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

Thursday, February 28, 2013

[OTP - March] Scott wants money for spring training teams

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Tripon Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM | 2909 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, florida, ot, politics, spring training

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 13 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›
   1201. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 11:55 AM (#4391230)
floom!
   1202. Chicago Joe Posted: March 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4391231)
...adding to that -- we ought to keep in mind that you can find no shortage of legal scholars who would call the "right to privacy" -- SO-CALLED.... including a prominent and obnoxious SCOTUS justice.



Bitter Mouse responded:
I would campaign and donate money towards an actual privacy amendment. To help deal with the changing technology. I suspect I am in a minority on that one though.
   1203. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4391232)
Free at last! Free at last!
   1204. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4391236)
I have a bombay and a tiger, and they both meow pretty damn good
for either food or their overwhelming desire to go outside for
five minutes to determine that it's too damned cold to be outside.


Not exactly sure why, but the 2 cats I've got now (3 till Howie died in November) are the only ones I've made 100 percent
indoor cats after having dozens of cats over dozens of years. (A couple of times now, most recently this past weekend,
Bucky has gotten out for a couple of days, only to turn up in the backyard.)

I guess I've gotten more insecure about such things as I've gotten older, because otherwise the
neighborhood where I live now isn't much more heavily trafficked than my old one in North Little Rock, where I never had a
problem letting previous cats roam free whenever they felt like it.
   1205. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 11:57 AM (#4391237)
Even though I agree with a lot of what Andy says in general, and
disagree with almost everything of what Ray says in general, I would still
like to high-five Ray on a damned reasonable post.

I have a bombay and a tiger, and they both meow pretty damn good
for either food or their overwhelming desire to go outside for
five minutes to determine that it's too damned cold to be outside.

   1206. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 11:58 AM (#4391239)
Bitter Mouse responded:


Because there is some truth to what the noxious one's say and I would like it made explicit.
   1207. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4391240)
Andy, sigh, what is your complaint? Part of this goes back to some of us saying that Obamacare is unconstitutional. But I'm simply lost as to what your complaint is. Is it illegitimate to disagree with court decisions?

Of course not. It's the hyperbolic rhetoric about the Constitution being "dead" that I find to be ridiculous, unless you want to say that it's never been alive at any point in history. As Slivers asks above, if it's "dead" today, then when was it ever "alive"? During slavery? During the Jim Crow era? During Watergate? When?

1) Have you never disagreed with a court decision?
2) Have you never disagreed with a decision of the Supreme Court? (Did you disagree with, e.g., Bowers v. Hardwick? I would be shocked if you did not.)
3) But court decisions can't always be correct, by definition, because they get overturned by higher courts, and the Supreme Court later overturns itself.


Whether or not you or I or anyone agrees with this or that Supreme Court decision is completely irrelevant. Our opinions (or at least our surrogates' opinions) may inform the debate, but as far as the law goes, they don't decide it. Only the Supreme Court does that, and failing a Constitutional amendment only the Supreme Court can "correct" itself.

So what is your complaint? It can't be that Court decisions are always right. But you seem to be taking issue with those who think various portions of Obama's agenda are unconstitutional even if upheld by the Supreme Court, which means that you are taking issue with those who disagree with Court decisions you believe are correct. So we're left with: every Court decision Andy agrees with is correct, and anyone who disagrees with such a Court decision is a non-serious person who is seancing with the Founding Fathers. So the Constitution is whatever Andy says it is, but not whatever Cold says it is.

Sorry, but neither you nor I nor Cold get to decide what's "Constitutional". You're just barking up a tree when you spout gibberish like that.

And again, you or I or Cold are welcome to our opinions on what's "Constitutional" and what isn't. But when you or anyone starts saying that the Constitution is "dead" because of this or that decision, I start looking for the propellers on your beanie.
   1208. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4391241)
Some thoughts:

1. The Constitution exists in an essentially quantum state. There is the state of "what whomever is reading it thinks it means as filtered via their principles." Then there is the state of "whatever the governing ruling of this particular instance of the Supreme Court and various other lower courts have decreed." Those are the only two known states of the Constitution. Both are fundamentally dependent on how it is currently being read and interpreted by whatever readership is talking (the person debating the 'Constitutional principles' or the SCOTUS in a given decision.) There is no "truth" outside of how the text is being read. I'm sorry if that offends folks who want to treat it as a pseudo-religious text.

2. A major part of the problem with applying the Constitution to modern conditions, such as GPS tracking on cars, is that the document has not been updated properly to track with modernity. This goes back to the notion that it's some sort of semi-religious scripture, handed down by Great Men Of History, our Holy and Revered Founding Fathers, and not a simple legal document that could and should be modified and updated to suit the times. Which also comes down to this childish fascination with "principles" that a lot of folks like to write onto history, rather than leave in the back corners of their little primate brains.

3. I felt slightly bad for ignoring Rants, but I'll pull him off the bad list when we flip to page 13.
   1209. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM (#4391245)
Oh, to something I think Andy is trying to get at, in his round-about, rambling, incoherent old man way:

The "Constitution" is not dead. It's just being applied to white men the same way it's been traditionally applied to everyone else, and suddenly that's a problem with white men.
   1210. Steve Treder Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:05 PM (#4391248)
You have to commend the authors of this report for some refreshing self-awareness:

“When Republicans lost in November, it was a wake-up call. And in response I initiated the most public and most comprehensive post-election review in the history of any national party,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said, as he presented the 100-page “Growth and Opportunity Project” report at the National Press Club in D.C. Monday. “As it makes clear, there’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; our primary and debate process needed improvement.”


But what was much more familiar was the way the report was immediately blasted by many of the hardcore, and then Priebus himself quickly distanced himself from it. The GOP remains a slow-motion trainwreck.
   1211. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4391250)
The eldest cat in my house would go hunting. He would find something (usually a sock or something from the laundry room in the basement) and "kill it" and carry it upstairs to be left in the hallway as a trophy. the entire way he makes this very loud warbling sound announcing his triumph in hunting.


I'm not sure that's a triumphant sound, it's an "I've got something" sound. My cat picks up her floofy ball or her stuffed mouse and makes that noise (every night, at bedtime), then comes into my bedroom and looks for a pile of clothes (if there is no pile, she complains until I make one), then 'kneads' the pile purring all the time, after which she deposits her find on the pile. I think it's nesting behavior -- perhaps the stuffed toy is a substitute kitten?
   1212. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4391251)
One big thing missing in the calculus is technology -- the means to observe, track, and snoop have exploded in recent years.

Now... I think a good point from Andy -- that same technology has always made it more difficult for the government to ACT upon that observation, tracking, and snooping -- i.e., it's ability to "know WHAT you're doing" has not correlated with its pragmatic ability to do something about it (whether with good reason or not, for better or worse).


I actually acknowledged that very point about the threat of our new technology to privacy in a draft of one of my previous posts, but somehow screwed up and edited it out. In any case, I don't disagree with it, or with the corollary point you make about technology's advantages. I'd only add that the same points on a different level (and scale) could be directed towards the private sector in its insatiable quest to learn what our "consumer preferences" are. So far I've found that to be more annoying than sinister, but then maybe I've just been lucky so far.
   1213. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:08 PM (#4391254)
I think it's nesting behavior -- perhaps the stuffed toy is a substitute kitten?


House pets behave differently than wild animals. This is why they're house pets, and why your cats and dogs don't kill and eat you.
   1214. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM (#4391256)
I am seriously beginning to think Steubenville will need to be nuked from orbit, just to be sure.

Two Steubenville Girls Arrested For Threatening Rape Victim
   1215. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM (#4391258)
I am seriously beginning to think Steubenville will need to be nuked from orbit, just to be sure.


If I get walking-black out drunk, drive and kill a family of four, am I not responsible for those actions if I can't remember them later?
   1216. Ron J2 Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:13 PM (#4391262)
#1208 And it's worth noting that Jefferson -- who was very clearly one of the central Holy and Revered Founding Fathers -- was absolutely clear that it was nuts to think of the constitution of something that was to be set in stone.

EG:

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself."

"We must be contented to travel on towards perfection, step by step. We must be contented with the ground which [the new] Constitution will gain for us, and hope that a favorable moment will come for correcting what is amiss in it."

"Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is defective. This is the ordinary case of all human works. Let us then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still wanting."

"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications."

"Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. "

   1217. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4391264)
Andy, I'm still unclear as to what your point is. You've said that only the Supreme Court gets to decide what is constitutional, and not you or me or Cold. Well, no sheit. I don't think anyone here was under the impression that what they wrote on BBTF had the force of law.

As to "the Constitution is dead," to me when someone writes that it's simply an observation that the current justices are ignoring the Constitution and issuing more than their fair share of bad opinions (or maybe just one massive bad one), which are doubly bad because they not only operate to interpret current law but also establish precedent. I wouldn't get all worked up about the statement. I do agree with you that all through history the Court has made mistakes, and major ones, in various directions. It always seems worse at the time and when the mistakes are going against what one believes is correct. It wasn't my statement so I wouldn't use it (*), but it's not anything to get all worked up over.

(*) I would have said "Freedom is dead." Or dying. (Nyah, nyah.)
   1218. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM (#4391265)
If I get walking-black out drunk, drive and kill a family of four, am I not responsible for those actions if I can't remember them later?

So... if someone gets walking-black out drunk and run over by a car while walking on the sidewalk, they are responsible for being run over?

Be less cryptic, if you could. The girl is responsible for being raped because she was drunk? Did you see the pictures of her passed-out, immobile state? She wasn't walking.
   1219. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:18 PM (#4391268)
You have to commend the authors of this report for some refreshing self-awareness:


Translation: Steve agrees with the report.

“When Republicans lost in November, it was a wake-up call. And in response I initiated the most public and most comprehensive post-election review in the history of any national party,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said, as he presented the 100-page “Growth and Opportunity Project” report at the National Press Club in D.C. Monday. “As it makes clear, there’s no one reason we lost. Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren’t inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; our primary and debate process needed improvement.”


A bunch of empty vague conclusions with no substance. I trust the actual report is more specific (and contains a hefty dose of GOP-bashing and racism accusations - otherwise you wouldn't have cited it or gotten moist by doing so).
   1220. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4391270)
Be less cryptic, if you could. The girl is responsible for being raped because she was drunk? Did you see the pictures of her passed-out, immobile state? She wasn't walking.


1. No, I haven't seen any pictures. I am intentionally not following the story with any great degree of interest.
2. No, she's not responsible for anything done *to* her while incapaciated.
3. Yes, she is responsible for putting herself in a situation where she was blacked out drunk.
4. I phrased my question specifically to avoid the irrationality and hysteria that all to often adjoins discussions of rape.
   1221. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4391272)
If I get walking-black out drunk, drive and kill a family of four, am I not responsible for those actions if I can't remember them later?

Either my sarcasm detector is broken or I am not getting this. Are you equating getting into your car and driving after consuming alcohol with being raped while drunk? So any drunk person renounces consent and may be set upon by any member of society for sexual pleasure because it's their fault they drank? Have you read the testimony from the trial at all?

"On Friday, Mark Cole, a teammate of Mays and Richmond, granted immunity for his testimony, said he recorded a video of Mays performing a sex act on the girl while she was passed out during a car ride between houses in Steubenville the night of the party, but he deleted the footage the next morning."
   1222. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:20 PM (#4391273)
Andy, I'm still unclear as to what your point is.

His point is essentially what it always is -- blacks have more rights now than in 1963, therefore by definition and ipso facto civil liberties can't be on the wane.
   1223. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4391275)
Either my sarcasm detector is broken or I am not getting this. Are you equating getting into your car and driving after consuming alcohol with being raped while drunk? So any drunk person renounces consent and may be set upon by any member of society for sexual pleasure because it's their fault they drank? Have you read the testimony from the trial at all?


See also @1220.
   1224. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:24 PM (#4391278)
His point is essentially what it always is -- blacks have more rights now than in 1963, therefore by definition and ipso facto civil liberties can't be on the wane.


If your civil liberties are infringed by 1%, but the civil liberties of a million other people are increased by 2%, then no, civil liberties are not "on the wane."
   1225. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:28 PM (#4391280)
Remember, for a libertarian "liberty" refers ever and only to themselves alone.
   1226. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4391281)

His point is essentially what it always is -- blacks have more rights now than in 1963, therefore by definition and ipso facto civil liberties can't be on the wane.


Exactly. I'm not trying to minimize in any way the impact of the culture and practice of segregation, but I think the situation of having a minority group being the victim of legislated discrimination, confined to a few southern states, with today's situation in which the Feds have explicitly stated that they are reserving the right to detain and kill any American they please, anywhere in the world, without charge or trial, is different by orders of magnitude.
   1227. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4391282)
Sam, having read - more than once - #1220, I still cannot determine either how it applies to, or the overall point of, your hypothetical in #1215 (especially as a response to #1214).
   1228. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4391284)
The Republican 'Crisis': It is sort of interesting that Republicans leaders are so intently listening to basically what amounts to pundits on the right, (Palin, Ginrich, et al.) If the Democracts were facing a similar issue from attacks of their left flanks, they'd just laugh it off and do whatever they want to do.

The Republican donor class is telling you need to change, and it seems like the party is is just digging in its heels.
   1229. Steve Treder Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4391287)
The Republican donor class is telling you need to change, and it seems like the party is is just digging in its heels.

Yes, and the fight between Rove (representing the donor class) and Palin (representing the Teapers) is quite public.
   1230. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4391294)
Sam, having read - more than once - #1220, I still cannot determine either how it applies to, or the overall point of, your hypothetical in #1215 (especially as a response to #1214).


Okay, let me change the hypo. If I get black out drunk and fall down in a crosswalk, how much responsibility do I have for any injuries incurred from being hit by an on-coming car?
   1231. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4391301)
If I get black out drunk and fall down in a crosswalk, how much responsibility do I have for any injuries incurred from being hit by an on-coming car?


Did the oncoming car's driver specifically target you & then hit you just for funsies?
   1232. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4391302)
Peter Schiff is a useless hack.
   1233. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4391304)
Cars are required to stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, regardless of sobriety.
   1234. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4391305)
Okay, let me change the hypo. If I get black out drunk and fall down in a crosswalk, how much responsibility do I have for any injuries incurred from being hit by an on-coming car?

A valid question, just not in refernce to this event. Cars drive on roads. It is the absolute default of a road, and the crosswalk is an accepted and limited exception to the default.

Unless your point is that the absolute default for an Ohio high school party is rape of unconscious girls, I still am not understanding the point of your hypothetical.
   1235. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4391307)
Unless your point is that the absolute default for an Ohio high school party is rape of unconscious girls, I still am not understanding the point of your hypothetical.


Because you're too wrapped up in the outrage du jour.
   1236. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4391309)
Did the oncoming car's driver specifically target you & then hit you just for funsies?


Don't know. I was passed out in the crosswalk. Maybe there's some bystanders with video that can be used in a court proceeding to establish this. That's not my question.
   1237. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4391310)
Okay, let me change the hypo. If I get black out drunk and fall down in a crosswalk, how much responsibility do I have for any injuries incurred from being hit by an on-coming car?


Legal responsibility? Moral? Other?
   1238. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4391313)
look, let's try it this way. You are only allowed to f**k people if they consent to it. When they are passed out on the ground, they are incapable of consent, even if maybe they consented earlier. So you can't f**k people when they are unconscious or semi-conscious, regardless of if it's from booze or diabetic shock.
   1239. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:56 PM (#4391319)
Don't know. I was passed out in the crosswalk. Maybe there's some bystanders with video that can be used in a court proceeding to establish this. That's not my question.


That's the thing. The situations simply aren't analogous. Video (or whatever other evidence) is needed to determine whether you were struck deliberately while passed out drunk in a crosswalk.

If the act is sexual intercourse rather than being hit by a car, is there any way the former happened without deliberate action on the part of the actor?
   1240. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4391320)
Responsbility is not zero sum - all responsbility is not equal. If someone accepts responsibility for consequences that happen based on an action, that does not reduce the responsbility that another actor has, especially when acting illegally.

This seems to trip up folks all the time. I believe in personal responsibility. That does nothing to limit the responsbility society has towards each individual. Getting falling down drunk and passing out in public is irresponsible, but that in no way changes the responsibility of anyone who breaks the law and takes advantage of that person.

Similarly a person has a certain responsbility to be a functioning adult in society, take care of ones dependants and so on, but that does not limit societies responsbility to care for the less well off, see after the welfare of those same dependants and so on. One respnsibility does not limit the other.

There is not a "100% responsibility" total that we have to hit where adding "more" responsbility in one place reduces it in another.
   1241. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4391321)
look, let's try it this way. You are only allowed to f**k people if they consent to it. When they are passed out on the ground, they are incapable of consent, even if maybe they consented earlier. So you can't f**k people when they are unconscious or semi-conscious, regardless of if it's from booze or diabetic shock


A position that no one has suggested otherwise. Can we move along from the distraction now?
   1242. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4391322)
Don't know. I was passed out in the crosswalk. Maybe there's some bystanders with video that can be used in a court proceeding to establish this. That's not my question.

You are conflating a deliberate act, with what is essentially an accident. A better analogy would be if you passed out on the sidewalk, and a driver saw you there, stopped, got out of his car, and curbstomped your ass.

In which case, you should not have put yourself in that position, but that in no way absolves the guy from curbstomping you. You can acknowledge that somebody put themselves in a bad position, while still maintaining that people exploiting that position are 100% responsible for their own actions.

I say this without knowing anything about the case in hand, or wanting to draw any conclusions about the guilt/innocence of any people involved there. This page is literally the first time I have heard about it.

Edit: Cokes as appropriate
   1243. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM (#4391324)
Even the meanest cat is not actually a "killing machine" wrt humans. People getting killed or maimed by dogs is a comparatively common occurrence.

Dogs are hard-wired to establish dominance and submission patterns in relationships that don't change in context. If a dog is aggressive, it's showing that it doesn't recognize the authority of its owner. That's really bad if we're talking about any significantly-sized dog.

The sad thing is that nearly every "bad dog" can be trained to behave properly, and so an overwhelming majority of the cases where biting dogs get put down is fairly unjust. Occasionally, you'll end up with a dog that has some sort of neurological problem, or a dog that has been traumatized so severely that it won't ever recover, but those are exceptions.
   1244. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4391329)
A position that no one has suggested otherwise. Can we move along from the distraction now?

Glad you agree. Because we've now established that those doing the f**king are guilty of rape, and there is no need to discuss what level of "responsibility" the victim shares here. The testimony and physical evidence proved to the jury that the two accused f**ked someone while they were unconscious. QED, they are rapists as a matter of law. I am not sure what the "responsibility" you are looking to assign to the victim has to do with anything.
   1245. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:05 PM (#4391330)
The sad thing is that nearly every "bad dog" can be trained to behave properly,


I rented a room from a guy for a few months once who had a Black Lab. She wasn't mean or aggressive, but he didn't know how to handle her and locked her in the basement when he was at work (12 hour shifts - some nights, some days). He was really hard to get along with at the best of times, but when his dog started recognizing me as its master after me being there about a month, he was visibly agitated. It was hilarious. He ended up challenging me to a fight because of a 25-cent long distance call I hadn't claimed on his phone bill, so I packed up and left. I felt bad about leaving the dog.
   1246. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:06 PM (#4391334)
With only hypotheticals so far, I am still curious of actual opinions, Sam. Was the punishment too harsh? Is the girl not getting spoken of poorly enough? Was the punishment fair and the girl also not being spoken of with enough levelling of responsibility? What?
   1247. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:09 PM (#4391336)
Glad you agree. Because we've now established that those doing the f**king are guilty of rape, and there is no need to discuss what level of "responsibility" the victim shares here. The testimony and physical evidence proved to the jury that the two accused f**ked someone while they were unconscious. QED, they are rapists as a matter of law. I am not sure what the "responsibility" you are looking to assign to the victim has to do with anything.

BTW, it is completely FUBAR that these guys will walk free at 21, no matter what, and may only serve a year. Why weren't they tried as adults?

And, I hope they prosecute all the scum who took pictures, and shared them, as accessories (before and after the fact).
   1248. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4391337)
Dogs are hard-wired to establish dominance and submission patterns in relationships that don't change in context.


My previous dog was very dominant. The Ex and I worked very hard to make sure he knew we were in charge and it worked great. He was a pretty big dog and so it was important for all concerned he knew where he was in the pecking order. The new dog it super meek, and came as an adult so no work required.

But the basic point is correct, dogs mostly just need structure and very few are bad dogs. Of course some breeds are single person dogs, and getting them to acknowledge other people are important is hard. Anyway people that can't handle dogs should have other pets.

And now I want to go disc golfing with my dog.
   1249. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:10 PM (#4391338)
I get what Sam is saying, she put her self in a very bad situation. However, it was with guys she thought was her friends and somebody she could trust. And that's a huge betryal of that trust.
   1250. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4391339)
Unless your point is that the absolute default for an Ohio high school party is rape of unconscious girls, I still am not understanding the point of your hypothetical.

I always thought the appropriate analogy is the shortcut through a dark alley. We know that most of the time, a dark alley isn't particularly threatening, but we also know that we're exposing ourselves to slightly more danger of an incident.

These situations create cognitive dissonance because we tend to think of responsibility as zero-sum, but it isn't. Acknowledging that a victim's behavior enhanced risk doesn't subtract any of the moral culpability of an assailant.

I wouldn't say that the default for a high school party is rape, but I would say that there are factors that increase the risk. Not just alcohol, but alcohol taken to the excess that leads to blackouts. The victim didn't deserve to be assaulted, and her attackers aren't one bit less blameworthy, but she still contributed to her own victimization through irresponsible behavior. It's irresponsible to allow yourself to enter such a vulnerable state without trusted friends or family members around; it's not some sort of secret that girls and women in such a vulnerable state are at greater risk of assault.
   1251. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4391358)
Glad you agree. Because we've now established that those doing the f**king are guilty of rape, and there is no need to discuss what level of "responsibility" the victim shares here.


If that's the only conversation you want to have, fine. It's boring and already decided. I'm more interested in the internet driven mania and the refusal to even consider the responsibility she has for putting herself in a position to be abused. If all you want to say is "rape is bad and rapists should be tried for their crimes" then there's nothing interesting here to discuss. What I find interesting is the outrage and the undercurrent that every outraged liberal is absolutely certain that justice is being undermined by dirty "good ol' boy" politics and football-crazy Ohio rubes, all evidence to the contrary.

No, the victim is not responsible for being raped. Yes, the young men who raped her deserve to be tried for the crime. No, she is not without responsibility for her actions prior to blacking out, by which she put herself in undue harm's way.
   1252. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4391361)
Because we've now established that those doing the f**king are guilty of rape, and there is no need to discuss what level of "responsibility" the victim shares here. The testimony and physical evidence proved to the jury that the two accused f**ked someone while they were unconscious. QED, they are rapists as a matter of law.

My understanding is that no actual rape occurred. The sexual assault that I read about was digital penetration, not intercourse. (I am not defending that behavior, but I do think it is at least marginally lower on the scale of evil.)

Am I grossly misinformed about this case?

Also, I wonder what sort of parenting is going on these days. Behavior like this strikes me as something that you'd have to be taught. I don't think my parents ever needed to tell me that violating an unconscious person's body is unacceptable; it seems like a natural, common-sense sort of thing that you develop on your own unless something actively leads you to believe that it is acceptable. I can't fathom the sort of mind that doesn't instinctively recoil in horror at the idea of doing what these boys did. Even if you could say they were clouded by alcohol (which I think is a garbage excuse), to not realize after the fact how awful their behavior was, and for others in the community to have anything but criticism for the attackers?
   1253. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:21 PM (#4391362)
I always thought the appropriate analogy is the shortcut through a dark alley. We know that most of the time, a dark alley isn't particularly threatening, but we also know that we're exposing ourselves to slightly more danger of an incident.

These situations create cognitive dissonance because we tend to think of responsibility as zero-sum, but it isn't. Acknowledging that a victim's behavior enhanced risk doesn't subtract any of the moral culpability of an assailant.

I wouldn't say that the default for a high school party is rape, but I would say that there are factors that increase the risk. Not just alcohol, but alcohol taken to the excess that leads to blackouts. The victim didn't deserve to be assaulted, and her attackers aren't one bit less blameworthy, but she still contributed to her own victimization through irresponsible behavior. It's irresponsible to allow yourself to enter such a vulnerable state without trusted friends or family members around; it's not some sort of secret that girls and women in such a vulnerable state are at greater risk of assault.


Sure, but we don't reduce the mugger's sentence b/c the victim cut through a dark alley.

The victim's behavior was probably very stupid, and contributed to her being raped. But, that's irrelevant in the trail and punishment of the perpetrators.
   1254. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:22 PM (#4391365)
My understanding is that no actual rape occurred. The sexual assault that I read about was digital penetration, not intercourse. (I am not defending that behavior, but I do think it is at least marginally lower on the scale of evil.)

Am I grossly misinformed about this case?


That's what I heard too, but why is that any better?

Edit: If anything, it makes it more likely that it wasn't a case of confused consent. i.e., she seemed willing but doesn't remember b/c she blacked out.
   1255. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4391367)

My understanding is that no actual rape occurred. The sexual assault that I read about was digital penetration, not intercourse. (I am not defending that behavior, but I do think it is at least marginally lower on the scale of evil.)


Some of the party goers said her 'ass was destroyed'. I'm guessing that the G men prosecuted on what they could and didn't try to charge on 'more serious' but less provable charges. This may be the rare case where the government didn't overcharge.
   1256. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4391369)
Some of the party goers said her 'ass was destroyed'. I'm guessing that the G men prosecuted on what they could and didn't try to charge on 'more serious' but less provable charges. This may be the rare case where the government didn't overcharge.

Ugh, didn't hear that.

I reiterate, how are these scum only facing 1-5 years? WTF didn't the DA charge them as adults?
   1257. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:24 PM (#4391370)
It's irresponsible to allow yourself to enter such a vulnerable state without trusted friends or family members around; it's not some sort of secret that girls and women in such a vulnerable state are at greater risk of assault.


But the issue that helped led to the rape that she were friends and did trust the men who raped her.
   1258. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4391372)
My understanding is that no actual rape occurred. The sexual assault that I read about was digital penetration, not intercourse. (I am not defending that behavior, but I do think it is at least marginally lower on the scale of evil.)


Part of this is the strong push from the feminist left to drastically expand the definition of "rape" to include this as equivalent to, uh..., "traditional rape?" It's part of the "rape culture" movement, as far as I can tell.
   1259. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4391374)
Some of the party goers said her 'ass was destroyed'


I would bet money to odds that's a description of her level of intoxication, not a description of her physical injuries from penetration.
   1260. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4391377)
Sam, if I stick a finger up your woo wah, you wouldn't just consider that to be playing around.
   1261. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:29 PM (#4391378)
Sure, but we don't reduce the mugger's sentence b/c the victim cut through a dark alley.

The victim's behavior was probably very stupid, and contributed to her being raped. But, that's irrelevant in the trail and punishment of the perpetrators.


I almost completely agree in a general sense (and barring some gross misinformation, completely agree in this specific situation).

The problem is that someone is only guilty of rape if there's sex without consent, and it's beyond a reasonable doubt. In this particular case, the victim's physical state makes the question seem pretty straightforward, but there are cases where the accused has a reasonable, good-faith belief that consent was given.

It is my opinion that a person with a reasonable and good-faith belief in consent is not guilty of rape in a moral sense. (In this situation, even a good-faith belief would almost certainly not be reasonable; I don't have all the facts but what I do know looks pretty terrible.)
   1262. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4391380)
I reiterate, how are these scum only facing 1-5 years? WTF didn't the DA charge them as adults?


I'm sure justice would be better served if all rulings were made from spurious, ill-informed accounts of what might have happened, as reported by the internet.
   1263. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:30 PM (#4391381)
Also, I wonder what sort of parenting is going on these days.

Disasterous on almost every level. With the notable exception of the urban educated classes who have essentially created a self-perpetuating achievement/credentialed cadre seperate from the rest of the country.

The disconnect between Americans' perception of the country, its achievements, their skills/talents/abilities, and those of their children; and reality, is simply monumental. At this point in history, the nation is essentially delusional -- and proud of it.
   1264. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:33 PM (#4391385)
I'm sure justice would be better served if all rulings were made from spurious, ill-informed accounts of what might have happened, as reported by the internet.

They were convicted of penetrating her w/o her consent.

Are you saying that doesn't deserve more than one year?
   1265. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:34 PM (#4391389)
Are you saying that doesn't deserve more than one year?

They're juveniles -- still children in the eyes of the law. And rightly so.

   1266. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:35 PM (#4391391)
Sam, if I stick a finger up your woo wah, you wouldn't just consider that to be playing around.


How sure are you about that statement?
   1267. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:35 PM (#4391392)
SBB, I know I've said this before, but since my wife has started teaching at a private college, I agree with you 100%. Its really sad to see the utter dreck coming out of high school. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the point - they are merely exceptions.
   1268. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:36 PM (#4391393)

They're juveniles -- still children in the eyes of the law. And rightly so.


They were 16 and 17 when they committed the act. We try boys as young as 13 as adults for crimes such as Robbery.
   1269. CrosbyBird Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4391396)
That's what I heard too, but why is that any better?

I would personally feel less violated by a finger than a penis. Wouldn't most people? The law certainly reflects that general proposition.

Remember, "better" doesn't mean good.

But the issue that helped led to the rape that she were friends and did trust the men who raped her.

It seems very unlikely that they were close enough friends for her to reasonably enter that level of vulnerability. The friends that I would be comfortable getting blackout drunk with, and relying on their protection, represent a relatively small subset of my friends. (Assuming I had any interest in getting that drunk.)

She certainly exercised poor judgment in trusting these people. That doesn't mean that she deserved what happened or that they should be punished any less. It is, however, something that we should acknowledge and talk about in order to make other folks less likely to make the same mistakes.
   1270. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4391397)
We try boys as young as 13 as adults for crimes such as Robbery.

And that's barbaric.

Thanks, but no thanks.
   1271. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4391400)
Sam, if I stick a finger up your woo wah, you wouldn't just consider that to be playing around.


I wouldn't want to befoul a finger. Better to go full Abner Louima on the boy.
   1272. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:38 PM (#4391401)
They were 16 and 17 when they committed the act. We try boys as young as 13 as adults for crimes such as Robbery.


Depends, possibly, on where "we" live. I remember it was a big deal in a case I was covering back in '87 or so in Little Rock when the prosecution wanted to (& did) try a 15-year-old as an adult for murder. (Might've been manslaughter.) If memory serves, at least at the time the threshold in Arkansas law for being tried as an adult was 16.
   1273. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:39 PM (#4391403)

They're juveniles -- still children in the eyes of the law. And rightly so.


Nonsense. If you're old enough to rape a girl, you're old enough to do the time.

I cut no slack for juvenile offenders for violent crimes. If you're evil enough to commit rape or murder at that age, you're probably worse than a 25 y.o. offender, and more likely to be a sociopathic predator.
   1274. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4391405)
She certainly exercised poor judgment in trusting these people. That doesn't mean that she deserved what happened or that they should be punished any less. It is, however, something that we should acknowledge and talk about in order to make other folks less likely to make the same mistakes.


And obviously these lads certainly exercised poor judgement; how much of a prosecutorial reduction in charges should I expect for assaulting them as a direct result of my disgust with their actions? I promise I'll only use my fingers. Come on, they're totally begging for it.
   1275. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:43 PM (#4391408)
Part of this is the strong push from the feminist left to drastically expand the definition of "rape" to include this as equivalent to, uh..., "traditional rape?" It's part of the "rape culture" movement, as far as I can tell.

You should go with 'legitimate' instead of 'traditional' there.
   1276. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:44 PM (#4391409)
Nonsense. If you're old enough to rape a girl, you're old enough to do the time.

I cut no slack for juvenile offenders for violent crimes. If you're evil enough to commit rape or murder at that age, you're probably worse than a 25 y.o. offender, and more likely to be a sociopathic predator.


Though you're right about a lot of things, your sense of mercy and proportion sometimes gets unbalanced and this is one of those times.

Sending 16 year olds to adult prison for fingering a drunk girl is ridiculous on its face, bordering on barbaric. Again, thanks but no thanks.

I do share much of your disdain for the football/teen/let's get wasted and take a picture of everything culture that's become an unavoidable part of the landscape in places like Steubenville.
   1277. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:46 PM (#4391414)
2. No, she's not responsible for anything done *to* her while incapaciated.



3. Yes, she is responsible for putting herself in a situation where she was blacked out drunk.


SSShhhh!!! You're not supposed to say that.

4. I phrased my question specifically to avoid the irrationality and hysteria that all to often adjoins discussions of rape.


Yeah, good luck avoiding all of that.
   1278. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4391423)
You should go with 'legitimate' instead of 'traditional' there.


Points for the snark, but to deny the gradation of offense here is to deny reality. The boys were guilty of a crime, and they were sentenced for it. But the idea that molesting a passed out girl with your fingers is equivalent to putting a knife to her throat and shoving your #### inside her forcibly is absurd.
   1279. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4391424)
look, let's try it this way. You are only allowed to f**k people if they consent to it. When they are passed out on the ground, they are incapable of consent, even if maybe they consented earlier. So you can't f**k people when they are unconscious or semi-conscious, regardless of if it's from booze or diabetic shock

A position that no one has suggested otherwise. Can we move along from the distraction now?


Probably not.
   1280. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4391425)
Putting a knife to a woman's throat is a completely separate crime, is it not?
   1281. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4391426)
His point is essentially what it always is -- blacks have more rights now than in 1963, therefore by definition and ipso facto civil liberties can't be on the wane.


I love how you reduce my point from over 60% of the population (racial minorities, women, and gays/lesbians) to about 10% or 11%. Or perhaps you think that the status of women and gays / lesbians hasn't also been enormously enhanced in that same time period.

Exactly. I'm not trying to minimize in any way the impact of the culture and practice of segregation, but I think the situation of having a minority group being the victim of legislated discrimination, confined to a few southern states,

As if the damage wasn't all-encompassing and rooted in practices that went far beyond the law. As if vast areas of the North weren't equally as hostile to the presence of blacks.

with today's situation in which the Feds have explicitly stated that they are reserving the right to detain and kill any American they please, anywhere in the world, without charge or trial, is different by orders of magnitude.

So when the actual expansion of rights of over 60% of the population is compared to the hypothetical paranoid fantasties that at worst would apply to about .001% of the population, you naturally find that on balance we're worse off today "by orders of magnitude." I'd say that only on the internet could such lunacy be taken seriously, except that it's echoed in Congress by equal doses of idiocy.
   1282. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4391428)
The boys were guilty of a crime, and they were sentenced for it.

It really isn't "rape" -- as loaded a term as you'll find -- in any real sense of the word. It's really sexually-related assault.
   1283. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:51 PM (#4391430)
Though you're right about a lot of things, your sense of mercy and proportion sometimes gets unbalanced and this is one of those times.

Sending 16 year olds to adult prison for fingering a drunk girl is ridiculous on its face, bordering on barbaric. Again, thanks but no thanks.


I don't believe so. Their behavior is barbaric.

You misunderstand mercy. Mercy is forgiveness after you have admitted your crimes and paid the price. It is not merciful to not punish the guilty.
   1284. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4391432)
They were convicted of penetrating her w/o her consent.

Are you saying that doesn't deserve more than one year?


I oppose "one size fits all" sentencing standards and top down universal sentencing guidelines imposed with no ability for the judges and juries hearing the cases to adjust for facts on the ground, locally. Call me a federalist or something.

I find your position here, and the general outrage over this case in general, to be the liberal answer to Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo via the internet.
   1285. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4391437)
Their behavior is barbaric.

Not really. That's far too strong a term to describe it.

High school kids have been getting drunk and hooking up for decades. High school and college girls have gotten themselves drunk so as to become less sexually inhibited for decades, which often results in quite intended sexually-related activity. This episode seems to have mildly crossed an extremely blurred line. It really wasn't close to "barbaric."
   1286. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4391440)
Mercy is forgiveness after you have admitted your crimes and paid the price.

Er no, mercy is specifically the withholding of some or all of the 'price'.
   1287. GregD Posted: March 19, 2013 at 01:59 PM (#4391444)
I find your position here, and the general outrage over this case in general, to be the liberal answer to Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo via the internet.
Yes, the barrage of congressional subpoenas and resolutions and bills transferring jurisdiction has been impossible to keep up with, hasn't it? Do you have a handy chart so I can make sure I haven't missed some?
   1288. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4391447)
I'm sure justice would be better served if all rulings were made from spurious, ill-informed accounts of what might have happened, as reported by the internet

It's almost as bad as listening to the opinions of someone who is "intentionally not following the story with any great degree of interest"


Sending 16 year olds to adult prison for fingering a drunk girl is ridiculous on its face, bordering on barbaric

So shoving your fingers up someones genitalia is substantively different than a penis?



   1289. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4391448)
Yes, the barrage of congressional subpoenas and resolutions and bills transferring jurisdiction has been impossible to keep up with, hasn't it? Do you have a handy chart so I can make sure I haven't missed some?


Poorly informed masses outraged by half-sourced rumors and assumptions they carry with them their entire lives, screaming into the void of the internets. It's of a piece. Granted, the *government* has behaved much better in this case. But then again, we have a better government now than then.
   1290. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4391450)
It's almost as bad as listening to the opinions of someone who is "intentionally not following the story with any great degree of interest"


As I said, spike. I'm interested in the meta, here. I trust the details of the case to be handled locally by the system.
   1291. Blastin Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4391451)
mildly crossed an extremely blurred line


I can't even with this.

This nonsense only seems to happen with violent acts against women. It's ridiculous.
   1292. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4391452)
I find your position here, and the general outrage over this case in general, to be the liberal answer to Bill Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo via the internet.

I am, not snarkily, and not lobbing granades, legitimately curious of your view of the punishment here. Was it fair, or unfair? Would you personally have levied a similar punishment, or less, or more, or what?

EDIT - Or, as per #1290, I guess you don't care?

What is your meta point, then? That... it's more complicated than us liberals are making it? I mean, except snapper.
   1293. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:04 PM (#4391453)
So shoving your fingers up someones genitalia is substantively different than a penis?

Yes, and a non-violent act is much less of an offense than a violent act.
   1294. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4391455)
I am, not snarkily, and not lobbing granades, legitimately curious of your view of the punishment here. Was it fair, or unfair? Would you personally have levied a similar punishment, or less, or more, or what?


How, exactly, am I to determine the fairness or lack thereof of the punishment, barring access to the actual trial?
   1295. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4391457)
Yes, and a non-violent act is much less of an offense than a violent act.

Rape is violent by its very nature.
   1296. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4391458)
This nonsense only seems to happen with violent acts against women. It's ridiculous.


It wasn't "violent."
   1297. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4391460)
Rape is violent by its very nature.

No, it's not. That's a fiction. A mildly-useful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless.

You're getting dangerously close to, "I'm really, really offended, attention must be paid!" territory.
   1298. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4391461)
This episode seems to have mildly crossed an extremely blurred line. It really wasn't close to "barbaric."

They carried her passed out around the room like an animal on display, violated her, took her outside in just a bra, photographed her vomiting while offering no assistance and debated whether they should urinate on her. All this is not in dispute. perhaps our definitions of barbarism differ.
   1299. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4391465)
How, exactly, am I to determine the fairness or lack thereof of the punishment, barring access to the actual trial?

See my edit: Forget it, then.


Rape is violent by its very nature.
No, it's not. That's a fiction. A mildly-useful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless.


Oh, Armond. How foolish we've all been.



   1300. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4391466)

High school kids have been getting drunk and hooking up for decades. High school and college girls have gotten themselves drunk so as to become less sexually inhibited for decades, which often results in quite intended sexually-related activity. This episode seems to have mildly crossed an extremely blurred line. It really wasn't close to "barbaric."


And this is not that. This is not two kids "hooking up" and someone is drunk, and there's a he-said/she-said. We've discussed those kind of case, and I've shown a lot of sympathy for the accused.

In this case, it's two separate men violating an unconscious woman, while others look on and take video. They even transported her to another location.
Page 13 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Ray (RDP)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(100 - 5:59am, Nov 23)
Last: Baldrick

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(13 - 3:52am, Nov 23)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4170 - 3:40am, Nov 23)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(18 - 2:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(12 - 1:50am, Nov 23)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(553 - 1:35am, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(28 - 11:04pm, Nov 22)
Last: Squash

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(134 - 10:49pm, Nov 22)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(19 - 10:19pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(4 - 10:00pm, Nov 22)
Last: jingoist

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(19 - 8:03pm, Nov 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(9 - 7:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Page rendered in 1.2300 seconds
52 querie(s) executed