then asked me what people can do to disabuse me of the belief system I do not hold. Like asking "If unicorns could fly, what would they need to do to be able to fly faster than a jet plane?", the question is gibberish and doesn't compute.

So I guess that's my answer, basically.
   1016. CrosbyBird Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4203714)
but 75%? Who in their right mind would stay in the country?

People who rely on the advantages of living in that country to support their high income?

As your income rises, the utility of more money drops. If I have enough money to live a life of remarkably high quality (and the tax rate of 75% doesn't kick in until I'm well past that level of income), then it's very unlikely that I'm going to uproot my life for any amount of money.

I could be a millionaire in the country where all my friends and family live, where business is conducted in my native language, and where I am familiar with the culture. Alternatively, I could give up a significant amount of non-financial comfort for the ability to spend slightly more extravagantly. I just don't see that as particularly attractive.

Not that I'm recommending it, but I can't imagine even a 99% tax on income over $1.5M (the 1M euro equivalent) convincing me to leave the US.
   1017. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4203720)
and do you see this as good or bad? or neither? or are you an anarchist at heart?


I've already answered this question.
   1018. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4203724)
and do you see this as good or bad? or neither? or are you an anarchist at heart?


It's good or bad in the same sense that gravity is good or bad. It just is, and it behooves us to recognize reality and take it into account when ordering our government and lives.
   1019. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4203727)
Regardless, despite your persecution complex, I never "solely" blamed liberals for the drug war. I simply pointed out their long-forgotten role in passing some of the harshest aspects of the drug laws.


Actually, no. The complete history is that you threw out an attempted gotcha asking what government programs liberals wanted to roll back, thinking you were going to be all smartsie-fartsie pants and catch the crowd in an "ummm, uhh...none!" moment or something. I replied "the war on drugs" because it's a huge, gargantuan ########### of a government program that liberals* want to roll back. When faced with a response that didn't suit your wanted "gotcha" scenario you immediately started spinning to attempt to blame "liberals" for the war on drugs in the first place.

This is hilarious for two reasons. First, the idea that liberals are responsible for anything other than caving to the right wing's insane police state authoritarianism is laughable on its face. Yes, Tip O'Neil went all in in 1986, after 15 years of "soft on crime" bromides from the right. That's not the gotcha you hoped it would be. Second, the fact that Senate Democrats** in 1986 were part and parcel to the massive ########### of the "war on drugs" is a bullet in favor of the liberals who want to do away with it now. Your original hope was to spin a "liberals never want to end a program they passed" talking point ad nauseum, but the drug war is explicitly a program the Democrats helped pass that liberals want to end immediately.

*not to be confused with Senate or White House Democrats
**not to be confused with liberals
   1020. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4203729)
Yes, but to MCoA's point, those also include both illegal and legal immigrants, so you can't use them to make an accurate comparison. Of course illegal immigrants are going to be predominantly poor - they can't get most jobs (not to mention other things) that require legal papers.

Once again, you're relying on a distinction that makes little difference here. First of all, educational attainment is a much better predictor of socioeconomic status than one's immigration status. Second, unless you believe there are high numbers of skilled immigrants working as housekeepers and gardeners because of the lack of papers, the possession of a green card isn't going to shift these numbers as much as you seem to think. There are 40 million immigrants in the U.S. and 28 percent of them are estimated to be in the U.S. illegally. Even if 100 percent of illegal-immigrant households have U.S.-born children receiving benefits, that would still leave a large percentage of legal immigrant households receiving benefits.

It is a false claim. The Census doesn't track the numbers that you are claiming they do.

The Census Bureau doesn't track educational attainment?

But their households are. And how do you know if it would change the conclusions if you haven't looked at the data?

Because it's not mathematically possible to yield a different conclusion. We know how many immigrants are in the U.S. and we know how many are in the country illegally. Even if we assign negatives to 100 percent of the illegal immigrant households, there aren't enough of them to outstrip the much larger number of legal immigrants. We might not know the exact percentage, but we know a sizable percentage of legal immigrant households receive means-tested benefits.
   1021. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4203730)
Going back a bit...
Has anyone -- beyond graduate school applications -- ever released, sent, or even seen their college transcripts?

I had to do some weed-out interviewing for entry level positions a while back. One of the kids self-reported a mediocre GPA, but explained that his GPA was due to one awful semester. At the end of the call he threw out some boilerplate, asking me if there was anything else he could do to convince he was a good candidate. I told him to send me a transcript, which he never did. Suffice to say, he was weeded out.
   1022. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4203731)
Your question above... I'm not sure what there is to "answer" there. You've ascribed a false belief system to me and have then asked me what people can do to disabuse me of the belief system I do not hold. Like asking "If unicorns could fly, what would they need to do to be able to fly faster than a jet plane?", the question is gibberish and doesn't compute.

You have said numerous time that you put more into society than people with less money than you do. You have also said you are taken advantage of by these people.

What has to happen for a poor person to approach or equal your input to society? Make more money? That's basically it? If not, will people who have less money always be taking advantage of you?

Feel free to tell me if the two sentences that start this are incorrect.
   1023. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4203737)
I replied "the war on drugs" because it's a huge, gargantuan ########### of a government program that liberals* want to roll back. ...

*not to be confused with Senate or White House Democrats
**not to be confused with liberals

So, basically, only the liberals who don't count actually want to roll it back. Not sure how this is a "gotcha," then.
   1024. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4203742)
The more powerful the government, the more power you're giving to rich people to use it and abuse it to their advantage.

and do you see this as good or bad? or neither? or are you an anarchist at heart?
It's good or bad in the same sense that gravity is good or bad. It just is, and it behooves us to recognize reality and take it into account when ordering our government and lives.

Defining abuse of power as a absolute truth unworthy of empirical distinction or judgment is a moral bankruptcy so complete I can't believe Gaelan didn't just wake up screaming from a nap somewhere.
   1025. Steve Treder Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4203748)
Defining abuse of power as a absolute truth unworthy of empirical distinction or judgment is a moral bankruptcy so complete I can't believe Gaelan didn't just wake up screaming from a nap somewhere.

That is smile-worthy.
   1026. Spahn Insane Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:33 PM (#4203750)
No, I'm arguing because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for welfare benefits, and neither are non-citizen legal immigrants, so separating the data would hardly change the conclusions we're debating here.

I'm not sure what programs you're including under the umbrella of "welfare benefits," but if you're saying non-citizen legal immigrants are categorically ineligible for any public assistance, you're wrong.
   1027. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4203754)
This is hilarious for two reasons. First, the idea that liberals are responsible for anything other than caving to the right wing's insane police state authoritarianism is laughable on its face. Yes, Tip O'Neil went all in in 1986, after 15 years of "soft on crime" bromides from the right. That's not the gotcha you hoped it would be.


Back in the 1980s I took a 5 credit course on WW1, and one thing the Prof mentioned was how "blame" for the War was apportioned by historians, he said it went through several stages:

The treaty of Versailles said Germany was to blame, historians in the 20s said, "oh come on, everyone is to blame."

Then blame shifted to Russia- they began mobilization first after all, then blame shifted to France- why'd they ally with Russia? Then Serbia- they formented terrorist groups who were targeting Austria- then Austria - hell they fired the first artillery shots after all...

finally the blame was cast at the UK, "The UK kept equivocating, if Germany had known that the UK was going to enter the war, they would have tugged in Austria's leash/ not initiated the Schlieffen plan..."

So basically England was to blame for Germany invading Belgium?

It was that point the Prof said that the elephant was visible in the offices of Great War historians- a whole generation had disserted on how someone other than Germany had started the war, bore more blame for the war...
nonsense.

Germany's rise to Great Power status had destabilized Europe, Germany WANTED the war, Germany planned for the war, Germany was convinced that continent wide war was inevitable but that their window of opportunity for VICTORY was closing. Germany's general staff was horrified during the eve of war when it looked like Serbia was conceding most of Austria's demands - and that Austria was willing to accept Serbia's concessions rather than demanding total capitulation.

Treat of Versailles: generations of historians had condemned it, my prof said, "Germany lost a war that Germany essentially started, as a result they lost 2 provinces to France- provinces they'd taken from France by force a generation earlier- what was unfair about that?"
"Germany lost eastern provinces inhabited by Poles, provinces that had once been part of an independent Polish nation before Germany, Russia and Austria had carved Poland up, what was unfair about that?"
"Germany was forced to radically shrink its military, and so?"
"Germany was forced to pay reparations? Well of course, they started the war, it was fought OUTSIDE Germany and devastated towns and countrysides outside Germany, Germany retained its industrial base."

The Treaty of Versailles was actually far less harsh than the treaty the Germans imposed upon Russia in 1917, and certainly far less harsh than what Germany would have imposed upon France had Germany won.

The trouble with the Treaty was that it was far too lenient. Germany *should* have been broken up- people forget that Germany was not a single unified nation until 1871- at the very least Prussia should have been forced out of "Germany."

s
   1028. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4203763)
I'm not sure what programs you're including under the umbrella of "welfare benefits," but if you're saying non-citizen legal immigrants are categorically ineligible for any public assistance, you're wrong.

I know there are some exceptions, but for the most part, legal immigrants are ineligible for just about all benefits for a minimum of five years, and for some they're ineligible until they become citizens.
   1029. Spahn Insane Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4203770)
I know there are some exceptions, but for the most part, legal immigrants are ineligible for just about all benefits for a minimum of five years, and for some they're ineligible until they become citizens.

Well, that's certainly more correct than your initial blanket assertion. And as the link notes, eligibility determinations for some programs are delegated to the states.
   1030. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4203776)
#1027
Finally, the potential for an interesting discussion! (I'm not sure if I immediately see the relevance, but I'm not going to look a gift-horse in the mouth).

I like your take on the historiography of the First World War. What to do at Versailles is an endlessly fascinating question that I think goes beyond war blame. Assuming for the sake of argument that German War Guilt is the fact from which we're starting from, I think the outcome of the treaty isn't just about what Germany deserves, but what is feasible and what is best for the world as a whole (or more directly, what is best for Britain/France/USA*). Germany was a relatively young nation technically speaking, but since Jena national consciousness had been growing and I'm not sure that bell was getting unrung. The other thing to keep in mind is that while Germany had been entirely exhausted as a military force, this wasn't precisely like 1945. A break-up of the German nation could very well have required occupation and putting down uprisings for years to come. I'm not sure if any of the allies were willing to sign on for that.

Versailles itself is a fascinating event, I quite like Margaret Macmillan's book on it. Although I'm just a sucker for international conferences. The Congress of Vienna is pretty fun too in my books.

*And to a lesser extent the other allied powers. For instance if you want to talk about nations that were poorly treated at Versailles, which may have contributed to future problems, Japan is a nice place to start.

EDIT:
On another point, I wouldn't go in for British War Guilt exactly, but I think Niall Ferguson (who I rarely agree with) makes the interesting argument that Britain horribly miscalculated in A) not making its position clear to Germany and B) getting engaged in the war at all. He sees the German war aims of a humiliated France and a continental Europe dominated by a German led economic bloc as not that bad of an outcome for Britain, and certainly not worth the lives of so many of its citizens. (and in fact argues that's what we've ended up with anyway).

I'm not entirely sold on A, and I'm not sure about B, but it's something to think about.

Edited again to remove (some) of the pretentious goobery.
   1031. The District Attorney Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:22 PM (#4203780)
It was that point the Prof said that the elephant was visible in the offices of Great War historians- a whole generation had disserted on how someone other than Germany had started the war, bore more blame for the war...
nonsense.
Ditto the American Civil War. It's probably natural that the side that lost the war is going to work overtime to try to shape history in a way sympathetic to them, while the side that won it has less motivation to rub it in. It ends up becoming kind of a historical Law of Competitive Balance.

(Naturally, this is under the assumption that the winners don't obliterate the losers. In that case, history is of course written by the victors.)
   1032. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4203782)
Then you've got the War of 1812 which everyone claims to have won, and no one cares about.
   1033. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4203784)
*And to a lesser extent the other allied powers. For instance if you want to talk about nations that were poorly treated at Versailles, which may have contributed to future problems, Japan is a nice place to start.


And Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was in attendance, petitioning for recognition of the rights of Vietnamese, but was ignored.
   1034. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:26 PM (#4203785)
It's ridiculous, isn't it? Everyone knows low-skilled immigrants with 8th-grade educations are prospering beyond belief, while those lazy MBAs and Ph.D.s are struggling to get ahead. And those stupid liberal elites tell us education is important. Ha!

What you fail to grasp is the old axiom of garbage in-garbage out. Your study tells you what you want to hear so you think it is valid.
   1035. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:33 PM (#4203791)

Most of it wasn't even a study. They just grabbed data from the Census Bureau.
   1036. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:34 PM (#4203793)
So, basically, only the liberals who don't count actually want to roll it back. Not sure how this is a "gotcha," then.


If you had even basic reading comprehension and reasoning skills you would recognize that the Democratic caucus in Washington is not what any reasonable man would call "liberal." When accounting for Senate Democrats and near universal acquiescence to the "Washington consensus" on both economic and foreign policy issues the Democrats are actually a slightly center-right party.

The fact that they're not mouth-drooling right wing fanatics such as yourself doesn't make them liberal.
   1037. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4203794)
Then you've got the War of 1812 which everyone claims to have won, and no one cares about.


The Canadians care about the War of 1812, but no one cares about the Canadians, so it's a wash.
   1038. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:35 PM (#4203795)
I do think Britain shares a good chunk of the blame for WWI and the Royals a good chunk of Britain's blame.

   1039. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:36 PM (#4203798)

Most of it wasn't even a study. They just grabbed data from the Census Bureau.


You assume they did. I'll ask again, did they actually use real numbers from the Census Bureau? And do they mean what this racist hate group claim they mean? Have you checked?
   1040. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4203800)
The Canadians care about the War of 1812, but no one cares about the Canadians, so it's a wash.

About a month ago there was an article in USA Today about how this is the 200th anniversary of the start of the war and how on the American side nobody cares while on the Canadian side cities, towns, provinces, and the country are and have created budgets to celebrate the war for the next two years.
   1041. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4203809)
About a month ago there was an article in USA Today about how this is the 200th anniversary of the start of the war and how on the American side nobody cares while on the Canadian side cities, towns, provinces, and the country are and have created budgets to celebrate the war for the next two years.

Yeah there is quite a lot of hubbub about the war in Canada (I was mostly anticipating Sam on this one...Canadians don't really count).

I think it would have happened anyway, 1812 is still important for many Canadians, especially in Southern Ontario, but I seem to recall the Conservative Government making a lot of noise about how they were going to change the tone of Canadian history. Away from "Canada: Where everyone gets along!" to "Canada: Where we occasionally shoot people". So I assume it's been a mix of government encouragement and grass-roots enthusiasm for 1812.
   1042. Steve Treder Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4203812)
the Democratic caucus in Washington is not what any reasonable man would call "liberal." When accounting for Senate Democrats and near universal acquiescence to the "Washington consensus" on both economic and foreign policy issues the Democrats are actually a slightly center-right party.

The fact that they're not mouth-drooling right wing fanatics such as yourself doesn't make them liberal.


Yep.

I just love it when I hear the characterization of Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein (not to mention Prez Obama) as raving liberals. Seriously?
   1043. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4203818)
I'd be curious to hear more on the British royal family and the outbreak of The First World War.

Not that I'm disputing your claim, I just haven't read much from that side of things. Most of the historians critical of the British seem to focus on the ambiguous military exercises with France in the years previous and the indecision in July which left the British in limbo and unable to influence events like they often did in the 19th century.
   1044. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4203824)
Your question above... I'm not sure what there is to "answer" there. You've ascribed a false belief system to me and have then asked me what people can do to disabuse me of the belief system I do not hold. Like asking "If unicorns could fly, what would they need to do to be able to fly faster than a jet plane?", the question is gibberish and doesn't compute.

You have said numerous time that you put more into society than people with less money than you do.


A lawyer who puts more into society than people with honest jobs? There's your flying unicorn right there.
   1045. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4203831)
About a month ago there was an article in USA Today about how this is the 200th anniversary of the start of the war and how on the American side nobody cares while on the Canadian side cities, towns, provinces, and the country are and have created budgets to celebrate the war for the next two years.


I was in Toronto not too long ago and they were all talking about the centennial of 1812 and I was like, "whu?" I always confuse the War of 1812 with the French & Indian War. And by confuse, I mean I completely ignore both of them at the same time without distinguishing them as discrete events.

I guess 1812 gave us Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans.
   1046. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4203834)
I'd be curious to hear more on the British royal family and the outbreak of The First World War.


As far as I'm concerned WWI was just like, dress rehearsal for WWII, right? I mean, it was a dry run. No one took it seriously at the time, right?
   1047. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:09 PM (#4203835)
In fact, I think I'll start calling it World War Sound Check.
   1048. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4203837)
You assume they did. I'll ask again, did they actually use real numbers from the Census Bureau? And do they mean what this racist hate group claim they mean? Have you checked?

Since you're big on evidence, would you mind showing the evidence that CIS or its leadership are either "racist" or "hate" anyone? I know the open-borders types have tried to label them as such, but I don't recall anything sticking.
   1049. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:13 PM (#4203839)
In fact, I think I'll start calling it World War Sound Check.

I use a different music analogy.
The First World War was the interesting one, before they sold out and went for the boring pop stuff.
   1050. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:16 PM (#4203843)
The First World War was the interesting one, before they sold out and went for the boring pop stuff.


Are you suggesting a nomenclature of World War Bleach vs World War Nevermind? Does that make the Cold War In Utero?

Actually, I think part of the weaponry in WW Bleach was mustard gas mix with aerosol bleach or something.
   1051. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:28 PM (#4203852)
They used Aero Zeppelins so perhaps it was World War Incesticide.
   1052. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4203856)
I loved that ####### EP. It's like the Lithuanian Union of EPs.
   1053. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: August 08, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4203864)
The First World War was the interesting one, before they sold out and went for the boring pop stuff.


The Kaiser was good at first, but then he went too far.
   1054. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:21 PM (#4203881)
“We’ve got to do some reforms in health care, and I have some experience doing that as you know, and I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care.”
The real Mitt clearly believes in some form of universal health care. I'm curious to see if Romney is finally willing to stand up to the right wing of the party and embrace his signature achievement as governor.
   1055. booond Posted: August 08, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4203895)
he real Mitt clearly believes in some form of universal health care. I'm curious to see if Romney is finally willing to stand up to the right wing of the party and embrace his signature achievement as governor.


This Etch-a-sketching has a 3.8 degree of difficulty.
   1056. Steve Treder Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4203920)
This Etch-a-sketching has a 3.8 degree of difficulty.

And if there is a 0.1 degree of risk regarding the right wing of the party, Mitt has yet to display cojone uno.
   1057. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4203929)
Since you're big on evidence, would you mind showing the evidence that CIS or its leadership are either "racist" or "hate" anyone? I know the open-borders types have tried to label them as such, but I don't recall anything sticking.

So that's a no then?
   1058. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 10:51 PM (#4203935)
I'd be curious to hear more on the British royal family and the outbreak of The First World War.

Not that I'm disputing your claim, I just haven't read much from that side of things. Most of the historians critical of the British seem to focus on the ambiguous military exercises with France in the years previous and the indecision in July which left the British in limbo and unable to influence events like they often did in the 19th century.


Cutting and pasting from an earlier thread

Kaiser William wanted a naval power not simply because of some regatta but because he wanted to either be better then his Grandma and his cousins or to get their respect on an international stage. The war leaders of Williams father and of his own early days were not naval men. They did not want a strong navy or attempt to build one. The navy and its growth was because of William. Without William there is no Tirpitz. Tirpitz is there because of William, if Frederick lives there is no WWI or at least the one we saw.

France and England came together as a direct result of Williams actions and desires, and those actions and desires were largely naval actions. France and England were enemies until William came along, William never though in a million years that England and France would join up. The fact that they did was a monumental shift in thinking on both sides of the channel. At the time it was a huge deal that required a lot of tightrope walking.

That is like saying USA and Russia were not enemies until Marx came along. France and England came together because of Williams actions not because of Bismarcks actions. A strong Germany created by Bismark was considered a good thing by England since Bismark had no naval or colonial designs. A strong Germany with naval and colonial ambitions is what caused England and France to come together and of course it also brought two other hated enemies together Russia and France. Which eventually brought England and Russia together.

Kaiser William was the oldest grandson of Queen Victoria's from I believe her oldest offspring or at least daughter I forget which. The British Monarchy came from Germany, spoke German and in many ways considered themselves German (or whatever you want to call Germany before Germany existed). Kaiser William and his desire for standing within his family had a huge impact on his decisions, his impact on the Government was huge. If Kaiser Williams mother was a Prussian princess instead of the eldest daughter of the English monarchy then Kaiser William doesn't build his navy and doesn't have designs to be a colonial superpower. If William doesn't build the navy then England, France, and Russia do not join up and there is no arms build up and there probably is no adequate diplomatic infrastructure in place if Germany decides to invade France. Hell, without William there probably isn't even an attack on France since Bismarck and the Prussians were pretty well content with what they did to France and what they got in the 1800's.

How about this for directness. If Albert doesn't stick his dick in Victoria then Princess Victoria isn't born. If Queen Victoria doesn't marry off her daughter to Prince Frederick and then if Frederick doesn't stick his dick in Victoria then William isn't born.

So there you got two British royal vaginas and two German dicks having a huge impact on billions of lives. I don't think I can get more direct then that.

True eventually somewhere and at sometime there would be a showdown. But two things, Bismarck didn't want it and Frederick didn't want it. So the Germans without William didn't want it. The second part was that England didn't really worry about the possibility until William came along. Germany until William didn't see themselves has a naval power or even a colonial power. Without Williams the showdown if it ever came wouldn't have happened for at least another 20 or 30 years possibly even more. Or if there was a war with France sooner it would have been down without an alliance in place and the groundwork for one would barely in place. So it would simply be a French and German war not a world conflict. Then depending on the mood of the German leaders it would either be a war of annihilation or conquest. The reigning mood at the time was of conquest, fight a war, gain territory and wealth, peace settlement. If it was the typical war then it is unlikely England steps in, if it is the other option then yeah it becomes the showdown war.

But without the naval interest the war doesn't happen with combatants situated as they were.

You can say that William was a typical world leader in his day and his predecessors were the unusual ones, but German leaders by and large have always eschewed the navy. They have always played themselves as the continental force and have been content with letting England rule the waves.

It was Williams embracing of Mahan and the Navy that led to the need for colonial territory, it was that desire for colonial power and naval power that brought Germany into immediate conflict with England. If Germany goes the usual route of building up a grand army then England stays largely unpreturbed and off on the sidelines.

For the record I never said there wouldn't be a world war, merely that the war we did get was largely caused by the Royal family.



Much of the problems of the 20th century can be traced back to UK's dominance on the world scene in the preceeding centuries and other countries and peoples attempts to take some of that dominance or to get out from under it. Which is why I chuckle when a Brit has the audacity to tsk tsk us Americans on our handling of foriegn affairs. If one checks the ledger books you'll find that deaths caused by UK's handling of foriegn policy greatly outnumbers deaths caused by US handling of foriegn policy.

In otherwords Brits should shut there mouth when it comes to tsk tsking other countries bad habits.



   1059. Greg K Posted: August 09, 2012 at 05:14 AM (#4204047)
Ah I think I follow. So the Royal Family via the Kaiser.

I would add a couple points though. French-English relations in the 19th century had been fairly steadily moving towards co-operation for decades before William came to power. Starting even with Belgium in the 1830s, the Crimean War, the joint Chinese intervention...even in colonial matters, while technically rivals they nearly always respected each other's spheres of influence (or even co-operated in places like the Suez) Fashoda was the one area that almost led to conflict, but that was resolved fairly quickly.

I think the crucial element is that the Germans horribly misread the diplomatic situation and saw the two great colonial empires as causing friction between Britain and France by definition, rather than looking at the actual details on the ground. This led to the clumsy blustering of the Morroccan Crises where the Germans thought they could drive a wedge between Britain and France by giving Britain an opportunity to interfere with French colonial designs.

As for the navy, it obviously was in large part the pet toy of William. Though whether that was a product of him being of British Royal Family stock is conjecture in my opinion...perhaps convincing conjecture depending on a psychological study of the Kaiser. Also, I think at least in part the Germany Navy has to be considered as a conscious diplomatic policy that horribly backfired much like Morrocco. Whether William thought of it this way or not, the build up of the Germany Navy was in large part merely a negotiating tool for the British. Whatever William wanted, the Navy was never going to play an active role in a war with the British. In this they again miscalculated on the insecurity of the British as the build up set off a panic.

Finally, I think the other key ingredient is the Russians. I think a showdown between Germany and France, or a German desire to invade France is a misreading of 1914. Almost all German anxieties were directed towards Russia. The "window of opportunity" that was being closed by the rapidly developing Russian steam-roller. I think the difference between Bismarck and the Germans of the late 19th/early 20th century is that Bismarck would have been a bit more savvy in dealing with the British and not antagonized them. Perhaps having the added benefit of not being so isolated as to be forced to lean on Austria so heavily. The growing power of Russia and German anxieties about what that meant for them I see as the root cause of the war. German diplomatic bungling (of which William certainly gets some blame), British coyness, and the actual decision to get involved when they weren't entirely obligated to determined whether Britain was involved in the war or not. But I think this was a German-Russian war with everyone else being involved secondarily.

I feel odd bringing him up again as I've said he's not my favourite historian, but Niall Ferguson makes the argument that both World Wars were about the ethnic hodge-podge in Eastern Europe that was the legacy of the 19th century. In many ways the first go round failed to resolve anything, and it took a second go, and horrible ethnic cleansings, brutal dictatorships, and mass movements of minority populations to sort it out.
   1060. Greg K Posted: August 09, 2012 at 05:17 AM (#4204048)
I should note that any Brit that takes the attitude that their nation carried themselves nobly in the 19th century is being an insufferably smug ###.

Probably just the circles I run in, but I don't think I've ever met one that does that.
   1061. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 08:59 AM (#4204098)
I love me some politics thread, but I like the diversion into history. Very nice change of pace. Thanks!
   1062. Ron J2 Posted: August 09, 2012 at 09:21 AM (#4204116)
The Canadians care about the War of 1812


There's a bunch of new 1812 coins out now -- heavily promoted.

The current one celebrates HMS Shannon. While this has an obvious War of 1812 connection, I'm damned if I can think of anything approaching a Canadian connection.
   1063. The Good Face Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:18 AM (#4204180)
Defining abuse of power as a absolute truth unworthy of empirical distinction or judgment is a moral bankruptcy so complete I can't believe Gaelan didn't just wake up screaming from a nap somewhere.


You misunderstand me. I don't think it's unworthy of judgment, but it is a fact that should be taken into account. One might hate and fear gravity, but such a one would be foolish to live in a high treehouse with no walls, nets, or guardrails. Rich people wind up controlling the government in every human society more advanced than hunter/gatherers. The more power such governments have, the more power is put at the disposal of rich people. People who claim to hate the disproportionate influence exercised by rich people should keep this in mind when determining the size and scope of their government.

Personally, I think that most people don't really have a problem with "the rich" so much as they dislike "the rich who don't agree with me".

Also, I really wish Gaelan was posting more, he's one of my very favorite BBTF personalities.
   1064. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:35 AM (#4204202)
People who claim to hate the disproportionate influence exercised by rich people should keep this in mind when determining the size and scope of their government.


Yes. Of course even if we agree on the problem, we disagree on the solution. I think you and I disagree very strongly whether the rich can function as hegemons more effectively under more or less government regulations/a stronger or weaker government.

I believe a democratic government with every effort to remove money from influencing elections, combined with a strong government which is expected to correct for various externalities with regulations is the best way to minimize the impact of the very wealthy. I am pretty sure you disagree. But we do both agree the wealthy have an outsized influence. Of course one of my solutions is to tax the wealthy more heavily, which has the twofer of reducing the relative disparity and giving the government resources to do stuff.

I think the fact that the wealthy overwhelmingly prefer small government with low taxation and no regulations is a hint as to which route better controls the influence of the wealthy.
   1065. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4204204)
Much of the problems of the 20th century can be traced back to UK's dominance on the world scene in the preceeding centuries and other countries and peoples attempts to take some of that dominance or to get out from under it. Which is why I chuckle when a Brit has the audacity to tsk tsk us Americans on our handling of foriegn affairs. If one checks the ledger books you'll find that deaths caused by UK's handling of foriegn policy greatly outnumbers deaths caused by US handling of foriegn policy


You could easily blame the Russo-Japanese War, WWI and WWII (Pacific and Indian theatres) on an American- Alfred Thayer Mahan :-)

Seriously, the numbers of warships, particularly capital ships that the UK was popping out from the 1890s to 1920 were stunning, battle ships alone:
Pre-Dreadnaught
Victoria class: 2
Trafalgar Calss: 2
Royal Sovereign class: 8
Centurion class: 3
Majestic class: 9
Canopus class: 7
Formidable class: 8
Duncan class: 6
King Edward VII: 8
Swiftsure class: 2
Lord Nelson class: 2
Dreadnaughts:
HMS Dreadnought: 1
Bellerophon class: 3
St. Vincent class: 3
HMS Neptune: 1
Colossus class: 2
Orion class: 4
King George V class: 4
Iron Duke class: 4
Agincourt: 1
Erin: 1
Canada Class: 2
Queen Elizabeth class: 5
Revenge class: 5

That doesn't count Protected/Armoured Cruisers (about 50)
Battle Cruisers: 15
Cruisers
Destroyers etc etc

The UK basically went full bore nuts on naval building- adjusting for population/size of economy they were popping out ships like the US was during WWII, only they were doing that pace for more than 20 years straight.

By 1914 the German's main battle line- it's dreadnaught battle line (battleships + battle cruisers) was about 2/3 the strength of the UK's Grand Fleet- but in every other category of surface ship, from destroyers on up to pre-dreadnaught battleships, the UK Naval absolutely swamped the Germans- if by some miracle the Germans had actually managed to pull off a Tsushima and the German High Seas Fleet annihilated the Grand Fleet- the Brit would STILL have been able to put together a surface fleet that would out-gun the German High Seas Fleet.

The sane, fiscally rational response the Germans should have had upon seeing UK [over]build up its fleet in response to Germany's naval buildup, should have been, "Oh, uh gee, I see, well how about this, we'll stop building warships, we have better uses for that money anyhow."

   1066. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4204216)
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
   1067. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4204267)
I can certainly agree that German "great power" ambitions likely deserve a plurality if not majority of the blame for WWI, but I also think that there's measurable blame across Europe.

But I do disagree with these conclusions --

The Treaty of Versailles was actually far less harsh than the treaty the Germans imposed upon Russia in 1917, and certainly far less harsh than what Germany would have imposed upon France had Germany won.

The trouble with the Treaty was that it was far too lenient. Germany *should* have been broken up- people forget that Germany was not a single unified nation until 1871- at the very least Prussia should have been forced out of "Germany."


Yes - absolutely, Brest-Litovsk was harsher than Versailles, but then - the Bolsheviks had their own problems and more than anything else, needed to deliver an end to their part in the war. It didn't help that they went a bit too far in the whole 'proletariat' thing in constructing their peace delegation...

However, in the west -- a breakup of Germany as things stood in the fall of 1918 would have been untenable without sweeping into Germany itself.

The Germans knew that the allies had a winning hand, the allies knew they had a winning hand, and the allies knew that the Germans knew they had a winning hand. If they were sitting around a poker table - the problem for the allies was that since playing out the hand was known by everyone, it simply wasn't possible for the allies to get the Germans to go 'all in'. The German delegation was leaving with a peace treaty, but they were also leaving guaranteeing their existence... that would have had cost to the allies, too -- the outcome of continuing hostilities wouldn't have been in doubt, but it would have cost more blood, more money, etc.

Besides - it was ultimately the Article 231 provisions (reparations) that led to the Nazis more than anything else... sure, sure, restoration of national pride and recovery of lost territory was their thrust --- but it was the crippling economic impact that ultimately doomed Weimar when the bag of economic tricks emptied.

In effect, the allies tried to have it both ways -- a complete defanging of Germany, but without paying the higher price that a 'final' defanging (a breakup of Germany) would have required.
   1068. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4204268)
Ditto the American Civil War. It's probably natural that the side that lost the war is going to work overtime to try to shape history in a way sympathetic to them, while the side that won it has less motivation to rub it in. It ends up becoming kind of a historical Law of Competitive Balance.


"The War of Northern Aggression"

Seriously, just about everything written in US History Books from 1890-1940 about the Civil War was wrong, aside from the fact that there was a war and the North won- not just wrong factually, but wrong from a moral sense- several generations of southerners lied to themselves about the Civil War to the point that the lies became gospel truth, much as from 1918-45 a generation of Germans lied to themselves about WWI (WWI was a purely defensive war, the German Army was winning the war, but the socialists took power in October 1918, stabbed the Army in the back and capitulated for no reason in November 1918, the Treaty of Versailles was a horrendous injustice such that had never ever been inflicted upon any country in the history of the world)

Lies the south told itself:

1: The war was not about slavery, slavery was going to end anyway
2: The war was about state's rights, nevermind that up until the south lost control of congress it was southern inspired legislation that repeatedly told northern states what they could or could not do (such as the fugitive slave act)
3: The south was freer than the north- meaning southern whites were freer than northern whites- this was almost comically false- southern states were slowly [d]evolving into police states- 1/3 of the populace were slaves, the whites were terrified of slave uprisings, a large chunk of the white populace was employed keeping down the slaves- and keeping down any white sympathizers- if a southern newspaper said something bad about the "peculiar institution," it'd be burned down, or the government would declare the press to be a threat to peace and order and shut it down.

The north had its issues, but the pre-civil war south was evolving into a class-based, feudal, dystopian nightmare- the Afrikaners in 20th century SA had nothing on the Antebellum aristocracy in Dixie.
   1069. The Good Face Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4204271)
I believe a democratic government with every effort to remove money from influencing elections, combined with a strong government which is expected to correct for various externalities with regulations is the best way to minimize the impact of the very wealthy. I am pretty sure you disagree. But we do both agree the wealthy have an outsized influence. Of course one of my solutions is to tax the wealthy more heavily, which has the twofer of reducing the relative disparity and giving the government resources to do stuff.


This is simply a struggle between rich people who agree with you vs. rich people who don't agree with you. In the event you truly manage to sever the political power of the rich, those who take that power will, within a generation or so, become the new rich people. Witness every communist revolution ever.

I think the fact that the wealthy overwhelmingly prefer small government with low taxation and no regulations is a hint as to which route better controls the influence of the wealthy.


That applies far more to the upper middle class and lower scale rich people. Six figure salaried people, successful small business people, etc. The real power brokers don't care much about taxes, they have the means and influence to avoid them. Regulations are just a tool to further enrich themselves... big, powerful businesses love regulations. Who do you think writes them?
   1070. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:12 AM (#4204275)
BTW - since we've gone historical...

Saw an amusing tweet yesterday noting that the name of the British ship that enforced the Townshend Acts which ultimately led to the "Boston Massacre" and eventually, the American Revolution --- the HMS Romney!
   1071. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4204277)
Since you're big on evidence, would you mind showing the evidence that CIS or its leadership are either "racist" or "hate" anyone? I know the open-borders types have tried to label them as such, but I don't recall anything sticking.


The CIS was founded by John Tanton. There's a good introduction to Tanton's racial views and interest in eugenics here.
   1072. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4204304)
This is simply a struggle between rich people who agree with you vs. rich people who don't agree with you.


If you believe the rich are destined to accumulate power in any society, then haveing the rich bicker amoung themselves seems to be the only way to limit their power.

The real power brokers don't care much about taxes


The huge effort several extremely rich families have waged for many years against inheritance taxes - DEATH TAXES - would seem to belie this notion.
   1073. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4204333)
Besides - it was ultimately the Article 231 provisions (reparations) that led to the Nazis more than anything else... sure, sure, restoration of national pride and recovery of lost territory was their thrust --- but it was the crippling economic impact that ultimately doomed Weimar when the bag of economic tricks emptied.


No, Weimer actually survived the Versailles induced economic meltdown, what it didn't survive was the Great Depression- Germany's economic recovery in the 1920s was based in large part ion investment $ from the US of A- that dried up overnight- meanwhile from 1923 to 1932 the Nazis had been busy creating a shadow government- and the Nazis were most definitely people who were far more motivated by angered by "restoration of national pride and recovery of lost territory" than they were by Versailles' financial terms.

In any event, the Great Depression saw huge electoral gains for both the Nazis and the Commies- but the Nazis had 3 things going for them:
1: They had the plurality and thus 1st shot at forming a government
2: The establishment feared/hated the commies more than they did the Nazis
3: Hitler's complete amorality - "So in exchange for the chancellorship all I have to do is kill several of my closest friends and associates who've had my back for the past 10 years? Hell, no problem, anyone else you want me to kill for you while I'm at it?" allowed him to make any concession demanded of him by the powers that be, and besides, it was not like he was going to honor any agreement after he had the upper hand any way.

   1074. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4204338)
However, in the west -- a breakup of Germany as things stood in the fall of 1918 would have been untenable without sweeping into Germany itself.


Yes, but I'm using 20/20 hindsight- the West wanted to end the War- but by that time they really needed to FINISH the war- instead what they got was essentially a temporary ceasefire- the time for a "ceasefire" was, oh, 1914/15...
   1075. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:15 PM (#4204340)
Mitt Romney on Thursday accused President Barack Obama and his allies of launching personal attacks and perpetuating lies about him in TV ads. The Republican also rolled out a new commercial of his own that questioned Obama's values and accused the president of waging war on religious freedom.


Translation: Liar who engages in nonstop personal attacks upset, claims opponent lied and engaged in a personal attack. To make things right they then lie more and engage in more personal attacks. Finishes by proclaiming "Why oh why is this campaign filled with lies and personal attacks?"

   1076. CrosbyBird Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4204341)
I think the fact that the wealthy overwhelmingly prefer small government with low taxation and no regulations is a hint as to which route better controls the influence of the wealthy.

It's a myth that the wealthy prefer small government, generally speaking. The wealthy want to be left alone to enjoy their wealth. A huge part of that is a desire for low taxes. "Small government" is not-so-subtle code for "don't take more of my money to give to poor people." On the other hand, big government that serves to protect wealth is perfectly acceptable.

Regulations also aren't always a bad thing for the wealthy. For example, if there are regulations that govern the amount of chemical waste a factory can dump, those regulations essentially permit harmful waste up to that amount. "I followed the rules" can serve as a nice shield against negligence claims. Where the bar is set has pretty strong financial consequences for owners, which means that there's a strong incentive for them to invest lots of money in politics.

That's one of the serious problems I have with the regulatory state in general. I don't see how you have a regulatory state without incredible corruption in the system. If you want money out of politics, you must take away a good deal of the incentives people have for investing in the political system. Even if you are comfortable restricting collective political speech (which has it's own problems), there's always going to be a way to filter money to people and influence their behavior.
   1077. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4204343)
Translation: Liar who engages in nonstop personal attacks upset, claims opponent lied and engaged in a personal attack. To make things right they then lie more and engage in more personal attacks. Finishes by proclaiming "Why oh why is this campaign filled with lies and personal attacks?"


This is going to be a fun campaign, this is going to be New York's 1992 Senate Race on a National Scale.
   1078. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4204349)
Regulations also aren't always a bad thing for the wealthy. For example, if there are regulations that govern the amount of chemical waste a factory can dump, those regulations essentially permit harmful waste up to that amount.


Regulations that impose entry barriers (costs) for businesses necessarily aide pre-existing/entrenched businesses against johnny come lately competitors.

   1079. McCoy Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4204355)
Yes, but I'm using 20/20 hindsight- the West wanted to end the War- but by that time they really needed to FINISH the war- instead what they got was essentially a temporary ceasefire- the time for a "ceasefire" was, oh, 1914/15...

It's extremely questionable that the West would have been able to FINISH the war. The French army had mutinied and refused to do anything but defend and the British were so hell bent on attack that they were sending thousands of men to their death to gain yards of ground. Then throw in the fact that both governments were totally and absolutely bankrupt that it seems awfully hard that they could have finished Germany without America pulling almost all of the weight and America didn't really want to be engaged in that kind of war and I doubt the France and England wanted to become vassal states to America. All of the problems Germany had with supplies and such inside France would now become France and England's problem while Germany would be the one on the defensive. The end of the war has shown that they were quite good at killing large chunks of soldiers while on the defensive. The war needed to end for all sides.
   1080. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4204370)
No, Weimer actually survived the Versailles induced economic meltdown, what it didn't survive was the Great Depression- Germany's economic recovery in the 1920s was based in large part ion investment $ from the US of A- that dried up overnight- meanwhile from 1923 to 1932 the Nazis had been busy creating a shadow government- and the Nazis were most definitely people who were far more motivated by angered by "restoration of national pride and recovery of lost territory" than they were by Versailles' financial terms.


My interwar history is a bit rusty, but my recollection is that reparations didn't actually cease until 1933. Following the early 20s imbroglios (the Ruhr Occupation, etc) - I know there were a number manners in which the allies modified the repayment terms (the Dawes plan, etc). However -- and I really hate to attract the gold buggers -- German finance 'genius' essentially layering bonds on top on bonds eventually caught up with them. I know the Nazis were active more than a decade before their ultimate ascension to power, but they were largely fringe (large fringe, but still fringe) up until all economic hell broke loose and suddenly, they started to sound good to disaffected shopkeepers and such where previously, their support was largely from the unemployed and lower classes (with more than a few nationalist blue bloods tossed in for good measure).

Would the Nazis have been as successful in taking power if the crash had been just a bit softer?

I think so -- even at their high point, I think the NSDAP topped out at 37/38% in the summer '32 elections. They then lost seats that fall, but -- at least to Von Papen -- the center right couldn't really form a functioning government without them.

I know most historians disagree with me - but I really do think that if you can shave just a few points off Nazi support in the 30s, Germany perhaps ends up in a bloody civil war - but the emerging state, even if the Nazis ultimately prevail, simply wouldn't have been in a position to transition so seamlessly into an immediate military buildup and aggressor state.
   1081. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4204377)

Yes, but I'm using 20/20 hindsight- the West wanted to end the War- but by that time they really needed to FINISH the war- instead what they got was essentially a temporary ceasefire- the time for a "ceasefire" was, oh, 1914/15...


As Foch oracalized -- "This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years".

But I tend to agree with McCoy in 1079 -- the allies had the materials and resources to completely conquer Germany, but they absolutely didn't have the national will to do it... enough blood had been shed. Allied leaders tried to thread the needle with Versailles, and without any comment on whether Versailles was "fair" or not, I just think they missed badly.

In trying to accomplish one singular aim -- permanently relegating the German threat, they ended up all but ensuring that threat would reappear in one way or another.

I've actually found it a bit ironic regarding the current eurozone situation -- you have Germany essentially wielding its economic might around the EU... Maybe Maggie Thatcher was right about German reunification after all ;-)
   1082. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 09, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4204381)
Reparations are frequently misunderstood. They created resentment in Germany but at little benefit to the Allies.

Consider this: The French lost a lot of rolling stock in the war, so they demand that Germany replace all the lost locomotives and supply additional ones as needed for the next 20 years.

The result is that the Germans have to build lots of locomotive factories and train machinists to work in them. Meanwhile, the French locomotive industry withers as French railroad companies have a free supply. Twenty years passes, and you have an massive German locomotive industry and a weak French one.

Aha! you say. We'll ask the Germans to give us gold instead of locomotives, then use the gold to buy whatever we need! But how do the Germans get the gold? They need to export things and cut down on imports. So the German people suffer for a while, but meanwhile they are building up their industrial sectors and beating out French companies for foreign markets (if they don't beat the French, they can't pay reparations, so it's lose-lose).

About the only way you really keep Germany down long-term is either breaking it up, or adopting the Morgenthau plan of deindustrialization, but it's not clear either is really feasible.
   1083. McCoy Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4204401)
re 1082

The only problem with this view is that France was heavily industrialized and heavily mechanized while the German economy and industrial base was smaller, less advanced, and not ready for war even years after throwing off the shackles of Versailles.
   1084. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4204402)
It's extremely questionable that the West would have been able to FINISH the war. The French army had mutinied and refused to do anything but defend and the British were so hell bent on attack that they were sending thousands of men to their death to gain yards of ground.


The French mutinies were over by November 1918.
The Brits had given up on the Somme model and were working on combined arms attacks.
Over a million US troops were in theatre.

Unlike the preceding 3 years of war, every western offensive saw the Germans get pushed back.
German troops were starting to surrender en masse
The German government was in turmoil
German civilians were starving

The military situation in Fall 1918 was about like that of February 1945.

Germany not only could not "win," they could not stop the allies from marching all the way to Berlin if the allies had the will to do so, that's why the General Staff told the civilian government to sue for peace.

Also at this time, speaking of "will," the order was given repeatedly for the High Seas Fleet to sail late in 1918- it never sailed, the sailors mutinied*- at the same time- the UK's Grand Fleet and a good chunk of the USN's battle line were at Scapa Flow- when those two navies were told to sail (which happened a few times when they thought the Germans might be up to something) - those ships sailed- if one side's military was going to throw down their arm and stop fighting in1918/19- it was going to be Germany's not the West's.

Of course the political will was not there after Germany ran up the white flag in 1918- whereas in 1945, the will was going to be there to occupy and disarm Germany come hell or high water.

*I just found this out, Japan fought WWII fanatically right? 1945- Kamikaze pilots, even little Kamikaze subs, the Battleship Yamato's last voyage was essentially a Kamikaze mission- it didn't have the fuel to sail back- but whereas Kamikaze pilots were generally volunteers, the Yamato's crew were ordered to go - but apparently no small number of them attempted to mutiny before heading to Okinawa... The IJN suppressed that of course (both the mutiny and news of the mutiny).
   1085. Lassus Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4204412)
- Shoots self with any gun never used in WWII -
   1086. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4204413)
*I just found this out, Japan fought WWII fanatically right? 1945- Kamikaze pilots, even little Kamikaze subs, the Battleship Yamato's last voyage was essentially a Kamikaze mission- it didn't have the fuel to sail back- but whereas Kamikaze pilots were generally volunteers, the Yamato's crew were ordered to go - but apparently no small number of them attempted to mutiny before heading to Okinawa... The IJN suppressed that of course (both the mutiny and news of the mutiny).


Interesting. I knew about the Yamato's last voyage, but had never heard about the mutiny... can you point to the source? I'd be interested to read about it.
   1087. ASmitty Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4204417)
big, powerful businesses love regulations. Who do you think writes them?


This. I'm fairly liberal, but the truth of the above statement cannot be overstated. Truly big corporations lobby against proposed regulations that hurt them, while enacted regulations that help them. Huge sections of the corporate tax code (which I worked extensively with) were written by GE (who was a client).

Companies like GE don't avoid taxes by discovering brilliant new loopholes. They literally write the law so that it has loopholes in it specifically for them.
   1088. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4204419)
Also at this time, speaking of "will," the order was given repeatedly for the High Seas Fleet to sail late in 1918- it never sailed, the sailors mutinied*- at the same time- the UK's Grand Fleet and a good chunk of the USN's battle line were at Scapa Flow- when those two navies were told to sail (which happened a few times when they thought the Germans might be up to something) - those ships sailed- if one side's military was going to throw down their arm and stop fighting in1918/19- it was going to be Germany's not the West's.


Sure - absolutely, I'm not suggesting that morale in the allies was at a breaking point... They were winning, they knew they were winning, etc. However, word that the Germans were suing for peace was bound to get out -- and I'm not so sure that all holds if word gets down that a victorious peace treaty was in hand, but had been declined because the allied leadership wished to march all the way to Berlin and dissolve Germany.

In a very big sense, it's the limitations of a democratic nation fighting against an autocratic one. Even the French mutinies weren't so much repressed as much as certain demands acceded to.
   1089. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4204420)
This. I'm fairly liberal, but the truth of the above statement cannot be overstated. Truly big corporations lobby against proposed regulations that hurt them, while enacted regulations that help them. Huge sections of the corporate tax code (which I worked extensively with) were written by GE (who was a client).

Companies like GE don't avoid taxes by discovering brilliant new loopholes. They literally write the law so that it has loopholes in it specifically for them.


Double this.

Regulations are not a barrier for large corporations, they are a competitive advantage, for the most part. Even statutes and rules that large corporations don't get to specifically write for themselves individually are of significant value for staying ahead of smaller potential competitors.
   1090. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4204421)
This. I'm fairly liberal, but the truth of the above statement cannot be overstated. Truly big corporations lobby against proposed regulations that hurt them, while enacted regulations that help them. Huge sections of the corporate tax code (which I worked extensively with) were written by GE (who was a client).

Companies like GE don't avoid taxes by discovering brilliant new loopholes. They literally write the law so that it has loopholes in it specifically for them.


Even if true, and I admit there is some truth to it, the asnwer can't be Libertarian or Conservative answers of no or less government. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is less than ideal, but you don't give up for an even worse solution.
   1091. McCoy Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4204425)
The French mutinies were over by November 1918.

And the French were being very careful on how they used their army after that. Now imagine sending these guys back into the slaughterhouse that would be attacks on Germany on German soil.

The Brits had given up on the Somme model and were working on combined arms attacks.

Which the Germans had been doing for years and were better at.

Over a million US troops were in theatre.

Yes, and like I said America wasn't interested in conquering Germany. The price the French and English would have to pay to get them to do it would have been too great for the French and English to ask. Wilson wasn't going to turn down Germany's request for peace talks. He wanted an end to the war not the conquest of Germany.

Also at this time, speaking of "will," the order was given repeatedly for the High Seas Fleet to sail late in 1918- it never sailed, the sailors mutinied*-

They mutinied because they were given a death sentence when the end of the war was within sight.

I'm not saying that the Germans would have repelled an invasion or won the war. I'm saying that if the West had decided it was going to march on Berlin that they would have to convince the Americans to do it for them and it was going to cost the French and English dearly. Not to mention the Americans who had a huge amount of casualties as well in their limited engagements.
   1092. zonk Posted: August 09, 2012 at 01:51 PM (#4204435)

Even if true, and I admit there is some truth to it, the asnwer can't be Libertarian or Conservative answers of no or less government. Sometimes the best solution to a problem is less than ideal, but you don't give up for an even worse solution.


The good answer is pretty simple... but the simple answer, some combination of significant finance reform, transparency, and lobbyist collaring, elicits screams of "FREEDOM!!!"... so we muddle on, with our freedom (to be exploited) securely in place... because 'the market' will fix it... eventually...
   1093. Steve Treder Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4204448)
The good answer is pretty simple... but the simple answer, some combination of significant finance reform, transparency, and lobbyist collaring, elicits screams of "FREEDOM!!!"... so we muddle on, with our freedom (to be exploited) securely in place... because 'the market' will fix it... eventually...

Indeed.
   1094. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:14 PM (#4204457)
The CIS was founded by John Tanton. There's a good introduction to Tanton's racial views and interest in eugenics here.

Both Tanton and CIS deny that either has had anything to do with the other for decades. And just because the odious Southern Poverty Law Center says something is a "hate group" doesn't make it a hate group. The idea that some advocates/pundits at CIS belong on the same list as the Ku Klux Klan is utterly ludicrous.
   1095. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4204460)
And just because the odious Southern Poverty Law Center says something is a "hate group" doesn't make it a hate group.


It doesn't make them a hate group, it just makes it really really likely they are in fact a hate group. The SPLC knows its hate groups, it is kind of a specialty of theirs. Calling them odious does not really change that they have a well know expertise in that area.
   1096. The Good Face Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4204462)
The good answer is pretty simple... but the simple answer, some combination of significant finance reform, transparency, and lobbyist collaring, elicits screams of "FREEDOM!!!"... so we muddle on, with our freedom (to be exploited) securely in place... because 'the market' will fix it... eventually...


Keep pouring gasoline on that fire. One of these days you'll extinguish it for sure! Government keeps growing and corporations (and the super rich) keep getting more powerful right along with it.
   1097. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:22 PM (#4204465)
Government keeps growing and corporations (and the super rich) keep getting more powerful right along with it.


And your answer is to gut the Government leaving the corporations alone on the field of battle. Because then they are sure to lose power!
   1098. Lassus Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:28 PM (#4204470)
And just because the odious Southern Poverty Law Center...

I honestly know absolutely nothing about the Southern Poverty Law Center, other than to recognize the name. Can you tell me about their odiousness?
   1099. McCoy Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4204475)
Can you tell me about their odiousness?

They don't support the opinion of the only evidence that Joe has found to support his own opinion. Thus they are odious.
   1100. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 09, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4204483)
And just because the odious Southern Poverty Law Center says something is a "hate group" doesn't make it a hate group.

And just because you refer to the SPLC as "odious" doesn't make it so.

Anyway, charges of racism get made perhaps a bit too loosely, but Tanton is pretty clearly a racist, as to whether CIS is a racist org, or was? Or whether CIS was connected to Tanton?

Tanton was not a founder of CIS, but CIS was founded by a bunch of people from FAIR, which was founded by Tanton...
Including the charming fellow Mark Krikorian (who runs CIS), who says charming stuff like this:

My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough…But, unlike Jamaicans and Bajans and Guadeloupeans, et al., after experiencing the worst of tropical colonial slavery, the Haitians didn’t stick around long enough to benefit from it. (Haiti became independent in 1804.). And by benefit I mean develop a local culture significantly shaped by the more-advanced civilization of the colonizers.


Also Krikorian was the guy at National Review who was oddly upset at people who pronounced Sotomayor's name correctly:

Deferring to people’s own pronunciation of their names should obviously be our first inclination, but there ought to be limits. Putting the emphasis on the final syllable of Sotomayor is unnatural in English (which is why the president stopped doing it after the first time at his press conference), unlike my correspondent’s simple preference for a monophthong over a diphthong, and insisting on an unnatural pronunciation is something we shouldn’t be giving in to.


Page 11 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRe/code: Major League Baseball Cries Foul on Net Neutrality Proposal
(2 - 9:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

Newsblog7-25-14 OMNICHATTER
(33 - 8:59pm, Jul 25)
Last: simon bedford

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(28 - 8:53pm, Jul 25)
Last: Banta

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3198 - 8:44pm, Jul 25)
Last: robinred

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(414 - 8:38pm, Jul 25)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(30 - 8:32pm, Jul 25)
Last: Willie Mayspedes

NewsblogSoE: AN IDIOT IN EXILE
(4 - 8:24pm, Jul 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(88 - 7:50pm, Jul 25)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogESPN : GM Offers To Get Prostate Exam During Game
(17 - 7:48pm, Jul 25)
Last: mos def panel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(8 - 7:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogWisch: Cooperstown Shouldn’t Close Out Lee Smith
(10 - 7:22pm, Jul 25)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(941 - 6:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogBA Report: MLBPA Files Grievance Against Astros Over Aiken, Nix, Marshall
(4 - 6:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Boxkutter

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(112 - 5:39pm, Jul 25)
Last: PreservedFish

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(97 - 4:52pm, Jul 25)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

Page rendered in 1.0467 seconds
52 querie(s) executed