Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game

As Time magazine recently reported, Republicans, frustrated by their 22-0 loss in last year’s game, sought a new coach to shake things up on the field this year. Some members even appealed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to fire the coach, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). But Boehner said he wasn’t powerful enough to control the baseball diamond, and Barton refused to walk away after spending 28 years with the game. Instead, he brought on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a former professional baseball player and coach at Texas Christian University, to coach while he stayed on as the team’s manager.

In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game. But with multiple pitchers giving up walk after walk, it seems that what the Republicans really need is a pitcher who can better match Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who previously pitched on Morehouse College’s varsity baseball team.

Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 07:53 AM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, winning is fun

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 33 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›
   3201. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4757878)
The thing is, SBB YOU DONT ACTUALLY NEED A REASON to not hire someone.

But it's illegal not to hire someone for particular reasons -- i.e., on the basis of their race. Perhaps those reasons could be expanded. I'd definitely expand them for firing. I'm seeing few if any reasons to permit a company to fire someone for non-business-related expression -- be it Chris Klewe or Tony Dungy.
   3202. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 08:44 PM (#4757886)
This is an absolute riot coming from a liberal. Let's apply it to traditional discrimination: "Hey, black person/gay person/woman/minority, who cares if you were discriminated against? You can get another job!!!"


--

Like I said in the follow-up post: whether NBC could get rid of Dungy easily depends on the terms in his contract, and whether he would have legal recourse would probably depend on whether his lawyers could demonstrate that it was discrimination/bad faith of some kind, which would probably be tough, assuming that Dungy is an at-will employee.

You are assuming that it would be discrimination, and, therefore, as usual, are making a bad analogy.

As to the ethical question, I already said that I don't think they should fire him.

With exceptions and details to be worked out, I'm becoming less opposed and maybe could even support a law outlawing employment discrimination based on non-business-related expression. The idea that Tony Dungy's job could be in danger because of this episode is an utterly appalling state of affairs, and if he's fired, the laws permitting his employment to be terminated for something so vapid should be changed.


Presumably you are familiar with the basics of the statutory and public policy exceptions related to at-will employment. It is a topic worth discussing here. And, in this case, since it is Dungy's business to talk pro football, and Sam is a pro football player, even if such a law existed, it might not apply here.

   3203. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 09:10 PM (#4757893)
And in any event, Tony Dungy was asked his opinion of whether he'd draft Michael Sam. He answered. There would be no reason for someone asked their opinion on something to go check with someone else for someone else's opinion.


Sure, but Dungy could have said: "I can't say, because it's not my team. It's Jeff Fisher's team, and Jeff is a darn good coach, and I am sure he knows what's best for the St.Louis Rams."

Dungy, however, chose not to do that, for whatever reason, and given his history and where society is right now, it opened some things up on him.

   3204. Howie Menckel Posted: July 25, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4757896)
wonderful segment tonight on MSNBC at a time when I'd lost all hope for that network and Fox, for equally obvious reasons.

Rachel Maddow had VT Sen Bernie Sanders on about the disgraceful fact that Congress is nearing another long vacay without yet having addressed the VA Administration issues, and how that was unacceptable.

I was a fan of Maddow on Air America radio as a fresh, young voice but she then went through the same prism that the various sportswriters/turned TV did in getting a national audience - the louder and more shrill you yell, the more money you make.

But she toned down the "blame the Rs" obsession, focusing instead on the, you know, veterans that actually matter. I like Sanders a lot - and like any left and rights that actually say what they really believe; it's refreshing.

Maddow didn't even flinch when Sanders talked about how he and R Sen McCain agreed in terms of staying in session possibility that "if this isn't an emergency, then what is an emergency?"

a rare moment of sanity in Washington, basically. and while people still try to blame the left for 50-yr-old anti-soldier stuff, that's dead and buried. maybe treating veterans the way they deserve to be treated can be a modest stepping stone toward more cooperation.

ok, that's probably not gonna happen soon. but still.
   3205. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 09:34 PM (#4757898)
Silly RR. So eager to score points you don't READ.


Heh. Let's just say that your response didn't sway me any more than my post swayed you, and leave it there.
   3206. rr Posted: July 25, 2014 at 11:04 PM (#4757926)
You're projecting


Seems like a reach, given the number of posts you have had on this theme lately, and a couple of other truly weird things you have said about this idea of righties/SoCons/NeoReacs being marginalized, silenced, cowed, unable to speak freely without being "villified" etc.
   3207. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 25, 2014 at 11:32 PM (#4757930)
Like I said in the follow-up post: whether NBC could get rid of Dungy easily depends on the terms in his contract, and whether he would have legal recourse would probably depend on whether his lawyers could demonstrate that it was discrimination/bad faith of some kind, which would probably be tough, assuming that Dungy is an at-will employee.


Uh, did you get your law degree from a cereal box or from a raffle? This paragraph is legal gobbledygook. If he has a contract then he is not an at-will employee, pretty much by definition.

And I would be shocked if Dungy doesn't have a contract. Presuming as I do that he does, then they can only fire him for cause, i.e. as spelled out in the contract. But regardless, they can easily "get rid" of him merely by firing him and then either paying him according to the terms of the contract (if there was no cause) or not paying him and inviting him to sue them for breach of contract (wherein he would claim that there was no cause). Either way they can have him out the door before Mike Lupica finishes writing his next column telling us what a horrible guy Dungy really is. They would never be forced to keep on an employee who they didn't want working for them any more.

So he doesn't have to demonstrate that they fired him for discrimination; he can demonstrate that they fired him without cause. The contract would contain a list of specific offenses that allow termination "for cause."

You are assuming that it would be discrimination, and, therefore, as usual, are making a bad analogy.


No, the point of my analogy was that firing him would be wrong, just as firing someone for discrimination would be wrong, and in the latter case liberals never say "too bad so sad he can find another job."
   3208. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 26, 2014 at 12:43 AM (#4757947)
No, the point of my analogy was that firing him would be wrong, just as firing someone for discrimination would be wrong, and in the latter case liberals never say "too bad so sad he can find another job."

robinred anticipated this line of reasoning already. If Dungy's continued presence is a distraction (which you believe), then his firing can be justified in the same vein as the non-drafting of Sam. Everyone understands that "distraction" is a fig leaf for political motivations, but that is as much Dungy's problem as his solution.
   3209. rr Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:40 AM (#4757957)
RDP,

You are correct in saying that I probably misused the term "at-will" WRT Dungy's employment since he probably cannot be fired without cause. That said, I also said that his situation would obviously depend on what the contract says, and if it has some vague language about being fired for bad conduct or whatever, then firing him would, as you suggest, be easy and they can always just pay him off and tell him to take a hike. You are incorrect when you say that having a contract makes someone not at-will "pretty much by definition", though. Again, it depends on what the agreement says, as with anything else.

As to the analogy, it is your personal opinion that firing Dungy would be "wrong" and I actually agree with you. But firing someone "for discrimination" is a matter of law, not personal opinion.

I think there is virtually no chance that NBC will fire him, and they shouldn't.

   3210. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4758017)
FYI, everyone is bigoted. It's just a question of against who and what, and whether or not they're honest about it with themselves.


Nonsense. I like the Wikipedia definition of bigotry.

Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.


And that does not characterize everyone, and thinking it does says kind of sad things about you.
Exactly. The problem with having these obsessively strong, quasi-religious convictions that your views aren't just opinions, they're Moral Truth, is that it leads inevitably to the conclusion that those who disagree with your Morally True Opinions are immoral. And then half the country are bigots. Except they can't be, so you hem and haw . . .


I don't believe in Moral Truth. As I have said multiple times I don't think there exists absolute moral truth, so that is the last thing you can reasonably accuse me of. And I am pretty sure I have not called anyone immoral in a long time, so basically I think you are just projecting. I have many flaws but the paragraph above describes none of mine.

There were no bigots in the Jim Crow South?


Of course there were, but a dumb question. There are were bigots in the north then and now as well. But I don't think, and this is opinion, one can reasonably ascribe bigotry to the dominant moral viewpoint. The reason is not because majority makes right or anything like that, but rather goes to the why of the belief.

To be bigotry a belief has to be rooted i n"fear, distrust or hatred", whereas for most people in the Jim Crow South (and most people regarding gay rights in the 90s for example) their belief was rooted in the fact that everyone else believed it as well.

How do I know that? Well for huge numbers of people very quickly (about 1% a year for gay marriage for a long time) changed their opinion on the issue. They were opened up to the idea that it didn't have to be a certain way, that equality was OK and not harmful and their opinion changed. If the entirety of opposition to gay marriage was rooted in bigotry then opinions would never have changed as rapidly as they have the last few years.

But of course there are some bigots. More than I would like, but not everyone who was against interracial marriage or is against gay marriage is a bigot.

And just because I am unwilling to call Coach Dungy a bigot hardly makes me hem an haw, it just means I call them as I see them. Not everything is black and white, there is nuance in the world. But it is amusing that in the same paragraph you basically serially accused me of being an inflexible ideologue and wishy washy. You really need to pick a single narrative, it makes your argument stronger (not more correct, but at least less obviously self conflicting).
   3211. BDC Posted: July 26, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4758040)
"Bigotry" connotes not just prejudice but ignorance, and also a kind of active hatefulness. I also associate it with a kind of generational thing, one's parents & grandparents hated Catholics, eg, so the tradition must go on. It loses shades of meaning if it just equals "doesn't like some group."
   3212. rr Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4758070)
WEEI sports radio host Kirk Minihane has been suspended without pay for a week by Entercom Communications, the station’s parent company, for disparaging on-air comments he made about Fox Sports reporter Erin Andrews during two recent programs.

...It appeared that Wainwright had acknowledged to reporters that he tossed easy pitches to New York Yankees star Derek Jeter in Jeter’s last All-Star game. Minihane accused Andrews of throwing a softball herself by failing to ask Wainwright follow-up questions and for blaming the ensuing controversy on social media.

“What a b----,” Minihane said on-air. “I hate her. What a gutless b----. Seriously, go away. Drop dead. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with her? First of all, follow up. Secondly, the guy admitted he did it. He told reporters that he threw a couple of pipe bombs to Jeter. So how is that social media’s fault?”

Minihane apologized for his comments in a statement posted on WEEI.com that night. But upon returning from vacation Wednesday — his first day on the air since the original comments — he punctuated a verbal apology by suggesting that Andrews’s success is based on her looks rather than ability, saying if she “weighed 15 pounds more she would be a waitress.”


link
   3213. Lassus Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4758072)
   3214. BDC Posted: July 26, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4758075)
Minihane … punctuated a verbal apology by suggesting that Andrews’s success is based on her looks rather than ability, saying if she “weighed 15 pounds more she would be a waitress.”


I assume he's not sexist or anything. After all, he may have valuable expertise in food-service-industry hiring.
   3215. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4758089)

I love how the 16-paragraph AP story linked above gives no description of the suspects.

IT'S URGENT WE FIND THESE CRIMINALS ... whom we're refusing to describe because of P.C. silliness.

(Hope the liberals are sitting down, but per more responsible news outlets, Suspect #1 is a black male and Suspect #2 is a Latino male.)
   3216. Lassus Posted: July 26, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4758112)
(Hope the liberals are sitting down, but per more responsible news outlets, Suspect #1 is a black male and Suspect #2 is a Latino male.)

I copied it from your conservative brethren Mr. Epstein. Blame him for the Christian Science Monitor source, not me.

At least your priorities are in order, I suppose.
   3217. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4758116)

I didn't "blame" you for anything, Lassus.
   3218. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4758122)
I'm pretty sure the local cops in Philly are widely circulating the description of the car jackers in question. I don't know what adding their physical description would add to the CSM write up, unless JoeK thinks he might see one of them armed with a bag of Skittles and lurking near a dangerous looking sidewalk in his neighborhood.
   3219. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4758132)

Yeah, what good would it do for the most widely read news outlet to include a description of the suspects? It's not like anyone in the Philly area gets their information from the Associated Press.
   3220. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4758134)
God, I'd hope not, assuming that the newspaper business in Philly isn't even worse than I think. If they're having to rely on wire for coverage of a high-profile crime in their midst, things are pretty damned dire. (More likely, of course, AP based its story on the local papers' reportage, which might or might not have included racial descriptions.)
   3221. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:50 PM (#4758136)
Yeah, what good would it do for the most widely read news outlet to include a description of the suspects? It's not like anyone in the Philly area gets their information from the Associated Press.

Ehm, people are bad at recognizing people they have seen before. Somebody is supposed to recognize the guys of a written description? Do you really think the police is better off, if everybody who sees an approximately 5'10 black guy with short hair and average build, calls in to report them?
   3222. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4758137)

LOL. I guess every police agency in the country is doing it wrong.

"Attention, all units:

Be on the lookout for ... humans."
   3223. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4758140)
As the criminal robots continue to get away scot free.
   3224. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:04 PM (#4758143)
Yeah, what good would it do for the most widely read news outlet to include a description of the suspects? It's not like anyone in the Philly area gets their information from the Associated Press.


None. The guys that did this are unlikely to be international globe trotting super spies. The only USEFUL area to post physical descriptions and photos is in Philadelphia. Where it happened. You're not going to see them in Miami or upstate New York.
   3225. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4758146)

Yes, and a lot of people in Philly get their news from the Associated Press — a fact you continue to ignore.
   3226. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4758150)
No one outside of the canvas area are likely to identify the based on racial descriptions. You want to print the ethnicity not because it is useful, but because they weren't white.
   3227. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4758151)
But, as noted, AP probably got that story from the Philly media -- a fact you continue to ignore.
   3228. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4758153)

The Associated Press is read by people in Philly, and is assuredly a prime source for Philly-area news outlets, especially radio stations.

As for #3227, that's pure speculation. (Also, following "probably" with "fact" is dumb. Aren't you some sort of news editor?)
   3229. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4758156)
Aren't you some sort of news editor?)


Not since 11/02. You're right, of course, about "fact" & "probably"; I was simply echoing your construction with the former, & I should've done otherwise.

The strong likelihood, though, is that AP isn't doing its own reporting here. They simply don't have the manpower. Newspaper staffing has declined alarmingly over the last decade-plus, of course, but AP's has done the same.
   3230. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4758162)

You're assuredly right about staffing, etc., but the Associated Press should give as much information as possible. If the editors in Peoria and Sacramento want to edit out the parts that aren't locally relevant, that's up to them.
   3231. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4758166)
There is literally no news value in providing ethnic details of the men outside of the local neighborhood. The only reason JoeK is on this rant is because he wants to spin up the "black people are violent animals" talking point again.
   3232. JE (Jason) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4758167)
I copied it from your conservative brethren Mr. Epstein. Blame him for the Christian Science Monitor source, not me.

Oh, so now you're giving me the H/T, Lassus?!? LOL.
   3233. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4758169)

Shorter #3231: Inconvenient facts have no utility.
   3234. JE (Jason) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4758170)
There is literally no news value in providing ethnic details of the men outside of the local neighborhood.

I wouldn't go that far, Sam, but it's worth noting that the Inquirer story provided the info, as did the CBS affiliate.
   3235. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4758171)
There is literally no news value in providing ethnic details of the men outside of the local neighborhood.

Just as there was no news value in inventing George Zimmerman's "race."
   3236. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4758174)
LOL. I guess every police agency in the country is doing it wrong.

"Attention, all units:

Be on the lookout for ... humans."

They give those instructions to guys who are in the very localized vicinity at the time of the incident, and have experience confronting potential suspects.

Doing the same thing city wide, a day later, by the general population is complete madness.
   3237. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:41 PM (#4758180)
Just as there was no news value in inventing George Zimmerman's "race."


There was no real news value in Zimmerman's race. The news value in the Zimmerman case was that he shot a black kid for being black. The only race that mattered in that case was Trayvon Martin's.

I wouldn't go that far, Sam, but it's worth noting that the Inquirer story provided the info, as did the CBS affiliate.


There's no news value in it. If there were a city wide manhunt, aka the Boston Marathon manhunt, maybe. But even then, you get far more false-positive noise from the idiots in the crowd (like Joe) who will point to any person of ethnicity X and scream "arrest that guy, it's probably him!" All JoeK wants here is to run up the "black people are violent animal" schtick again. Note how he admits as much on the side, @3233. The "practical value" of calling out ethnicity, for JoeK and his ilk, is simply to paint all black and Latino men as violent animals.

I'm sure he's more than willing to apply that same logic to serial killers and mass-shooters, who are near universally white men, right? Oh, of course not. That doesn't serve his Stormfront-lite talking point.
   3238. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 26, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4758184)

Even if I concede the coherent parts of #3237 for the sake of argument, young black males comprise ~1 percent of the U.S. population but commit ~40 percent of the violent crimes. Only a deluded liberal believes that inconvenient fact already gets too much attention.
   3239. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 06:42 PM (#4758199)
I'm sure he's more than willing to apply that same logic to serial killers and mass-shooters, who are near universally white men, right?


Is that really true?

EDIT: Wiki says no.

According to some sources, the percentage of serial killers who are African American is estimated to be between 13 and 22 percent.[75][76] Another study has shown that 16 percent of serial killers are African American, what author Maurice Godwin describes as a "sizeable portion".[77] However, the 2013 Radford/FGCU Serial Killer Database annual statistics show, for the decades 1900–2010, that the percentage of African American serial killers is 40.7%.
   3240. Lassus Posted: July 26, 2014 at 08:23 PM (#4758223)
Oh, so now you're giving me the H/T, Lassus?!? LOL.

Here I am with my Grandpa Simpson moment: Can you please write #### the #### out so it makes sense? This is the second time, although I never asked you what the last one was you were talking about with Cruz and the abbreviations you were using there.
   3241. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 08:55 PM (#4758226)
H/T = hat tip, gramps.
   3242. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:04 PM (#4758227)
I have no idea what "The Cathedral" is supposed to mean. I sense this makes me lucky.
   3243. Lassus Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:20 PM (#4758231)
It's a Good Face thing, it refers to the liberal edifice that informs everything aspect of modern society.
   3244. rr Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:29 PM (#4758232)
The Cathedral — The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women’s suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that “you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that’s left is to work out the details.” Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.


http://www.moreright.net/neoreactionary-glossary/
   3245. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:31 PM (#4758233)
I have no idea what "The Cathedral" is supposed to mean. I sense this makes me lucky.


"The Cathedral" is how the "alternative right," also more and more often referring to themselves as "neoreactionaries" frame the all-powerful controlling mental framework where all "modern liberals" live. "The Cathedral" includes all Democratic and Republican politicians, the media, all the sheeples too stupid to think outside of their marching orders, so on and so forth. Basically anyone who doesn't agree universally with whatever neo-fascist talking point the "alt right" person is spinning at the minute. It's basically "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" dusted off, spun through a rinse cycle to try to distance itself from the whole Holocaust PR problem, and run back up the flagpole as an original thought.

The primary proponent of such things here is The Good Face.
   3246. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 26, 2014 at 09:43 PM (#4758237)
Okay. Thanks? I did deduce that it was a derisive term and had something to do with monolithic-ness of thought, but the murky details seemed months old and miles deep and I couldn't bring myself to investigate whether it meant that liberals or conservatives sucked. I wouldn't have gotten H/T, either. Hot Tamale, Harriet Tubman, Human Torch, whatever.
   3247. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:18 PM (#4758247)
That said, I also said that his situation would obviously depend on what the contract says, and if it has some vague language about being fired for bad conduct or whatever, then firing him would, as you suggest, be easy and they can always just pay him off and tell him to take a hike.


I'm not sure it would be so easy to get out of paying him if they were to terminate him. All he said was "Since Sam is gay drafting him would be a distraction to my team and thus I wouldn't draft him even though he deserves a chance." He then issued his clarification. I think you'd be hard pressed to fire him for cause over that, but sure it does depend on what the contract says.

   3248. Lassus Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4758251)
I had no idea it was that large a stupid, I thought it was mostly Good Face's stupid.
   3249. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:47 PM (#4758255)
It's a Good Face thing


Really? Seems like it's a Mouse thing to me. He uses the word endlessly, typing it and then looking around for his high fives.
   3250. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 10:52 PM (#4758260)
There's no news value in it.


Hilarious. Liberals spend their entire existence obsessed over race and then suddenly poke their heads up and ask why the race of the suspects is newsworthy.

Remember how George Zimmerman's race was so non-newsworthy that the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic" to describe him?
   3251. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:05 PM (#4758265)
And I would be shocked if Dungy doesn't have a contract.

I'd be more than shocked. There's no way any analyst employed by a major media organization is not working under a contract.
   3252. Howie Menckel Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:06 PM (#4758266)

correct.
   3253. Lassus Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4758267)
Really? Seems like it's a Mouse thing to me.

In response, as mockery. Granted, fish in a barrel.
   3254. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:22 PM (#4758269)
Remember how George Zimmerman's race was so non-newsworthy that the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic" to describe him?


Not only don't I remember that, I remember seeing "non-Hispanic white" as a choice on scholarship documents two decades ago.
   3255. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 26, 2014 at 11:32 PM (#4758271)
Ray, I realize this will fall on deaf ears, but seriously, the voices in your head by which you build your strawman "liberals" arguments are not, in fact, liberal arguments.
   3256. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 07:50 AM (#4758320)
Headline of Gary Myers's (*) Sunday NFL column in the Daily News:

"St. Louis Rams rookie Michael Sam is not good enough to merit distraction"

From the body:

"Rams coach Jeff Fisher, who has a close relationship with the league office and is the co-chairman of the powerful competition committee, did Roger Goodell a favor by taking Sam with the 249th overall pick, the 34th out of the 41 picks in the seventh and final round. Sam was on the verge of not hearing his name called, which would have been a public-relations nightmare for the NFL. The league would have been accused of being homophobic."

and

"On draft day, I spoke with a former GM, and he said he was concerned Sam would be a distraction and that if he became active in gay issues it would take his attention away from football. “You have to ask yourself is he worth all that risk when he’s not that good a player,” he said. “He is good enough to be drafted and make a roster. Is he worth the residuals? Me, personally? No. I would go onto somebody else with less risk. Teams go to great lengths to keep distractions out of their building.”

(*) Myers plays it as straight as anyone out there and is highly-regarded by virtually everybody.
   3257. Lassus Posted: July 27, 2014 at 08:18 AM (#4758325)
Myers also took the modern liberal position on Ray Rice's suspension, however, so...

I know the list of players was put through awhile back, but has anyone who won the defensive award Sam won NOT been drafted? If not, calling his drafting a favor to anyone seems rather disingenuous.
   3258. BDC Posted: July 27, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4758334)
a former GM, … said he was concerned Sam would be a distraction and that if he became active in gay issues it would take his attention away from football


In what way is this attitude different from "I'm concerned that Jennifer would be a distraction and if she decides to have a kid it would take her attention away from work?"

People who say stuff like this are not horrible bigots or anything, but again, they're trying to have it both ways. "I'm totally about the job. You can be green or purple if you can do the job. But you know, these green or purple people might start spending all their time thinking about kale or eggplant, and then they won't be a good team player. If it was up to me, they should get a 100% shot at the job, but you know, since they're not going to give it 100%, if it was up to me I gotta wonder if it's worth giving them a shot at all."
   3259. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 09:31 AM (#4758336)
Had it been Jadeveon Clowney there's no question he'd have been drafted at or near the top of the draft, as projected.
   3260. Howie Menckel Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4758356)

since I enjoy seeing usually predictable people say unpredictable things:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-will-stuns-chris-wallace-u-s-should-welcome-migrant-children/

"Fox News contributor George Will surprised Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace when he said that the United States should welcome and assimilate migrant children apprehended at the border fleeing violence in Central American countries.

“We ought to say to these children, ‘Welcome to America, you’re going to go to school and get a job and become Americans,’” Will said. “We have 3,141 counties in this country. That would be 20 per county. The idea that we can’t assimilate these eight-year-old criminals with their teddy bears is preposterous.”
   3261. jingoist Posted: July 27, 2014 at 10:55 AM (#4758358)
Gee Dad; it's a Wurlitzer!
   3262. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 27, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4758377)
since I enjoy seeing usually predictable people say unpredictable things:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-will-stuns-chris-wallace-u-s-should-welcome-migrant-children/

"Fox News contributor George Will surprised Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace when he said that the United States should welcome and assimilate migrant children apprehended at the border fleeing violence in Central American countries.

“We ought to say to these children, ‘Welcome to America, you’re going to go to school and get a job and become Americans,’” Will said. “We have 3,141 counties in this country. That would be 20 per county. The idea that we can’t assimilate these eight-year-old criminals with their teddy bears is preposterous.”


You could have knocked me over with a feather, but I'm also glad to see Will talking the language of both common sense and common humanity. And if you watch the entire clip, he makes the equally valid point that if Americans weren't so eager to consume the illegal drugs that are crossing the border, the border problem would be greatly diminished without the need for any draconian measures.
   3263. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 12:21 PM (#4758408)
"The Cathedral" is how the "alternative right," also more and more often referring to themselves as "neoreactionaries" frame the all-powerful controlling mental framework where all "modern liberals" live. "The Cathedral" includes all Democratic and Republican politicians, the media, all the sheeples too stupid to think outside of their marching orders, so on and so forth. Basically anyone who doesn't agree universally with whatever neo-fascist talking point the "alt right" person is spinning at the minute. It's basically "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" dusted off, spun through a rinse cycle to try to distance itself from the whole Holocaust PR problem, and run back up the flagpole as an original thought.

Wherein is demonstrated the Iron Law by which any non-Cathedral sentiment is reduced to fascism, the slayers of Matthew Shepard, the enablers of rape culture, Lester Maddox, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Or some combination thereof.
   3264. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4758410)
Not only don't I remember that, I remember seeing "non-Hispanic white" as a choice on scholarship documents two decades ago.

Then perhaps you can scour the archives and find the post where it was noted that the NYT had used the term a single time, in passing, since at least 1950.

They invented it for the sole purpose of describing George Zimmerman.
   3265. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4758415)
I know the list of players was put through awhile back, but has anyone who won the defensive award Sam won NOT been drafted? If not, calling his drafting a favor to anyone seems rather disingenuous.

http://thebiglead.com/2014/02/10/michael-sam-only-one-other-sec-defensive-player-of-the-year-has-been-drafted-outside-the-first-two-rounds/

To get some sense of the range of outcomes for the “productive” players who won their major conference Defensive Player of the Year awards, I looked back at the last decade in the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, and Pac-10/12. In the SEC, only one player who won the award was selected outside the top 33 picks in the draft–Chad Lavalais of LSU (who won the award in 2003) in the fifth round (pick #148 overall). When we look at all five conferences, here are the results (right).

Of the 54 players, almost three-fourths were selected in the first two rounds of the draft (74.1%). Only three players lasted past the sixth round–all undrafted, and all three were middle linebackers/leaders of defenses. One of those was Mark Herzlich, who dealt with cancer and made a valiant comeback after sitting out an entire season, after winning the award in 2008.
   3266. zenbitz Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4758425)
They Myers thing again doesn't quite ring true.

I *can* actually see Fisher or whomever wasting a 7th rounder to make the NFL seem less bigoted, but if he's really not that good what difference does the "distraction" make?

Just draft the guy, let him compete, and then cut him saying "its a great story, Sam has a lot of heart and courage but he just didn't have the talent to make this team"

By bringing up the "distraction", you are making the decision (indirectly) about his gayness!!!
   3267. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:33 PM (#4758432)
Not only don't I remember that, I remember seeing "non-Hispanic white" as a choice on scholarship documents two decades ago.

Then perhaps you can scour the archives and find the post where it was noted that the NYT had used the term a single time, in passing, since at least 1950.


Moving some goalposts are we? Since the specific claim was that "the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic"" all I need to do to refute this baseless claim is show that the term was in common usage prior to any recent mentions in the notorious librulmedia house organ NYT.

To quote Newcleus, Wiki wiki wiki wiki:

In U.S. census documents, the designation white overlaps, as do all other official racial categories, with the term Hispanic or Latino,


Here's the 2010 census document.. It may be helpful in assessing the concept of the NYT inventing white Hispanics out of whole cloth as part of their Cathedral conspiracy against America.

Jam On It.
   3268. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4758434)
The 2013 co-big 12 defensive player of the year, whose father was a highly successful nfl d-lineman, was not selected in the 2014 nfl draft.
   3269. rr Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4758437)
The info in 3265 (thanks for it--always good to have actual specific info) illustrates that this is, obviously, just a battle of competing narratives, which we can see by the need to guess at motivations. SBB's guy in 3256 is basically saying that Sam was drafted as a PR thing for the league. But looking at the data in 3265, it is also easy enough to suggest that Sam went lower than he should have because he's gay. Sam is apparently a "motor/character" type as a player so he is not a high-round talent, but it is also easy enough to construct a narrative that suggests he would have gone in, say, the 5th round if he were either straight or not openly gay.

Same thing with Dungy. The pro-Dungy crowd is telling us that Dungy is a football legend and a decent man who simply giving an opinion, and then was villified/savaged/strung up by an intolerant media/culture machine. But it is also easy enough to look at Dungy's track record of saying stuff about gays and conclude that he simply couldn't separate his personal views on gays from football when it came to this topic and also couldn't keep his mouth shut when he should have.

And they are telling us that we should listen to Dungy instead of Jeff Fisher because of Dungy's W/L record, but while no one is saying Dungy wasn't a good coach, he did have Peyton Manning his whole career in Indy. The Colts went 14-2 (losing the SB) the first year post-Dungy, and then went 10-6. It was in 2011, when Manning didn't play, that the team cratered, going 2-14 under Dungy's replacement, Jim Caldwell. And, of course, Manning's new team, Denver, has gone 13-3 both years he has been there and last year made it to the SB.

Dungy was 46-34 in Tampa Bay, a .575 percentage, and was 2-4 in playoff games (He went 7-6 in playoff games with Manning at QB) with no conference titles. Fisher was at .542 in Houston/Tennessee and 5-6 in playoff games, with one conference title. Tampa Bay was 9-7 in Dungy's last year there, 2001. The 2002 Tampa Bay team, under Jon Gruden, won the Super Bowl. Fisher is 14-17-1 in St.Louis, but the team was 2-14, 7-9, 1-15, 2-14, and 3-13 in the years before he got there. So, I don't see this as being enough evidence to say that Dungy is on a totally different level than Jeff Fisher as an NFL coach in deciding about distractions, particularly when Dungy has been out of football for five years, unless your argument is "count the ring."

Finally, of course, there is the issue of what "distraction" means, and while we can again construct competing narratives, we can't really measure it. If the Rams cut Sam and go 10-6, will people argue that they would have gone 8-8 with him around and distracting them? If they keep him and go 7-9 again, will people have a metric that shows he stopped the team from improving? Football is very different than baseball, obviously (ask George Carlin) so "chemistry" is a different thing in that context, but again it will be about creating narratives.


   3270. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4758439)
Moving some goalposts are we? Since the specific claim was that "the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic"" so all I need to do to refute this baseless claim is show that the term was in common usage prior to any recent mentions in the notorious librulmedia house organ NYT.

He didn't move any goalposts. The phrase "white Hispanic" wasn't in wide use before the Zimmerman case, and, as noted, had only been used by the Times something like one time in the prior 50 years.

Had Zimmerman won an Academy Award or a Pulitzer, he would have been described by the media as Hispanic and Hispanic alone.
   3271. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4758441)
I'm not signing onto the pr stunt idea (although Gary Myers' sources would know better than I). I think Sam went right about where he should have within the normal deviations of this inexact science.
   3272. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4758446)

I don't follow the NFL at all, but wasn't Sam considered to be roughly a fifth-round pick before he came out, and before a reportedly underwhelming NFL Combine performance?
   3273. Howie Menckel Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4758447)

bought a pack of Score football cards today. let's see... Jordy Nelson, Calvin Johnson, Case Keenum, Levine Toilolo (who?).... huh, Michael Sam.

bidding starts at a buck! actually, seeing it offered on Amazon from 75 cents to $3.99. mine is in mint condition

fyi, I bought a pack last year that had the Redskins' - er, Washington's - 7th rounder, I think a RB from Rutgers. These sets nowadays seem to have 1,000 or more cards counting all the variations like "Hot 100" or "Brothers in Arms" or "Destination End Zone" and so forth....
   3274. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4758448)
He didn't move any goalposts.


He certainly did. The very specific claim was, "the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic"". This is, of course, completely, totally, and inarguably incorrect, as the term was widely used in census documents and other official government records, such as the scholarship forms I filled out identifying me as "non-Hispanic white" in the 1990s. Defending the original dishonesty with additional dishonesty of your own is quite dishonest. You should be thanking me for correcting an obvious inaccuracy.

But here, let's give you a chance to redeem yourself. Did the NY Times invent the term, "white Hispanic" as alleged in 3250?
   3275. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 27, 2014 at 02:04 PM (#4758453)
He certainly did. The very specific claim was, "the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic"".

BBTF pedantry. Boring.

This is, of course, completely, totally, and inarguably incorrect, as the term was widely used in census documents and other official government records, such as the scholarship forms I filled out identifying me as "non-Hispanic white" in the 1990s. Defending the original dishonesty with additional dishonesty of your own is quite dishonest. You should be thanking me for correcting an obvious inaccuracy.

But here, let's give you a chance to redeem yourself. Did the NY Times invent the term, "white Hispanic" as alleged in 3250?

The discussion was re: the usage of the phrase "white Hispanic," not "non-Hispanic white." Why do you keep bringing up the latter? That "non-Hispanic white" has been used for decades on Census forms tells us nothing about the usage of the phrase "white Hispanic." The Times might not have literally invented the phrase — who knows who used it first, but the Times did use the phrase once or twice in the decades before the Zimmerman case — but the phrase certainly wasn't in common use by media outlets prior to Zimmerman.

By the way, the phrase "white Hispanic" doesn't appear a single time in the 2010 Census link you provided in #3267, which you stridently posted as a rebuttal to SBB's claim.
   3276. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 27, 2014 at 02:23 PM (#4758460)
. . . all I need to do to refute this baseless claim is show that the term was in common usage prior to any recent mentions in the notorious librulmedia house organ NYT.

Uh, no. Hispanic is a "national origin" term, not a racial designation. You can easily find Hispanics who also identify as White or Black. However, it was NOT the practice of the New York Times, or any other media of which I am aware, to identify light-skinned Hispanics as "White Hispanics" until they decided to apply such terminology to George Zimmerman. Pretending otherwise is disingenuous.
   3277. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4758462)
Crank up the calliope!

BBTF pedantry. Boring.


Boring pedantics!

That "non-Hispanic white" has been used for decades on Census forms tells us nothing about the usage of the phrase "white Hispanic."


Can there be a non-Hispanic white without a Hispanic white? Pedantry indeed.

By the way, the phrase "white Hispanic" doesn't appear a single time in the 2010 Census link you provided


More boring pedantry from the man in the large floppy shoes. In the actual census document I so helpfully provided as part of my effort to correct falsehoods such as those claimed in 3250, please note that Sections 5 & 6 specifically create the designation of "white Hispanic". Really now, there's boring pedantry and the there's your boring dishonest pedantry.

As noted by the census bureau:

The White alone-or-in-combination population increased by 7 percent, from 216.9 million in 2000 to 231.0 million in 2010. Most of this growth was a result of the increase in the White Hispanic population
. Table 1 let you look at some of the relevant data for white Hispanic/Latino.

Tsk tsk, not your best performance in a Cathedral-related conspiracy thread.
   3278. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4758463)
However, it was NOT the practice of the New York Times, or any other media of which I am aware, to identify light-skinned Hispanics as "White Hispanics" until they decided to apply such terminology to George Zimmerman.


Did the NYT invent the term as asserted without equivocation earlier in this very thread, or not? A simple "Si" or "No" should suffice, amigo.
   3279. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4758464)
There was literally nothing of cultural note or newsworthiness to the question of whether George Zimmerman was a "white Hispanic" or non-white Hispanic. The term was -- self-evidently -- invented to cast a "white people bad" racial tinge on the narrative of the case.

It was a paradigmatically textbook case of unspoken and unquestioned assumptions and using language as a weapon of deceit. You'll be hard pressed to ever find a better one. It's more probative of our culture than the actual events -- by orders of magnitude.
   3280. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4758465)
Can there be a non-Hispanic white without a Hispanic white?

Yes, of course there can.(*) I'm a non-Hispanic white. I'm also a non-Nepalese white, a non-Afghani white, a non-green white, and a non-red white.

(*) Which isn't the real question anyway, which is can there be a non-Hispanic white without a "white Hispanic" and of course there can be, and there was.
   3281. bobm Posted: July 27, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4758477)
   3282. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 27, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4758489)

I don't know what YR is trying to pull here, but the phrase "white Hispanic" appears zero times in the link he posted in #3267, and it appears just twice in the new link he posted in #3277.
   3283. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 27, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4758497)
What is interesting about the New York Times election model linked in # 3281:
Today, we update all 36 races, based on estimates from a YouGov online panel that covers every congressional and gubernatorial race across the country. The panel, conducted as part of a collaboration with CBS and The New York Times, is unusual in its scope: It includes more than 66,000 people living in a state with a Senate race this year. YouGov also conducted online interviews with roughly half of the panelists in previous years, allowing the polling firm to know how they have voted in the past.

A little different from traditional polling data, although I don't believe there is enough of a track record to indicate whether it is more or less accurate.
   3284. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 05:09 PM (#4758566)
The info in 3265 (thanks for it--always good to have actual specific info) illustrates that this is, obviously, just a battle of competing narratives, which we can see by the need to guess at motivations. SBB's guy in 3256 is basically saying that Sam was drafted as a PR thing for the league. But looking at the data in 3265, it is also easy enough to suggest that Sam went lower than he should have because he's gay. Sam is apparently a "motor/character" type as a player so he is not a high-round talent, but it is also easy enough to construct a narrative that suggests he would have gone in, say, the 5th round if he were either straight or not openly gay.


I'm not qualified to judge NLF draftees myself but can you point to some NFL "experts" in the media (Mel Kiper, Chris Mortensen, Peter King, whoever) who have said that Sam should have been a top draft talent? Because I've seen exactly zero such people, which is not to say that they don't exist but if they do please point to them.

But even you're saying maybe 5th round instead of 7th round, which is still a low round talent. So I don't really see what your point is. He should have gone 175th instead of 249th, so, bigotry?

I've never said that drafting him was a stunt, though; I said he is a low round talent at best which could mean either in (legitimately) or out.

Same thing with Dungy. The pro-Dungy crowd is telling us that Dungy is a football legend and a decent man who simply giving an opinion, and then was villified/savaged/strung up by an intolerant media/culture machine. But it is also easy enough to look at Dungy's track record of saying stuff about gays and conclude that he simply couldn't separate his personal views on gays from football when it came to this topic and also couldn't keep his mouth shut when he should have.


The fact that there has to be an "anti-Dungy crowd" because he said he wouldn't draft Sam because it would be a distraction is a sad state of affairs. But I'm not rendering any opinion on whether Dungy is a "football legend" or a "decent man who is simply giving an opinion." I'm rendering an opinion merely on the opinion. And the fact that such a benign opinion resulted in an attack of the man by the raving loons is telling of the raving loons.

And they are telling us that we should listen to Dungy instead of Jeff Fisher because of Dungy's W/L record, but while no one is saying Dungy wasn't a good coach, he did have Peyton Manning his whole career in Indy. The Colts went 14-2 (losing the SB) the first year post-Dungy, and then went 10-6. It was in 2011, when Manning didn't play, that the team cratered, going 2-14 under Dungy's replacement, Jim Caldwell. And, of course, Manning's new team, Denver, has gone 13-3 both years he has been there and last year made it to the SB.

Dungy was 46-34 in Tampa Bay, a .575 percentage, and was 2-4 in playoff games (He went 7-6 in playoff games with Manning at QB) with no conference titles. Fisher was at .542 in Houston/Tennessee and 5-6 in playoff games, with one conference title. Tampa Bay was 9-7 in Dungy's last year there, 2001. The 2002 Tampa Bay team, under Jon Gruden, won the Super Bowl. Fisher is 14-17-1 in St.Louis, but the team was 2-14, 7-9, 1-15, 2-14, and 3-13 in the years before he got there. So, I don't see this as being enough evidence to say that Dungy is on a totally different level than Jeff Fisher as an NFL coach in deciding about distractions, particularly when Dungy has been out of football for five years, unless your argument is "count the ring."


You can put as much lipstick as you want on Fisher's coaching record, and sling as much poo onto Dungy's as you feel you can. No amount of that silliness will bring Fisher into Dungy's league as a head coach.
   3285. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 27, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4758583)
He certainly did. The very specific claim was, "the NY Times invented the term "white Hispanic"". This is, of course, completely, totally, and inarguably incorrect, as the term was widely used in census documents and other official government records, such as the scholarship forms I filled out identifying me as "non-Hispanic white" in the 1990s. Defending the original dishonesty with additional dishonesty of your own is quite dishonest. You should be thanking me for correcting an obvious inaccuracy.


Lofl on this. The point, your hyper-literal interpretation of my casual usage of "invented" aside, was that the term "white Hispanic" was not in general media practice until the non-liberally-biased NYT went out of its way to use the term to describe Zimmerman.
   3286. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: July 27, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4758592)
You can put as much lipstick as you want on Fisher's coaching record, and sling as much poo onto Dungy's as you feel you can. No amount of that silliness will bring Fisher into Dungy's league as a head coach.

Dungy was a great DC at 28. He likely would have been an HC years earlier if not for his race. Tampa was dreadful for 20 years before he got the job and he turned them around in five seconds.

He's a super-elite coach. Fisher is good, maybe even very good. He's not Dungy.

None of this really matters, anyway. The Fisher Thing is a complete sideshow, for the reasons Ray noted.
   3287. BDC Posted: July 27, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4758660)
I dunno, if we adopted the terms "white Hispanic" and "black Hispanic" it might stave off the first 48 comments of every "where are all the African-American players" thread, where people ask what about David Ortiz and Yasiel Puig :)
   3288. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 27, 2014 at 06:47 PM (#4758663)

Insisting that a particular Dominican is "black" is a good way to get punched. Dominicans are notorious for using any word except "black" on the D.R. census.
   3289. Lassus Posted: July 27, 2014 at 08:21 PM (#4758737)
"There have been two huge game changers. One is Putin's behavior vis-à-vis first Crimea and now toward Ukraine…and the other is what is happening in the Middle East, a lot of it due to the Arab awakening and the artificiality of the borders established after World War I. …So there are an awful lot of things going on that need understanding and explaining. But to put it mildly, the world is a mess."

- BTF fave Madeline Albright in conversation with Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer.

And how.
   3290. Mefisto Posted: July 27, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4758746)
I disagree that "the world is a mess". It's more stable now than it has been at pretty much any time since 1913. Her comment about "artificial" borders is also odd. Iraq has had the same borders for 90 years. That's longer than Germany or Poland or Czech Republic or Austria or Russia or lots of other countries, much longer in fact. How long do borders have to exist for them to be not "artificial"? I'm putting aside the fact that the diplomats who drew those borders actually did pay attention to existing politics and administrative boundaries.
   3291. rr Posted: July 27, 2014 at 09:07 PM (#4758758)
No amount of that silliness will bring Fisher into Dungy's league as a head coach.

None of this really matters, anyway. The Fisher Thing is a complete sideshow, for the reasons Ray noted.


I listed a lengthy set of facts about the records of the two guys and the context thereof. You are basically arguing that Dungy knows more about what's good for the 2014 Rams than Fisher does because Dungy coached some awesome teams ten years ago and won the SB once. So, the answers I get back use words and phrases like "slinging poo" "sideshow" "lipstick" and "turned them around in five seconds", and neither of you even acknowledged the 64,964 career passing-yard elephant in the room: Peyton Manning. Did Dungy help the Colts? Sure. They went from 6-10 to 10-6 the first year under him, but the improvement was almost entirely on D. Manning and Tom Moore took care of the O, and that was pretty much acknowledged by people observing the league at the time. SBB is correct that TB was much more successful under Dungy than under other coaches, although it took him a couple of years, not five seconds. Did Dungy have a great career? Sure. But both teams Dungy left immediately went to the Super Bowl without him.

And even so, I was able to acknowledge that this is a question of competing narratives. I think mine's better, and talking about "slinging poo" isn't likely to change my mind.

The fact that there has to be an "anti-Dungy crowd" because he said he wouldn't draft Sam because it would be a distraction is a sad state of affairs.


Dungy has made the call, multiple times, to go public with his views on gays. That is going to affect how people respond to him on this. You may not like that, you may not think it's fair, you may find it upsetting, but it comes in large part from his own choices. People are going to criticize things that they don't like, sometimes very harshly.

I'm rendering an opinion merely on the opinion. And the fact that such a benign opinion resulted in an attack of the man by the raving loons is telling of the raving loons.


If you see a raving loon in the morning, you saw a raving loon. If you see raving loons all day...


   3292. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 28, 2014 at 12:59 AM (#4758823)
   3293. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:10 AM (#4758824)
CNN Poll: Romney Would Beat Obama In 2012 Re-Run, 53%-44%.


Unfortunately for team Romney Mitt can't run on a "remember how much you like me when you don't actually hear me talk about policies and positions?" platform.
   3294. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 28, 2014 at 01:15 AM (#4758825)
Her comment about "artificial" borders is also odd. Iraq has had the same borders for 90 years. That's longer than Germany or Poland or Czech Republic or Austria or Russia or lots of other countries, much longer in fact. How long do borders have to exist for them to be not "artificial"?


Borders imposed from afar, by distant powers with no relation to the land, the peoples or the history of the territory, are artificial. They can be maintained for centuries by imperial dictate and still be fundamentally artificial. Borders established by natural boundaries and the identifications of people living in the territory itself and their histories are natural.

The vast majority of international borders (and state borders in the US) are artificial. It's absolutely no surprise whatsoever that the slicing up of the Middle East by WWI era Great Powers is unwinding. Those states had no relation to the peoples of the territory or the history of the region, and once the imperial occupation ends (which is what the US destruction of Hussein followed by a withdrawal without setting up another puppet type regime amounts to - the exist of the Anglosphere empire from Mesopotamia for the first time in 100 years) water will seek it's own level.
   3295. Dr. Vaux Posted: July 28, 2014 at 03:39 AM (#4758837)
Well, they did colonize the place, which is a type of relationship. But honestly, people need to get along. The fact that the borders were drawn by someone else doesn't make it any more acceptable to kill people because of their religion or ethnicity. The idea that terrorism is among people living in the middle east is somehow defensible in any way under any circumstances is symptomatic of the worst kind of Western superiority complex in the guise of a guilt complex. "We hurt them, so it's understandable that they're lashing out, poor darlings."
   3296. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 28, 2014 at 06:14 AM (#4758845)
CNN Poll: Romney Would Beat Obama In 2012 Re-Run, 53%-44%.

Somehow I don't think YC will post any of these RCP poll averages:

Clinton +9.5 over Christie
Clinton +9.6 over Huckabee
Clinton +9.0 over Paul
Clinton +10.0 over Bush
Clinton +6.7 over Ryan
Clinton +13.8 over Kehoskie Cruz
Clinton +11.5 over Rubio


   3297. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4758874)
Borders imposed from afar, by distant powers with no relation to the land, the peoples or the history of the territory, are artificial. They can be maintained for centuries by imperial dictate and still be fundamentally artificial. Borders established by natural boundaries and the identifications of people living in the territory itself and their histories are natural.


That's why the Crimea thing is so overblown. yes Putin is a lawless thug, and should be spanked whenever practical. But the Crimea as park of Ukraine was just as artificial. Maybe the peninsula was part of Kievan Rus 1000 years ago, but ever since the Mongol invasion, it wasn't, until some Soviet apparatchnik in the 50's deemed it convenient to place it within the administrative borders of the Ukraine SSR. Ethnic Ukrainians were a decided ethnic minority, and the country had no historical ties to the place.
   3298. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:34 AM (#4758880)
Romney Would Beat Obama In 2012 Re-Run, 53%-44%

Well hell, if we're getting in the time machine, Humphrey has a great shot at beating Nixon, and the Colts can probably beat the Jets while we're at it.
   3299. Ron J2 Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:35 AM (#4758883)
#3195 Evidence of the way things have changed. Color me doubtful that these days a scout would put on the record that he dinged a prospect 5 points in his evaluation because he didn't like the kid's hair. (As actually happened with Harold Baines)
   3300. BDC Posted: July 28, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4758887)
One of the recurring catchphrases in Eliot Asinof's Man on Spikes is that managers wouldn't promote players if they didn't like the way they "parted their hair."
Page 33 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Economist: The new market inefficiencies
(19 - 2:21am, Oct 01)
Last: David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(14 - 2:17am, Oct 01)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogSpector: Stats incredible! Numbers from the 2014 MLB season will amaze you
(33 - 2:11am, Oct 01)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(4079 - 2:01am, Oct 01)
Last: Joey Bot

NewsblogAL WILD CARD GAME 2014 OMNICHATTER
(1121 - 1:58am, Oct 01)
Last: Textbook Editor

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Ballot
(13 - 1:55am, Oct 01)
Last: neilsen

NewsblogWSJ: Playoff Hateability Index
(15 - 1:45am, Oct 01)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogBrown: Winners And Losers: MLB Attendance In 2014, Nearly 74 Million Through The Gate
(33 - 11:27pm, Sep 30)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogMLB’s Biggest Star Is 40 (And He Just Retired). That Could Be A Problem.
(76 - 11:27pm, Sep 30)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8172 - 11:26pm, Sep 30)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogESPN: Ron Gardenhire out after 13 Seasons with Twins
(42 - 10:49pm, Sep 30)
Last: The District Attorney

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Discussion
(6 - 10:35pm, Sep 30)
Last: MrC

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(110 - 10:25pm, Sep 30)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(455 - 10:08pm, Sep 30)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-30-2014
(19 - 7:51pm, Sep 30)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

Page rendered in 0.6468 seconds
53 querie(s) executed