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, January 02, 2013

OTP - Jan 2013: Jewish Journal:E1: An error in baseball and Mideast politics

Tripon Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:48 PM | 2805 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: ot, 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 7 of 29 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›
   601. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4343023)
That's exactly what the communists used to do. Indeed, it's what all Utopians do. The theory -- whatever theory it is -- can never fail.
This is a puzzling criticism, as it basically consists of projection. While progressiveism is based on a marxist notion about the perfectibility of human nature, libertarianism is not remotely utopian. (Which is not to deny that some people who call themselves libertarians might talk that way, but all that does is serve to illustrate that not all people who call themselves X are thoughtful members of group X.) Progressives think all problems can be fixed through government; libertarians do not reciprocate. At most, one could say that libertarians argue that libertarianism is pareto optimal -- not that it eliminates all problems.

But, yes, we think democracy is just a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. How could it be otherwise? Democracy simply refers to majority rule; even if one glosses the concept with various countermajoritarian civil liberties protections, it's still based on the notion that some are entitled to rule others. To argue pragmatically that, relatively speaking, such an arrangement offers the most protection for individual rights is one thing; to argue that this is an absolutely desirable state of affairs is quite another.


The irony that they're attempting to dictate, and impose from on high, their personal preferences by use of the power of the state they claim to abhor, is far too often lost on them.
As usual, this treats the rapist's desire to have sex with the woman and the woman's desire not to have sex with the rapist as equal in moral standing. (Each one is attempting to impose his/her personal preferences on the other!)
   602. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 09, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4343040)
Oh, and the word is spelled "altar."


When handed your ass on the merits, go with pedantry. Always a good choice!
   603. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 09, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4343043)
Just one more reason to hate the Dave Matthews Band.


I snorked a little.
   604. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 09, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4343045)
Really? Does Jones normally host fundraisers for Republican candidates?


I have no idea how involved Jones is in whatever local party operations are in his home town, but it's disingenuous at best to suggest that Bill Ayers is hosting major events for national pols outside of Chicago.
   605. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 09, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4343054)
As usual, this treats the rapist's desire to have sex with the woman and the woman's desire not to have sex with the rapist as equal in moral standing. (Each one is attempting to impose his/her personal preferences on the other!)


I'm aware that you believe this. Your sincere belief does not make it any less wrong.

Andy wishes to use the power of the state to right a perceived wrong - the lack of affordable healthcare in the world.

You wish to use the power of the state to right a perceived wrong - the lack of your ability outside of hired guns to hoard canned goods.

Andy has the good sense to admit that he's using the collective power of the state to create his preferred vision of a moral society.

You run around yabbering about "freedom" and "liberty" and pretend that you're preferred vision of moral society is some sort of natural order of the universe.
   606. Jay Z Posted: January 09, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4343121)
I wouldn't say that government is pure concentrated evil. There are a few things that government can do very well: maintain order, adjudicate internal and international disputes, address tragedies of the commons, etc. Our current government does some of those things well, but many of them poorly, which we should fix. Something like "maintaining order" could be interpreted as simply "police, courts, and prisons" or as broadly as "dictate acceptable forms of food, drink, and leisure activity." The former is the stuff everyone this side of anarchism agrees on; the latter is the sort of thing that I'd describe as nearly universally bad government.


This is not directed entirely at you but at the libertarian POV regarding Jim Crow.

Suppose you have a society that is maintaining order, providing a court system, providing for the common defense, etc. and also allowing for Jim Crow policies. So the black man (or woman, today) goes off to fight in WWII, then comes back and can't eat in most of the restaurants in the South despite having the cash to make the trade of money for food service.

If the black man or woman is paying taxes, or providing in some joint effort to secure the common defense, etc., doesn't it make sense that he has more of a societal common bond with those who will actually trade with him, who will take his or her money. As far as he or she is concerned, if the fire alarms go out to save a whites only restaurant, or the National Guard gets called out to maintain order in a whites only neighborhood, why should he be obligated to spend his personal or monetarial resources towards such an end. These people are not his friends, they are not participating in quid pro quo. Let the black man or woman save their resources for those that wish to trade, and let the whites only businesses and neighborhood burn to the ground and get robbed.

It doesn't make sense to provide for any common government undertaking, however small, and then force all of the members to provide services to other members who aren't willing to participate in reasonable exchange. Don't want to trade with me, fine, then let's opt out of everything else too.

To be honest, Jim Crow is only ever implemented if you have the guns on your side. If you know the local authorities will back you up if there's any trouble, you can pull it off. If the ambassador from possibly hostile nation X is paying a visit to the USA, he's going to get served in the restaurants, presuming his country has the muscle to make trouble for us. So you only get Jim Crow if the guns only pointing one way anyway.
   607. zonk Posted: January 09, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4343126)
Really? Does Jones normally host fundraisers for Republican candidates?


Naw, like I said -- he just runs as one himself.
   608. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 09, 2013 at 03:34 PM (#4343242)

what's mine is mine. what's yours is mine too.

I had no idea my former girlfriend was a libertarian but it does make sense now.


We might know the same woman


she gets around a lot
   609. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 09, 2013 at 03:38 PM (#4343252)
Really? Does Jones normally host fundraisers for Republican candidates?


Jones and people who hold Jones view identify with, support and have influence in the GOP

Ayers and his "fellow travelers" are a small peripheral group off the left wing of the Demo party who have approximately zero real influence in the party
   610. spycake Posted: January 09, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4343282)
It's utterly pointless to arguing "I'm a minarchist, I want the smallest government possible!" The devil's in the details, and the details are the sloppy back and forth (in a democratic society) by which we all come to some commonly agreed upon compromise of what the "smallest government possible" is.

Arguing with some libertarians is like arguing with a baseball fan who objects to all players on his team because they all make outs, outs are bad, and they want the best team possible.
   611. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 09, 2013 at 04:01 PM (#4343318)
[Alex Jones] has a lot more to do with the 2012 version of the GOP than, oh, Bill Ayers has ever had to do with the Democratic Party


Really? Does Jones normally host fundraisers for Republican candidates?

This from the one who's often referred to as the one "smart" wingnut on this site.
   612. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 04:16 PM (#4343358)
Any interest in discussing the future of China? James Fallows recently posted the following pithy summary of China's situation:

- The Chinese system has to change, if the government is to keep up with an increasingly sophisticated population with an increasingly modern economic system. (Otherwise the economy will stagnate, the people will withdraw the legitimacy they have given the government for 30+ years of development, etc).
AND
- The Chinese system cannot change, because of the power and paranoia of the entrenched interests that control the security agencies, the government-industrial complex, and other sources of power. For American readers it may help to think of much of China's senior security officials as being that country's counterparts to Dick Cheney.


What happens from here?
   613. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 04:36 PM (#4343388)
Heh, when Glenn Beck calls you crazy ...

Piers Morgan said on Tuesday that his infamous encounter with radio host Alex Jones would only help his gun control crusade.

The radio host more than lost his temper with Morgan on Monday, going on a monumental rant about guns. He then speculated that he might be murdered by undercover police officers.

"I can't think of a better advertisement for gun control than Alex Jones' interview last night," Morgan told CNN on Tuesday. "It was startling, it was terrifying in parts, it was completely deluded. It was based on a premise of making Americans so fearful that they all rush out to buy even more guns ... the kind of twisted way that he turned everything into this assault on the Second Amendment is exactly what the gun rights lobby people do."

At least one person agreed that Jones was a terrible spokesman for gun rights: Glenn Beck. Speaking on his radio show Tuesday, he said that Morgan had chosen well if his intention was to discredit the pro-gun movement.

"Piers Morgan is trying to have gun control," Beck said. "He is trying to make everybody who has guns and who believes the Second Amendment to be a deterrent to an out of control government look like a madman. So now he immediately books the madman and makes him look like a conservative."


   614. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 09, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4343442)
I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! Doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out there on the street, begging for 'em to have their guns taken. We will not relinquish them. Do you understand?! That's why you're going to fail, and the establishment knows, no matter how much propaganda, the republic will rise again!
I didn't hear about the Piers Morgan-Alex Ross thing until today. I have to say, having read the transcript, that much of what he said would fit in very comfortably among Tea Party Nation forum posts. (Yes, I'm a member!)
   615. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 05:37 PM (#4343504)
the kind of twisted way that he turned everything into this assault on the Second Amendment is exactly what the gun rights lobby people do."
It's weird how second amendment supporters think attempts to ban guns are somehow an attack on the second amendment.
   616. zonk Posted: January 09, 2013 at 06:09 PM (#4343552)
- The Chinese system has to change, if the government is to keep up with an increasingly sophisticated population with an increasingly modern economic system. (Otherwise the economy will stagnate, the people will withdraw the legitimacy they have given the government for 30+ years of development, etc).
AND
- The Chinese system cannot change, because of the power and paranoia of the entrenched interests that control the security agencies, the government-industrial complex, and other sources of power. For American readers it may help to think of much of China's senior security officials as being that country's counterparts to Dick Cheney.



What happens from here?


China's really hard to figure...

On one hand, I think China has seen a truly amazing number of people who have entered a sort of new upper/upper-middle class... but on the other hand, if you remember that China has what -- 1.3 to 1.5 BILLION people -- that big looking raw number suddenly starts to look a LOT smaller.

Add to that - the Chinese security state simply is not going to be able to keep a lid on dissent forever... technology is becoming far, far too pervasive.

Inevitably - I think China is going to have to face directly the same thing that other societies have faced when it comes to modernization... emancipation of the serfs in Russia... the end of slavery and then later, the labor movement in the US... various similarly themed growths in power and expectations from middle and lower classes in Europe...

Eventually it's simply not going to be possible - regardless of what certain people OUTSIDE of China seem to think about a Chinese peasant in the outlying provinces 'doubling their wages!!!' working in a sweatshop for 16 hours a day - for China to continue to have the massive sort of economic growth that it's experienced based on sheer numbers...

At some point - concepts like collective bargaining, fair wages, inequalities -- these things always come to a head, in every society... when you add that dawning realization to the elements that already agitate against other areas of censure/repression, I just don't see how you continue to just slowly bleed off the steam in a steady march towards liberalization as the Chinese government has managed to do thus far.

They're able to keep it under control now by tightly controlling news and information dissemination -- and they're also quite good at using military/security forces from other provinces to suppress hotspots... but there's just a limit to how long that will work.

I say that at some point - China boils over... not sure if it will be a messy few years like, say, the transition of the USSR to Russia, a full-blow revolution, like say... Syria... but I cannot fathom it happening solely on the state's terms.
   617. steagles Posted: January 09, 2013 at 06:47 PM (#4343585)
I say that at some point - China boils over... not sure if it will be a messy few years like, say, the transition of the USSR to Russia, a full-blow revolution, like say... Syria... but I cannot fathom it happening solely on the state's terms.
if i've learned anything from the uprisings collectively known as the "arab spring", it's that any dictator/ruling party would be best off by taking a hatchet to its citizenry and crushing any opposition when there's even a hint of the dissidents getting traction among a broader populace. if you lose power as a dictator, you're gonna be executed anyway, so you might as well double down.
   618. Steve Treder Posted: January 09, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4343593)
if i've learned anything from the uprisings collectively known as the "arab spring", it's that any dictator/ruling party would be best off by taking a hatchet to its citizenry and crushing any opposition when there's even a hint of the dissidents getting traction among a broader populace. if you lose power as a dictator, you're gonna be executed anyway, so you might as well double down.

Soberingly, that has been demonstrated to be the case in the Arab world. However, China isn't the Arab world. Among other things, just the sheer scale of China, in size and complexity, utterly dwarfs any country in the Arab world, even Egypt.
   619. zenbitz Posted: January 09, 2013 at 07:22 PM (#4343599)
I am not sure the first postulate (on china) is correct. Why *must* China change?
   620. The District Attorney Posted: January 09, 2013 at 07:36 PM (#4343608)
"Piers Morgan is trying to have gun control," Beck said. "He is trying to make everybody who has guns and who believes the Second Amendment to be a deterrent to an out of control government look like a madman. So now he immediately books the madman and makes him look like a conservative."
Heh, I like this. "There's a conspiracy to make us look like we believe in unlikely conspiracies!"

I didn't hear about the Piers Morgan-Alex Ross thing until today.
Let's not drag Alex Ross into this, at least he has talent, even if it all does start looking the same after a while.
   621. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2013 at 08:21 PM (#4343642)
Suppose you have a society that is maintaining order, providing a court system, providing for the common defense, etc. and also allowing for Jim Crow policies. So the black man (or woman, today) goes off to fight in WWII, then comes back and can't eat in most of the restaurants in the South despite having the cash to make the trade of money for food service.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "Jim Crow policies." If a restaurant owner refuses to serve a black man because the owner is a bigoted jerk, that isn't what I think of when I hear the term. If the whole town is full of bigoted jerks, he can find enough like-minded people to make it financially non-viable to serve whites only, protest the poor behavior peacefully, or vote with his feet by finding a new town to live in. I'm not minimizing the inconvenience, mind you. It's terrible that people are such small-minded buffoons that they wouldn't want to serve someone based on skin color, but I defend the right of someone to be a small-minded buffoon on his or her own property.

If we're talking about Jim Crow laws, as in state and federal laws that mandate, rather than merely permit, segregation, then I agree that there's no incentive (other than fear of punishment) for blacks to participate in such a system. Jim Crow laws are on their face antithetical to libertarian philosophy; the government shouldn't be telling a business owner whom he must or must not serve, nor dictating the manner in which service is provided. If the locals won't properly enforce the law or actively flaunt the law in punishing people who integrate, then the state or federal government has a responsibility to step in and protect its citizens.

It doesn't make sense to provide for any common government undertaking, however small, and then force all of the members to provide services to other members who aren't willing to participate in reasonable exchange. Don't want to trade with me, fine, then let's opt out of everything else too.

"Providing reasonable exchange to all citizens" is not a promise I make when I open the doors of my private property to customers. It's not a government service, so it has nothing at all to do with the taxes that are designed to pay for government services. If the government is subsidizing my private property, then it has more of a say, but the government shouldn't be subsidizing private enterprise anyway.
   622. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4343650)
I am not sure the first postulate (on china) is correct. Why *must* China change?

It depends on whether you think totalitarianism is more or less difficult with modern technology. If China is legitimately a less pleasant place to live than other first-world nations, and its people are able to learn the truth about how other nations live, then the nation will obligated to react for its own sake, before its best and brightest defect or become strong enough to revolt.

Can China sustain internal peace through propaganda and control of the media in the digital age? The Great Internet Wall has a number of significant cracks.
   623. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 08:36 PM (#4343651)
"Providing reasonable exchange to all citizens" is not a promise I make when I open the doors of my private property to customers


The requirement for a person owning a public accomodation to provide service to all comers is a doctrine with deep roots in English Common Law. It most certainly is part of our legal tradition. The exception made to permit (or mandate) the service of blacks was a modification of that common law. Te reasoning is that being required to serve all comers is a negligible impingement on the property rights of someone offering public accomodations, while the infringement on the liberty of those excluded is substantial.
   624. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2013 at 08:42 PM (#4343657)
As long as you have a court system and a security force you are subsidizing private property. Without law and order some bigoted store owner and even non-bigoted store owners will soon find themselves face to face with people willing and capable of doing them harm either financially, physically, or both. That will of course negatively impact you and your property. Having law and order helps reduce that at the very least and probably raises the value of your property.
   625. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2013 at 08:46 PM (#4343662)
Te reasoning is that being required to serve all comers is a negligible impingement on the property rights of someone offering public accomodations, while the infringement on the liberty of those excluded is substantial.

I understand the argument. I simply disagree with the weighting; not being able to control your own private property represents (to me) a very substantial infringement on one's autonomy, while not being able to force your way onto a particular person's private property where you are unwanted represents a very small infringement on one's autonomy.

Nor am I particularly swayed by a traditional argument; for thousands of years, institutions such as slavery and subjugation of women were traditional.
   626. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4343664)
As long as you have a court system and a security force you are subsidizing private property.

Only in the same way that you are subsidizing bodily autonomy, such as my right not to be assaulted or murdered.
   627. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4343675)
Only in the same way that you are subsidizing bodily autonomy, such as my right not to be assaulted or murdered.

Since the government is subsidizing you in many various ways they get a say in various activities of yours.
   628. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4343681)

Since the government is subsidizing you in many various ways they get a say in various activities of yours.

Does this override all rights in your opinion? For example, since the government subsidizes some forms of private university education, does it have the right to tell those private universities what they may or may not teach? Since the government subsidizes the mail service that delivers magazines, does it get to tell the magazine publishers what they are allowed to print?

I am not arguing with the government's intervention in the Jim Crow South. I'm just not sure I agree with your line of reasoning.
   629. SteveF Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:11 PM (#4343682)
Since the government is subsidizing you in many various ways they get a say in various activities of yours.


That's an uncomfortably broad statement that could apply to 'activities' you most likely feel the government has no say in.
   630. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:33 PM (#4343693)

I always miss the good stuff here. Sam Hutcheson, the biggest Terms of Service violator on BBTF by several orders of magnitude, complained about a Terms of Service violation and ran to Jim? Ha ha ha.

Of all the little joys in life, few are more enjoyable than seeing a bully get punched in the face and run to mommy.
   631. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 09, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4343699)
I understand the argument. I simply disagree with the weighting; not being able to control your own private property represents (to me) a very substantial infringement on one's autonomy, while not being able to force your way onto a particular person's private property where you are unwanted represents a very small infringement on one's autonomy.


By opening your property to a publicly trading business of any sort, you are no longer purely "private property." You can't do business unless you're in the commons, and you can't randomly restrict the commons if you want to do business.

Only in the same way that you are subsidizing bodily autonomy, such as my right not to be assaulted or murdered.


This - the conflation of rights of the person/body as equal to or tautological with the rights to control property - is the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking.
   632. Mefisto Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:17 PM (#4343727)
Jim Crow consisted of multiple, reinforcing layers. There were state laws requiring segregation, of course. There were also private decisions to refuse service to blacks; a great deal of segregation consisted of this, famously the Woolworth's lunch counters. Then there was private violence which the state refused to prosecute (and which juries refused to convict). A good example of this last would be the Freedom Riders -- it was illegal to segregate interstate buses, but those who tried to integrate them risked their lives.

The problem libertarians have with Jim Crow is that they claim (nowadays, anyway) only to oppose the state laws. That was, frankly, a far less important problem than the societal decision to reject blacks. What broke that societal decision was the power of the federal government. And libertarians opposed that power in 1964 and still do today.
   633. Mefisto Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:20 PM (#4343728)
The requirement for a person owning a public accomodation to provide service to all comers is a doctrine with deep roots in English Common Law. It most certainly is part of our legal tradition. The exception made to permit (or mandate) the service of blacks was a modification of that common law.


Yes, the "all comers" rule dates back at least 500 years. Nobody opening a business could have been unaware of that rule, so protests against it ring hollow. However, I think you meant to say that it was refusing to serve blacks which created the exception to the common law rule. The Civil Rights Act and other laws basically just restored the traditional rule.
   634. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:27 PM (#4343734)
Let's not drag Alex Ross into this, at least he has talent, even if it all does start looking the same after a while.
Whoops. I have Alex Ross on the brain because I'm reading Supergods by Grant Morrison. Morrison's an interesting guy. I'm not surprised by his extensive descriptions of comic storyline ideas he got from tripping out in Kathmandu.
   635. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:30 PM (#4343735)
Jim Crow consisted of multiple, reinforcing layers. There were state laws requiring segregation, of course. There were also private decisions to refuse service to blacks; a great deal of segregation consisted of this, famously the Woolworth's lunch counters. Then there was private violence which the state refused to prosecute (and which juries refused to convict). A good example of this last would be the Freedom Riders -- it was illegal to segregate interstate buses, but those who tried to integrate them risked their lives.

Interesting how liberals lament that majority rule brought with it Jim Crow laws, but now want the Second Amendment — which, incidentally, could have helped ensure that the Freedom Riders weren't "risking their lives" simply by riding a bus, and will help to ensure that future unpopular or oppressed people/groups won't have to face similar threats while defenseless — to be run through the shredder.

All whims, no principles. Just another day on the BBTF left.
   636. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:31 PM (#4343737)
By opening your property to a publicly trading business of any sort, you are no longer purely "private property." You can't do business unless you're in the commons, and you can't randomly restrict the commons if you want to do business.

Why not? I'm allowed to restrict access to my home. I'm allowed (or should be) to run a small poker game in my home that is open to only friends and acquaintances, and request money to cover expenses. I'm allowed to form a private club that restricts membership according to entirely arbitrary criteria, and charge dues.

I'm a professional tutor that deals with individual clients, but I'm not required to work with all people who might want to work with me; I can accept or reject clients based on nothing more than my whim. It's not the safest business strategy, but if I can make my living tutoring only blonde, blue-eyed females with huge racks, why should anyone be able to demand that I do otherwise?

This - the conflation of rights of the person/body as equal to or tautological with the rights to control property - is the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking.

That's out of context; I didn't say and do not believe that property rights are equal to rights of bodily autonomy. They are, however, necessary to the functioning of an advanced society (at least until a post-scarcity society is a reality).

I am responding specifically to the idea that the government subsidizes your property rights because it stops people from stealing from you. If that's true, then by the very same logic, the government is subsidizing your right to be free from bodily harm as well by preventing people from assaulting you.
   637. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4343749)
Corporations aren't people in the carpool lane.

Edit: added quote

By Frieman's estimation, if corporations are indeed persons as was first established in the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., and he offered evidence that a corporation was traveling inside his vehicle - riding shotgun, of course - then two people were in his car.
"The question of personhood is a very poignant one," Frieman said before he entered the courtroom. "This is designed to bring a very strong point to bear upon the legal system. Corporations have grown into large, huge, fictional entities. Now I am taking their power and using it in order to drive in the carpool."
   638. CrosbyBird Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:49 PM (#4343753)
Yes, the "all comers" rule dates back at least 500 years.

For most of those 500 years, "all comers" excluded significant portions of the population. The idea that the base state of nature, or the base state of legal tradition was full inclusion is not supported by historical precedent.

Although if we want to look at the British tradition, I suppose that I would have to concede that it is easy to not have to worry about people illegally preventing Jews from patronizing private business when you simply expel them all from your country.
   639. rr Posted: January 09, 2013 at 10:57 PM (#4343757)
Of all the little joys in life, few are more enjoyable than seeing a bully get punched in the face and run to mommy.

You need to put your tribalism and your biases aside and read what Furtado actually said about the incident and why it was different than just typical BTF snark, in which you yourself engage hourly.
   640. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:00 PM (#4343760)
Incidentally, how do the Terms of Service apply when the person attacked posts under their real name? Not planning any ad hominems, just curious.
   641. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4343768)
Racism: Apparently just fine as long as the government doesn't mandate it!
   642. Mefisto Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:07 PM (#4343769)
For most of those 500 years, "all comers" excluded significant portions of the population.


I'm not sure what you mean here.

As for the Jews, they were admitted back into England under Cromwell (1656), so they'd be included in the population for most of the relevant time.
   643. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:16 PM (#4343774)
This - the conflation of rights of the person/body as equal to or tautological with the rights to control property - is the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking.

Without property rights, what good do rights of person do you? Without property rights you can't feed, clothe and house yourself.
   644. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:18 PM (#4343776)
Interesting how liberals lament that majority rule brought with it Jim Crow laws, but now want the Second Amendment — which, incidentally, could have helped ensure that the Freedom Riders weren't "risking their lives" simply by riding a bus, and will help to ensure that future unpopular or oppressed people/groups won't have to face similar threats while defenseless — to be run through the shredder.

IOW the nonviolent movement that spurred a sea change in our country's racial mores should have been cast aside and replaced by an earlier version of the Black Panthers.

Yeah, that would've been an absolutely brilliant piece of political strategy, because an integrated busload of civil rights demonstrators going from city to city, openly violating all the local Jim Crow laws while waving their six shooters and their NRA membership cards, would have never, ever brought about any unintended consequences, either on the ground or in the legislatures. There was nothing that evoked white admiration in the 1960's more than scenes like this or this.

   645. RollingWave Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:28 PM (#4343781)
I'm kinda a China expert, given that I live in Taiwan and have (a lot of) relatives in China

At some point - concepts like collective bargaining, fair wages, inequalities -- these things always come to a head, in every society... when you add that dawning realization to the elements that already agitate against other areas of censure/repression, I just don't see how you continue to just slowly bleed off the steam in a steady march towards liberalization as the Chinese government has managed to do thus far.

This is largely happening already, since pretty much every factory in the world has moved into China even the huge Chinese population can not support all of them, the demand for workers is outweighting the supplies pretty badly these days and that's why wages are shooting up and workers in general have a much higher leverage for bargaining than almost anywhere else. Yeah there are cheaper places elsewhere, but some work really need a lot of total manpower and it's not readily apparent if those places can provide that.

Like wise, inequality is something that is widely discussed either in print press or online, and it's hard for the COMMUNIST party to shoot them down.

Relatively speaking, there has been gradual liberalization, even quite a bit of it really in the last 2 decades, but it's not keeping up with the fast development of China. what is perhaps more worrying is the very uneven nature of development so far, in places like Shanghai, the wages are already essentially first world standard, my cousin-in-law in Shanghai makes much more than I do here in Taipei (granted, he's also 10 years older and a HR manager at a German company). but the entire average is still on the low end.


They're able to keep it under control now by tightly controlling news and information dissemination -- and they're also quite good at using military/security forces from other provinces to suppress hotspots... but there's just a limit to how long that will work.

I say that at some point - China boils over... not sure if it will be a messy few years like, say, the transition of the USSR to Russia, a full-blow revolution, like say... Syria... but I cannot fathom it happening solely on the state's terms.


The control is neither airtight nor fool proof, most of the news they nip are still well known anyway. And that they try to nip it only just give the impression that it must be true... since most later turned out to be true anyway.

Change will come, though how it does is of course unknown, most China watcher (which doesn't wish it ill) tend to hope that the Taiwan model would be the general path they take, where an one state authoritarian party ended up opening to democracy and fared well afterward as well. no mass revenge execution or kill, or even violence, and the last dictator is now generally viewed in a very positive light.

But China isn't Taiwan, despite a very shared history (the party in Taiwan the opened was exactly the one that they beat out on the Mainland after WW2) and culture (the Nationalist party in Taiwan was really just a couple steps right of communist anyway). The sheer size difference itself is already a serious issue, and unlike the nationalist, the CCP today isn't a dictatorship, no one man holds total power, and faction rivalry is strong.

Where as in Taiwan, the moment Chang Jin Guo stated that his sons will not succeed him as President it became clear that democracy was fairly inevitable, there is no potential for such a moment in China. Also, the ROC constitution in Taiwan was always one that was wrote for democracy, but it didn't happen due to the civil war and martial law that followed. so it was fairly easy to just return to the Constitution, in the PRC however, the Constitution is not nearly as accommodating, and will need pretty serious revisions .


On the other hand, the economic development trend and a lot of social trend in China today is not unlike Taiwan in the 70s and 80s , so there is hope.

if i've learned anything from the uprisings collectively known as the "arab spring", it's that any dictator/ruling party would be best off by taking a hatchet to its citizenry and crushing any opposition when there's even a hint of the dissidents getting traction among a broader populace. if you lose power as a dictator, you're gonna be executed anyway, so you might as well double down.


Both of the last couple South Korean dictators are still alive and free today, though it should be noted that they were briefly sentenced to death in the late 90s before being pardoned and released.

   646. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:38 PM (#4343788)
You need to put your tribalism and your biases aside and read what Furtado actually said about the incident and why it was different than just typical BTF snark, in which you yourself engage hourly.

How would we ever survive here without 'robinred' popping in to play his role as the self-appointed adult in the room?

Anyway, unless things other than Sam's name were redacted on the last page (and it appears that isn't the case), Good Face's comment seems like child's play compared to the huge amounts of vitriol regularly heaped by the lefties here, which is usually led by none other than Sam. And as for putting "tribalism" aside — physician, heal thyself. The next time I see you or some other lefty run to Jim because another lefty is being nasty will be the first.

***
Incidentally, how do the Terms of Service apply when the person attacked posts under their real name? Not planning any ad hominems, just curious.

Evidently, they don't, or else Sam (and Morty, and Voxter, and several others) would have been banned from here long ago. Absolutely nobody on this site has violated the Terms of Service more often than Sam, and since most of the non-liberals here post under their real name, they're usually the targets.

Obviously, this is Jim's site and he's free to give special treatment to Sam if they're friends or whatever, but Sam complaining about a Terms of Service violation is like Quentin Tarantino complaining about violence in movies (and Tarantino would still be the less shameless of the two).
   647. JE (Jason) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:40 PM (#4343791)
FTA referenced in 637:
But Frieman says he's been driving stretches of carpool lanes along Highway 101 for the past decade with his papers in the front seat, waiting to get pulled over and set his legal battle in motion.

The guy was driving alone in the HOV lane for a decade before the CHP pulled him over? Where have you gone, Eric Estrada?
   648. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:42 PM (#4343793)
IOW the nonviolent movement that spurred a sea change in our country's racial mores should have been cast aside and replaced by an earlier version of the Black Panthers.

Yeah, that would've been an absolutely brilliant piece of political strategy, because an integrated busload of civil rights demonstrators going from city to city, openly violating all the local Jim Crow laws while waving their six shooters and their NRA membership cards, would have never, ever brought about any unintended consequences, either on the ground or in the legislatures. There was nothing that evoked white admiration in the 1960's more than scenes like this or this.

There are a lot of contexts in which non-violence is overrated. Beyond that, if I was a black person in the Jim Crow South, "white admiration" would have been the least of my concerns.
   649. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:56 PM (#4343799)
.
   650. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2013 at 11:56 PM (#4343800)
So. A Tom Collins. Esquire.com said 1/2 oz. lemon juice, Drinksmixer.com said 1 oz., and wikipedia said 2 oz.. Anyone have a preference? My GF thought the 2 oz. was too much. Would Dean Martin and Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra have thought she was a lightweight, is it supposed to be more lemony?


Also, bravo to the second half of #620.
   651. rr Posted: January 10, 2013 at 12:10 AM (#4343809)
How would we ever survive here without 'robinred' popping in to play his role as the self-appointed adult in the room?

Anyway, unless things other than Sam's name were redacted on the last page (and it appears that isn't the case), Good Face's comment seems like child's play compared to the huge amounts of vitriol regularly heaped by the lefties here, which is usually led by none other than Sam. And as for putting "tribalism" aside — physician, heal thyself. The next time I see you or some other lefty run to Jim because another lefty is being nasty will be the first.


You don't get it. SH is often very snarky, as you are, and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would. But what Face did in that case was different for a couple of reasons, and Furtado explained why. Also, SH actually grasps the "get what you give" concept and regularly exchanges insults with DJS and DMN without "running to Jim."
   652. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2013 at 12:43 AM (#4343827)
IOW the nonviolent movement that spurred a sea change in our country's racial mores should have been cast aside and replaced by an earlier version of the Black Panthers.

Yeah, that would've been an absolutely brilliant piece of political strategy, because an integrated busload of civil rights demonstrators going from city to city, openly violating all the local Jim Crow laws while waving their six shooters and their NRA membership cards, would have never, ever brought about any unintended consequences, either on the ground or in the legislatures. There was nothing that evoked white admiration in the 1960's more than scenes like this or this.


There are a lot of contexts in which non-violence is overrated.


But not in this case, unless you think that shootouts that you'll never win are some sort of winning strategy.

Beyond that, if I was a black person in the Jim Crow South, "white admiration" would have been the least of my concerns.

Except that in this case, the entire point of the Freedom Rides, and the nonviolent movement in general, was to win the "admiration" of that part of white America that might demand that Congress pass some civil rights laws with actual teeth.** I realize it's too much to ask of you and David to actually study a bit of history rather than just reflexively reaching for your generic talking points, but without white "admiration" in the form that I'm talking about, blacks would still be stuck in the same rut that they were in 1961.

For the record, the most famous case of "Negroes With Guns" during that time period was that of Robert Williams of Monroe, North Carolina. He took up arms to defend nonviolent black demonstrators, got framed by the local police for a crime he didn't commit (big surprise there), and by the time it was all over he'd wound up in Cuba and China, making "Radio Free Dixie" broadcasts from Havana which we sometimes used to listen to in North Carolina when the reception wasn't scrambled. It's not that Williams wasn't morally justified in what he did, considering the provocation, but as a political strategist he made Mitt Romney and Michael Dukakis look like Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.

**Not even you could be clueless enough to think that we could have gotten the 1964 and 1965 bills passed with the support of black legislators alone. You've said some strange things here in your time, but that one might be a stretch even for you.

   653. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 12:46 AM (#4343828)
You don't get it. SH is often very snarky, as you are, and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would. But what Face did in that case was different for a couple of reasons, and Furtado explained why. Also, SH actually grasps the "get what you give" concept and regularly exchanges insults with DJS and DMN without "running to Jim."

No, I get it perfectly. Our resident Alinsky wannabe, like most Alinsky wannabes, is great at giving and not so great at taking. Likewise, the lefties here not only have no problem when other lefties cross various lines of comportment, but they generally cheer such comments. But on the rare occasions when a non-liberal stoops to that level, the BBTF Left makes a big show of being aghast at the violation of decorum. It would be silly if it weren't so shameless and hypocritical.

I didn't see you or anyone else running to Jim when Voxter was (absurdly) calling me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago, but now a little hyperbole on the part of Good Face is enough to send Sam running to Jim? How absurd.

and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would.

Well, you're half right. If the TOS were rigorously enforced here, Sam would have been banned years ago. As for the "as you would" part, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and do an accounting of the vitriol in some of these political threads, especially from the pre-election months? We both know you won't do so, because you know you wouldn't like what you'd find. You prefer to float in here and claim from on high — like a liberal who blames society instead of the specific offenders — that both sides are equally guilty of such violations. I couldn't care less if people call me names, but the hypocrisy and childishness inherent in this whole spectacle is laughable.
   654. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:05 AM (#4343834)
Except that in this case, the entire point of the Freedom Rides, and the nonviolent movement in general, was to win the "admiration" of that part of white America that might demand that Congress pass some civil rights laws with actual teeth.** I realize it's too much to ask of you and David to actually study a bit of history rather than just reflexively reaching for your generic talking points, but without white "admiration" in the form that I'm talking about, blacks would still be stuck in the same rut that they were in 1961.

If your rights are being trampled and your strategy is centered on winning the "admiration" of the people doing the trampling, I'd say your strategy stinks.

Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed by the power of guns, not because black people won the "admiration" of bigots.
   655. Lassus Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:29 AM (#4343841)
Joe crediting the power of government to change people's minds and attitudes is a new one.
   656. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:34 AM (#4343843)
Joe crediting the power of government to change people's minds and attitudes is a new one.

I didn't say anything about government changing people's minds and attitudes.
   657. steagles Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:55 AM (#4343854)
Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed by the power of guns, not because black people won the "admiration" of bigots.
yes, but do't you people also view those legal rulings as examples of illegitimate judicial activism. and don't you people also view those legislative victories as examples of illegitimate government overreach.


also, again, when you use phrases like "backed by the power of guns", i cannot help but think that you view america in the same way that mel gibson viewed the world in mad max.
   658. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 01:59 AM (#4343858)
yes, but do't you people also view those legal rulings as examples of illegitimate judicial activism. and don't you people also view those legislative victories as examples of illegitimate government overreach.

No, I can't recall the last time I saw a right-winger citing Plessy as an example of great jurisprudence.

also, again, when you use phrases like "backed by the power of guns", i cannot help but think that you view america in the same way that mel gibson viewed the world in mad max.

Green avatars on Twitter didn't bring democracy to Iran. Guns might have.

Likewise, the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.
   659. steagles Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:16 AM (#4343863)
No, I can't recall the last time I saw a right-winger citing Plessy as an example of great jurisprudence.
that's a clever dodge, but it's not at all related to your original point, which concerned integration, not segregation.



also, that's a great use of weasel language ("i can't recall..."), since i'm pretty sure that you are familiar with the fact that strom thurmond was a right winger who did hold up plessy v. ferguson as an example of great jurisprudence.


Green avatars on Twitter didn't bring democracy to Iran. Guns might have.
i don't disagree. and i actually am in favor of personal ownership of guns.

however, this is not iran. and even in 1954, this was not iran.
   660. steagles Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:23 AM (#4343865)
Likewise, the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.
would those rights include being able to go see a christopher nolan movie without getting shot?
or being able to go to worship at a sikh temple without getting shot?
or being able to go to a political rally without getting shot?
or being able to go to kindergarten without getting shot?


or, to be less inflammatory, how about being able to exercise your right to vote, without being removed from the voting rolls prior to the election, or without being harassed by police, or without having to wait 4 hours at a DMV to get a photo ID which has never before been a requirement for casting a ballot?

   661. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:24 AM (#4343866)
that's a clever dodge, but it's not at all related to your original point, which concerned integration, not segregation.

It wasn't a dodge at all. You referenced "legal rulings"; if not Plessy and Brown, et al., to which rulings were you referring?

also, that's a great use of weasel language ("i can't recall..."), since i'm pretty sure that you are familiar with the fact that strom thurmond was a right winger who did hold up plessy v. ferguson as an example of great jurisprudence.

Strom Thurmond? He's been dead for almost a decade, and he was little more than a GOP mascot for a decade or so before he died.
   662. rr Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:36 AM (#4343870)
We both know you won't do so, because you know you wouldn't like what you'd find.


And we both know that you don't have what it takes to own the implications of your own words, or to connect them to how people talk to you, so this whole line of conversation is a non-starter for you, which is why, rather than thinking about it and dealing with it, you are instead insulting me in various ways.

As to the comps between what Face did and other stuff you are bringing up: again, it is right there in what Furtado wrote when he made the call. It wasn't about liberals or conservatives, or about me and you, or about cumulative accountings of snark by people of various ideologies. You are taking the situation there on your own.

And, sure, if the TOS were rigorously enforced, (and I am not saying that would be a good idea) SH and some others on all bands of the ideological spectrum would have been gone awhile back or would have had to make some changes. And you and Face would be right in the middle of that group.
   663. RollingWave Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:43 AM (#4343871)
Green avatars on Twitter didn't bring democracy to Iran. Guns might have.


Which is interesting, given that civilians can openly carry guns in Iran.

there isn't much correlation between gun ownership and democracy, amongst the top 25% of gun owning country per capita we see a bunch of Middle Eastern and Balkan country, meanwhile, amongst the country that DID bring Democracy from Tyranny, we see Tunisia rank LAST amongst guns per capita.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but when you don't even have correlation...
   664. CrosbyBird Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:45 AM (#4343872)
Racism: Apparently just fine as long as the government doesn't mandate it!

Nice strawman. I think I've made it very clear that there's nothing "just fine" about racism. I just don't see it as the government's proper role to solve the problem by legislating decency, even if it makes the country a better place.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

I meant exactly what I said. For the 500 years or so of a so-called "all comers" philosophy on accommodations, we had segregation, "No Jews and Dogs allowed," and a bunch of "we don't like your kind here" in general as fairly common policy. I'm not defending the behavior in a moral sense, but whether it was codified into law or not, the sense of an obligation to treat all people as welcome customers was nothing like a generally accepted policy in a practical sense.

The public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act was fairly groundbreaking, and certainly worthy of respect for its motivations.
   665. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:47 AM (#4343873)
And we both know that you don't have what it takes to own the implications of your own words, or to connect them to how people talk to you, so this whole line of conversation is a non-starter for you, which is why, rather than thinking about it and dealing with it, you are instead insulting me in various ways.

I'll give this an "LOL" and leave it at that, since the idea that I don't own my comments here is incorrect to the point of being delusional.

As to the comps between what Face did and other stuff you are bringing up: again, it is right there in what Furtado wrote when he made the call. It wasn't about liberals or conservatives, or about me and you, or about cumulative accountings of snark by people of various ideologies. You are taking the situation there on your own.

Adolf Eichmann was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews. When Voxter called me "Eichmann" a couple weeks ago, that was far more slanderous than anything The Good Face did on the last page, and yet all I saw from you and the lefties here was ... silence. You'll have to forgive me for not seeing you in the same way you seem to see yourself — i.e., as BBTF's Great Arbiter.

And, sure, if the TOS were rigorously enforced, (and I am not saying that would be a good idea) SH and some others on all bands of the ideological spectrum would have been gone awhile back or would have had to make some changes. And you and Face would be right in the middle of that group.

Yeah, my calling liberals "lefties" is the same as Sam threatening neck-stabbings, talking about giving libertarians a "double tap" to the head, and using copious insults and profanity on a near-daily basis. Get serious.
   666. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 02:55 AM (#4343876)
would those rights include being able to go see a christopher nolan movie without getting shot?
or being able to go to worship at a sikh temple without getting shot?
or being able to go to a political rally without getting shot?
or being able to go to kindergarten without getting shot?

Sure. Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to do a better job of identifying and detaining people who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others. If only the ACLU and other liberals would get on board.

or, to be less inflammatory, how about being able to exercise your right to vote, without being removed from the voting rolls prior to the election, or without being harassed by police, or without having to wait 4 hours at a DMV to get a photo ID which has never before been a requirement for casting a ballot?

Eligible U.S. citizens have the right to vote. It's not at all clear that they have the right to vote without ID, or the right to a no-wait appointment at the DMV.
   667. steagles Posted: January 10, 2013 at 03:09 AM (#4343882)
It wasn't a dodge at all. You referenced "legal rulings"; if not Plessy and Brown, et al., to which rulings were you referring?
well, no. you said "Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories...". i referenced your reference, which was pretty clearly not at all related to plessy. either your wording was poor and you did not literally say what you thought you said (there's no moral judgment there, that can happen to anyone) or you were deliberately attempting to weasel away from your previous statement without giving the appearance of actually weaseling away.
Strom Thurmond? He's been dead for almost a decade, and he was little more than a GOP mascot for a decade or so before he died.
and again, that's another very clever dodge, except for the fact that if strom thurmond were still alive, he'd be in lock-step with the GOP base on most every issue.


the fact is, the legal and legislative defense of segregation was based on the same sets of principles and ideas and beliefs that the modern republican party now uses to define its own platform. to suggest anything else is just a shell game.
Sure. Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to do a better job of identifying and detaining people who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others. If only the ACLU and other liberals would get on board.
yes, damn those liberals for defunding federal mental health facilities and programs in the 1980s.

oh wait, that wasn't liberals. that was ronald reagan. hmmm...

ronald reagan? he's been dead for almost a decade and he was little more than a GOP mascot for a decade or so before he died.
   668. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 03:09 AM (#4343883)
Which is interesting, given that civilians can openly carry guns in Iran.

According to a study by Dave Kopel, et al., of firearm ownership in 59 countries, there are only 0.053 firearms per citizen in Iran, while there are roughly 0.5 firearms per citizen in Finland and Switzerland and 0.90 firearms per citizen in the U.S.

there isn't much correlation between gun ownership and democracy, amongst the top 25% of gun owning country per capita we see a bunch of Middle Eastern and Balkan country, meanwhile, amongst the country that DID bring Democracy from Tyranny, we see Tunisia rank LAST amongst guns per capita.

Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, but when you don't even have correlation...

I don't know what you used as your source, but the above is fairly ludicrous. Using the list of per capita gun ownership at Wikipedia, I see maybe three countries in the top 25 that might be considered a "tyranny."
   669. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 10, 2013 at 03:17 AM (#4343885)
Right. Saying that an American values Israel's goals over those of the U.S. isn't an accusation of dual loyalty. Sure, Sam.


Wouldn't an American politician who 'values Israel's goals over those of the U.S.' and who acts on that value in his behavior and votes as a politician be guilty of treasonous behavior?

As for large capital investments, most people would probably be better off paying those items in full if they had the means to do so.


But, isn't this entirely dependent on the inflation rate, current and expected income, expected appreciation of the large capital investment, and the interest rate on the debt?

There are far too many key factors to say it's simply a good or bad idea.
   670. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 10, 2013 at 03:27 AM (#4343889)
well, no. you said "Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed...". i referenced your reference, which was pretty clearly not at all related to plessy. either your wording was poor and you did not literally say what you thought you said (there's no moral judgment there, that can happen to anyone) or you were deliberately attempting to weasel away from your previous statement without giving the appearance of actually weaseling away.

What are you talking about? Plessy upheld the concept of "separate but equal" that was overturned in Brown.

and again, that's another very clever dodge, except for the fact that if strom thurmond were still alive, he'd be in lock-step with the GOP base on most every issue.

LOL. You accused me of using "weasel language" because Strom Thurmond — who died about a decade ago — didn't immediately come to mind when I was writing a comment above, but now you're using "if he were still alive" with a straight face? That's just bizarre.

the fact is, the legal and legislative defense of segregation was based on the same sets of principles and ideas and beliefs that the modern republican party now uses to define its own platform.

Ah, now I see what was going on. Your initial comments were just a warm-up before your usual performance art.

yes, damn those liberals for defunding federal mental health facilities and programs in the 1980s.

oh wait, that wasn't liberals. that was ronald reagan. hmmm...

It wasn't Ronald Reagan who put seriously mentally ill people out on the streets; that was mostly the result of ACLU-backed lawsuits in the 1970s. Nice try, though.
   671. steagles Posted: January 10, 2013 at 04:04 AM (#4343897)
just to have a small bit of fun, do you see any conflict within these 3 statements that you have made?
the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.
Without a doubt, the U.S. needs to do a better job of identifying and detaining people who are mentally ill to the point of being a danger to themselves and others. If only the ACLU and other liberals would get on board.
It wasn't Ronald Reagan who put seriously mentally ill people out on the streets; that was mostly the result of ACLU-backed lawsuits in the 1970s. Nice try, though.


because, it seems to me as if you believe that people who are "mentally ill" should be detained without having committed a crime, solely on the basis of whether they are deemed - by someone. who, i don't know? - to be a danger to themselves or others, and further, whether their illness is declared rightly or wrongly, that once it is declared, they should have no further right to legal representation.


because, if that's what you're suggesting, it would seem to be in stark contrast to your first statement, which is, again:
the U.S. Constitution is only as good as the people's ability to defend the rights and principles therein.


   672. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 10, 2013 at 05:04 AM (#4343909)
No it's not and your stated policy preferences over the years are proof of that, your response shows the real problem with libertarians, most of you are simply full of #### when you claim to want liberty- some do, some don't, obviously you are one of the ones who is full of it


Wouldn't maximization of liberty be a fundamentally utilitarian philosophy?

One would necessarily argue that liberty is the highest happiness, or good, then work on ways to maximize that greatest good for the greatest number. Libertarians, then, shouldn't be arguing that their primary interest is in maximizing liberty (and I don't know that they do so argue).

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

Speaking of our righties, they had a point. In a previous thread there was discussion of how badly defenders of the Duke lacrosse team were slammed. I recently participated in a discussion on rape and its prevalence and was interested in getting accurate statistics on rape in the U.S. Simply taking an interest in those facts got me harassed by multiple parties as "pro-rape".

As I researched I began to notice how many organizations, studies, and websites were conflating rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault under the heading of rape; catcalling as sexual assault; and non-contact behavior (otherwise undefined) as sexual violence, I was phyically threatened.

It was then that I ran into Amanda Murcotte who, during the Duke lacrosse case, announced anyone defending the players were 'pro-rape scum,' something that lingers on her wikipedia page. It appears to be a common accusation levied against anyone interested in the facts of rape. And I don't mean it's an occasional accusation. It's actually common, in my experience.

   673. Lassus Posted: January 10, 2013 at 08:03 AM (#4343918)
Ah, now I see what was going on.

Also new.
   674. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:00 AM (#4343931)
This - the conflation of rights of the person/body as equal to or tautological with the rights to control property - is the fundamental flaw in libertarian thinking.
Your body is your property; it's the most fundamental piece of property you own. All your other rights stem from that right to control your body.
   675. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:20 AM (#4343935)
Catching up ...
Interesting how liberals lament that majority rule brought with it Jim Crow laws, but now want the Second Amendment — which, incidentally, could have helped ensure that the Freedom Riders weren't "risking their lives" simply by riding a bus, and will help to ensure that future unpopular or oppressed people/groups won't have to face similar threats while defenseless — to be run through the shredder.


Assumes so many stupid things it is amazing there was room in the paragraph. Liberals know there needs to be a balance between rights and authorities, and in the Jim Crow south the US government fell down on the job and allowed local authorities to enforce their local version of values rather than the societal values (to say nothing of the very real constitutional violations which all Liberals agree should trump simple majority rule). It was not majority rule at a federal level that led to Jim Crow, but a regional majority shamefully one in which the rest of the nation's government was at the very complicit.

The "second amendment" (aka carry guns and wild west your way to rights) way would have been a complete disaster in the south as an attempt to rectify the situation as anyone with half a brain could see (JoeK I can explain it in small words if you like).

Also I do love how any gun law is "running the Second Amendment through the shredder" but we never see similar language regarding various analogous laws regarding search and seizure or voting rights from the loony right. One the Second must stand pure I guess, everything else are just laws, so long as we get our guns. Compensate much?

Finally ...
There are a lot of contexts in which non-violence is overrated.


is exactly the sort of completely unsupported assertion I would expect from Joe. Care to expound on the analogous situations to Jim Crow south which were or should have been solved through violent means rather than non-violent ones?
   676. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4343939)
Regarding Joe K whining about the GF/Sam dust up and Jim's comments.

Sam "whining" to Jim about something said = what a hypocritical wimp.
Joe K "whining" to the internet about above = Joe bravely taking a stand against the hordes of Lefty bullies and hypocrits.

As Joe so often says, LOL.

Seriously dude, if you were offended by something someone said then deal with it, if not then don't. What happened between GF and Sam had nothing to do with you and your whining about it is sad. It is Jim's site and he is pretty darn hands off. I suggest you follow the TOS and if you feel someone has violated it feel free to contact Jim. But using a situation to whine about the mean old lefty cabal just makes you sound desperate.
   677. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:42 AM (#4343942)
Regarding China.

Good question. China is very large (duh) which is a blessing and a curse, but from a statistical level you always have to remember it, because in total numbers they are always huge, but the rate stats not so much. To my mind the biggest dangers to China are ...
* Economic growth is not a linear or constant process, and is much easier when the "rate stats" are really low, and gets harder the further along you are.
* Governmental stewardship, especially with little corruption, is critical to continued growth. China is a governmentally corrupt country and that is going to really hinder them going forward.
* Economically authoriatarian regimes do very well historically with industry and much less well with post-industrial economies. Many authoritarian regimes (USSR is a great example) do well on the industry portion of the growth curve, but find the switch to post-industrial economics much harder to handle, this is because heavy industry is much more amenable to authoritarian regulation. It is unclear how well China will be able to handle this transition.
* China is really big and diverse. This means handling long term the impacts of differing regions growing differently, and eventually passing through various stages of growth. China handled factories flowing from outside China into China very well, will it also handle factories leaving one part of China for another as economic conditions within the country change, or will it ossify and allow the first movers enough political leverage to prevent creative destruction within China? It is alwyas easier to have the destruction part of the equation happen elsewhere, can they handle it when it happens in China?
* They have had a really good run, but inevitably rough spots will happen. Can they handle the bad (whatever it happens to be) appropriately? Don't judge how well a country will do over the long haul by their best times, but their worst.

Of course China has much going for it to, so I would not count them out, but I don't think they are destined to be the world power anytime real soon - a world power certainly, but they are already that.
   678. McCoy Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:44 AM (#4343944)
Does this override all rights in your opinion? For example, since the government subsidizes some forms of private university education, does it have the right to tell those private universities what they may or may not teach? Since the government subsidizes the mail service that delivers magazines, does it get to tell the magazine publishers what they are allowed to print?

I am not arguing with the government's intervention in the Jim Crow South. I'm just not sure I agree with your line of reasoning.


All rights? No, I did say they should have some say not total say. For instance if the government gives private universities subsidies then of course it is proper and right that the government would wish to enter into a contract with the private university in order to get those subsidies. Same with magazine publishers. If they wish to use the government's services, i.e. the mail, then they must agree with the government's TOS. Seems only natural that it should be so.


That's an uncomfortably broad statement that could apply to 'activities' you most likely feel the government has no say in.

Well, I'm not writing a law here. I'm posting on a message board.
   679. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:48 AM (#4343946)
You don't get it. SH is often very snarky, as you are, and if the TOS were rigorously enforced, he would get nailed for it a lot more often, as you would. But what Face did in that case was different for a couple of reasons, and Furtado explained why. Also, SH actually grasps the "get what you give" concept and regularly exchanges insults with DJS and DMN without "running to Jim."


In 10 or so years of participating in the conversations and discussions on Jim's website, Jim has spoken to me privately about tone and unacceptable comments exactly once, in a thread where Dan and I went at each other in a particularly vicious manner. When Jim contacted me and explained himself, I modified behavior in that thread. It's Jim's house. It's Jim's rules.

I did send a note to Jim yesterday, privately, calling his attention to the attempted Google-bomb of my name. That was the full extent of my "running to Jim." Jim's response and clarifications of the how his Terms of Service will be applied in situations such as that exchange, were fully his own (which is obvious, I'd think.) I would advise people to take note and keep that in mind going forward. It's Jim's house. It's Jim's rules.

To the point above, there's clearly a distinction between the snark and barb-throwing between regulars here (on all sorts of issues, not merely in the OTP threads) and yesterday's attempt to slur my full name via Google-bombing. But it's not my opinion that that is the case that matters. It's Jim's opinion that it was out of line that matters. It's Jim's house. It's Jim's rules.
   680. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:53 AM (#4343950)
Your body is your property; it's the most fundamental piece of property you own.


No. Your body is you. You don't own yourself. You are not distinct from your body. It's a senseless statement you make here.

Without property rights, what good do rights of person do you? Without property rights you can't feed, clothe and house yourself.


I'm not arguing against property rights, per se (though I don't support the extreme reading of property rights most of the libertarian brigades put forward.) I'm simply arguing that bodily right - the right to actually control your own body - is primary and greater in scope than secondary and tertiary property rights.
   681. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 09:57 AM (#4343953)
No. Your body is you. You don't own yourself. You are not distinct from your body. It's a senseless statement you make here.


Thank you. I was having a hard time coming up exactly with my problem with the statement and I think you nailed it.

I think one's "personhood" is the moral justification of having rights (for whatever that is worth). Of course where the rights "come from" is much more of a philisophical discussion we have had here before and devolves into "natural rights" and other such topics.
   682. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:03 AM (#4343956)
Without property rights you can't feed, clothe and house yourself.


I am curious about this statement. It seems very overbroad, considering there have been human societies without property rights as the West understands them. How does an absence of property rights prevent one from housing oneself?
   683. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM (#4343961)
Expounding on my feelings regarding the Jim Crow south. It was not a philisophical failing (of Liberalism, conservatism, or whatever), it was a failing of governence, of executing the law of the land, and of society.

In my opinion Jim Crow was an abberation where one region was tacitly allowed (for decades) to enforce a different set of fundemental values than the rest of the nation. I think it more than OK for various parts of society to execute a shared vision in different ways, I am not arguing that everyone everywhere is the same. But for fundemental values (like the rights of people), those values have to be consistent or the the society is not coherent.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.


Jim Crow was a shadow of slavery that held on far too long and continued to damage the nation over the years.
   684. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4343963)
I think one's "personhood" is the moral justification of having rights (for whatever that is worth).


As do most people. There's a reason Paul Broun (R-GA) and the nutter brigades are pushing through the "personhood" bill to say that a zygote is a 'person.'
   685. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4343965)
Jim Crow was a shadow of slavery that held on far too long and continued to damage the nation over the years.


No, Jim Crow *was* slavery in all but name. There's a great speech given by...damn it. Let me go find it. The point of it being that the "civil rights movement" was in fact simply the last, successful, slave rebellion.
   686. Morty Causa Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:17 AM (#4343968)
Property is about owning and possessing something outside yourself. To have effect in organized social life, it has to be a legal concept, and legal concepts are artificial creations within a societal context, which of course libertarians deny, and which is why I see them as having a creationist mindset. It makes no ultimate sense and serves no purpose (although it can serve as comparative clarification) to refer to your person as your property, except in a strictly ideologically dogmatic pseudo-religious sense. They can then state their biases as axioms that don't have to be intellectually defended or even explained. Libertarianism is to political philosophy what Intelligent Design is to biology. It allows one to make many gross assumptions without deigning to attempt to prove anything.
   687. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4343971)
No, Jim Crow *was* slavery in all but name.


Jim Crow was bad, terrible and a stain on the US, but no. There is a ton of territory between slavery and a just society. I am willing to argue where exactly Jim Crow falls in the continuum, but it is most certainly not at either end.
   688. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4343973)
Except that in this case, the entire point of the Freedom Rides, and the nonviolent movement in general, was to win the "admiration" of that part of white America that might demand that Congress pass some civil rights laws with actual teeth.** I realize it's too much to ask of you and David to actually study a bit of history rather than just reflexively reaching for your generic talking points, but without white "admiration" in the form that I'm talking about, blacks would still be stuck in the same rut that they were in 1961.


If your rights are being trampled and your strategy is centered on winning the "admiration" of the people doing the trampling, I'd say your strategy stinks.


Except that obtaining that "admiration" was absolutely necessary in order to get the (white) federal government to point its "guns" in the right direction, in the form of civil rights laws with teeth. But perhaps you think that in the early 1960's, black people were running the country and didn't need whites to pass laws.

Schools and buses and lunch counters were integrated in the Jim Crow South because of legal and legislative victories backed by the power of guns, not because black people won the "admiration" of bigots.

Joe, you manage to ratchet up your ignorance with every new comment.

Question: How in the hell do you think that those legislative victories came about in the first place? Do you think that they somehow sprung out of the spontaneous goodness of white folks' hearts?
   689. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM (#4343974)
For instance if the government gives private universities subsidies then of course it is proper and right that the government would wish to enter into a contract with the private university in order to get those subsidies.


We should start with all those religions the government subsidizes.
   690. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:28 AM (#4343975)
So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?
   691. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM (#4343976)
Your body is your property; it's the most fundamental piece of property you own.


As such, laws that prohibit open nudity are far more tyrannical than any taxation. Let's remember who the real victim is here - me, forced to wear pants at gunpoint.
   692. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4343982)
In my opinion Jim Crow was an aberration where one region was tacitly allowed (for decades) to enforce a different set of fundamental values than the rest of the nation.

The problem with that is that differences between the "fundamental values" of the North and the South WRT "the Negro" were but a matter of degree, not kind. To the extent that they were different in kind, those differences existed in but a tiny (and I mean tiny) number of bohemian enclaves in a handful of big cities.

To illustrate this point, James Loewen's Sundown Towns is a comprehensive history of the thousands of cities and towns in America that literally forbade blacks from being within the city limits between sunset and sunrise. The overwhelming majority of these towns were in the North.

   693. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM (#4343985)
So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?

That certainly seems to be the clear implication of what Joe is saying, although he'll probably now pretend that he didn't really mean it that way. He's the Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF, bless his heart.
   694. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4343987)
You call that artful?
   695. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM (#4343990)
So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?


Well yeah, let's compare how well violence is working out in Palestine and how poorly non-violence worked in South Africa. Seriously have you been paying attention? [/snark]

I saw a study (last year I think it was) that after looking at various regime changes basically showed that as soon as the dissidents took up arms, when successful the result (post regime change) was much more oppressive and authoritarian than those where there was not widespread violence.

While not exactly apples-to-apples, when violence comes to play things tend to go downhill fast. If something can be solved non-violently then it should be, and I have no idea why this is even controversial. There are some problems that require violence, but far fewer than where violence is actually applied in my opinion.

Suggesting guns were the reason, even at remove, for the success of the Civil Rights movement, or where in anyway good for the Civil Rights movement is completely ridiculous, as the Reverand Doctor Martin Luther King JR and Robert Kennedy would all be able to explain to Joe.
   696. zonk Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM (#4343991)
So, wait...Martin Luther King was wrong? Civil rights and desegregation would have happened more quickly with the threat of violence? Was Gandhi also wrong?


Of course!

Your foolish liberal education system and liberal college indoctrination have led you astray... the common lie you've been taught is that the end of Jim Crow, separate but equal, school segregation, lynchings, and church burnings came about because that namby-pamby King and sundry other pussies like Medgar Evers, Rosa Parks, and the rest of these non-heating packing wimps Oliver Twisted their way into "Please sir, I'd like my rights"...

The truth is that the 'civil rights movement' won the day wayyyyy back in the 1920s -- in Rosewood, Florida. It was there that armed black citizens properly used their 2nd amendment obligations to shoot the whiteys that were clearly violating their civil rights. This proceeded to save dozens of lives, prevented the town from being burned to the ground, caused FDR to tell the southern Dems to take a hike, and passed the famous federal anti-lynching laws that were a cornerstone of the era.

By 1960 - with the advent of Hollywood and the rise of the liberal media - east coast elites who feared a free and armed citizenry, knew that history needed a rewrite.... It would never do to have the end of segregation and a securing of rights come from the end of a gun barrel -- so they concocted the supposed 'Civil Rights era', the 'Freedom Riders', and the rest of this nonsense... They even got John Wayne to put on a few pounds and play a fictional character named Bull Connor.

   697. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:47 AM (#4343999)
That certainly seems to be the clear implication of what Joe is saying, although he'll probably now pretend that he didn't really mean it that way. He's the Artfullest Dodger in the history of BTF, bless his heart.


If this is the case then all of those complaints (not necessary from Joe, but from his side of the aisle certainly) that the problem with the Palestinians is that they've never developed a "great leader" like King, Mandela or Gandhi are pretty vapid.
   698. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4344002)
The problem with that is that differences between the "fundamental values" of the North and the South WRT "the Negro" were but a matter of degree, not kind. To the extent that they were different in kind, those differences existed in but a tiny (and I mean tiny) number of bohemian enclaves in a handful of big cities.


I am not arguing there was (and is) not racism throughout the nation, but I think you are either wrong, misunderstanding my point (I'm not being clear), or both. Let me try and explain from the other end.

I believe the Civil Rights movement was successful because it exposed the paradox inherent in Jim Crow south (and obviously other places in the US, but clearly centered in the south). If society as a whole believed in, supported, the values of Jim Crow then how could non-violent protests have helped?

It was because there was a disconnect that the non-violent protests highlighted the disconnect. Prior to that the silent majority was not confronted with what was happening. They could ignore the injustice of Jim Crow because it was not directly in their backyard, they were not actively supporting it.

Non-violent protests forced people to acknowledge that an injustice was happening and that the opporessed had the clear moral high ground according to the shared values of our society. Once that happens then change is inevitable. And this is why violence would have made matters much worse.

Then the violent protestors may have been correct, but by using violence they cede the moral high ground. Now it is a violent struggle between two groups, both of which are making claims that appeal to the shared values and traditions. There would have been many statements about how people sympathized with their plight, still no one could blame the authorities for acting as they were to maintain their society and other similar things that echo what we here from the mideast today.

The non-violent protests exploited the fact that the protesters were in the right and the situation was abhorrent to the national shared value for how people should be treated. If there was no divide, if Jim Crow had been in accordance with the national shared value then people everwhere would have shrugged and said "so what? The specifics are a regional matter to be handled there" and nothing would have changed (well of course there is always change, but it would have been very slow).

   699. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4344007)
If this is the case then all of those complaints (not necessary from Joe, but from his side of the aisle certainly) that the problem with the Palestinians is that they've never developed a "great leader" like King, Mandela or Gandhi are pretty vapid.


I don't think it a moral failing to not be King, Mandela or Gandhi*, but I think it pretty clear the Palestinians would be MUCH better off if there had been such a leader, such a great man and they had gone down the path of non-violence versus where they are today.

* EDIT: They are three of my heroes and are in my opinion truly great examples of humanity. Just as Lincoln is not the bar for being a good president, I don't think those three are the bar for leadership - it is asking too much.
   700. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: January 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4344013)
I don't think it a moral failing to no be King, Mandela or Gandhi, but I think it pretty clear the Palestinians would be MUCH better off if there had been such a leader, such a great man and they had gone down the path of non-violence versus where they are today.


And I agree.

My point is that a very popular critique of the Palestinian statehood movement is that they have never managed to generate a great man of peace and wisdom such as King, Mandela, or Gandhi. This is then used as a pivot to explain why Israel is perfectly justified in any action whatsoever against the "barbarian Arabs" or whatnot.

This is at direct odds with the ongoing meme here that what a revolution really requires is ammo and men willing to use it.
Page 7 of 29 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(390 - 10:12pm, Oct 25)
Last: AT-AT at bat@AT&T

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(467 - 9:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(29 - 9:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3804 - 9:28pm, Oct 25)
Last: GregD

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(520 - 9:07pm, Oct 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(14 - 9:05pm, Oct 25)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(396 - 8:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Tom Cervo, backup catcher

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com
(14 - 7:58pm, Oct 25)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(16 - 7:30pm, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(5 - 6:56pm, Oct 25)
Last: Bug Selig

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(8 - 6:29pm, Oct 25)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(12 - 6:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cat8

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(872 - 6:02pm, Oct 25)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(87 - 5:12pm, Oct 25)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(20 - 4:40pm, Oct 25)
Last: Baldrick

Page rendered in 0.7931 seconds
52 querie(s) executed