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 10 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›
   901. tshipman Posted: March 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4388884)
Lutherans are okay. I don't really like doctrine of grace alone, and I don't really like Martin Luther. It's a good choice for near-Catholicism.

Edit:
If you're comfortable elaborating on what you do or don't want in a church, tshipman, I'd listen...


Things I more or less believe:
God is Love.
Confession is good.
Tripartate Divinity/Dual spirit of God.
Purgatory
Good works
The mission of man should be to help your neighbor
People are entitled to love each other
Men and women are equal

Things I want to believe:
Transubstantiation is real
God can choose to make someone infallible
There are/were Saints


   902. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 15, 2013 at 11:21 AM (#4388889)
Only 7 with my wife's name. If she had taken my name, there would be 21000 of her. A factor of 3000 with one name change.

Here's one of my favorite coincidences. When I first met my wife, she and I were on the same page of the DC telephone directory, which in 1988 was probably a lot bigger than it is today.
   903. Greg K Posted: March 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4388902)
Here's one of my favorite coincidences. When I first met my wife, she and I were on the same page of the DC telephone directory, which in 1988 was probably a lot bigger than it is today.

I once quasi-dated a girl who had the same last name as my first name (though spelled differently). Had naming conventions upon marriage been reversed, and had we actually got married, that would have been interesting. I would have been like noted New York chiropractor Dr. Bobby Bobby.
   904. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM (#4388922)

I'm the only person in the U.S. with my name. I've never encountered anyone with our spelling of my last name who wasn't a relative, and even then there's only 11 of us, and we have a fairly small online footprint. There was an article online that quoted a person with my last name in Prague a few years ago, but I am guessing that was a typo.
   905. Delorians Posted: March 15, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4388933)
My wife once dated a guy whose last name was Beer. If they had gotten married her middle-last name would have been Miller-Beer.
   906. BDC Posted: March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4388942)
There are roughly 1,400 of me, apparently. That's in the US; I have Googled my name and found it attached to quite a few others in Britain, including a prominent business professor, Indeed I met someone last year who was intrigued that I had written about baseball, because how would a prominent British business professor get into that?

I am almost certain that La Dernière is the only person of her name in the US, and probably in the world.
   907. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4388943)
I've heard this criticism a lot and, while I understand it, having a lot of disagreement with these church doctrines, I don't get it because there was NO WAY a pope would be elected who was going to say being gay is fine and women should be priests and divorce is cool and everyone should be given 5000 condoms. It just isn't going to happen.


True, but you might, just might, get a Pope who is open to Priests being allowed to marry and have consensual sex (since there is no biblical support for the Church's ban on priestly matrimony)

Plus the Church's ban on contraceptives might be open to revision because frankly it's just so irrational- most Priests don't "get" it either, and it gets questioned WITHIN the church constantly - so basically it's never going away as an issue (within the church).

Abortion/gay rights? Basically off thet table for now and the foreseeable future
   908. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM (#4388954)
How Many of Me clearly hedges its bets with strange combinations and names it can't specifically find.

"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Zoopitybop Szymborski."
"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Chili Dog."
"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Generalissimo Analprobe."
"There are 1 or fewer people in the U.S. named Francoeur Sucks."

"There are fewer than 1,577 people in the U.S. with the first name Fullonrapist."
"There are fewer than 1,577 people in the U.S. with the first name Helpmeobiwan."
"There are fewer than 1,577 people in the U.S. with the first name Pooperscooper.

"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Analprobe."
"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Aaaaaa."
"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Howmanyofme."
"There are fewer than 117 people in the U.S. with the last name Asdfjklasdfjkl."
   909. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4388956)
I did find the other Dan Szymborski though. Dumbass me had put in "Dan" without thinking.

"There are 2 people in the U.S. named Daniel Szymborski."

Upper Midwest Dan Szymborski: You have no chance to survive make your time.
   910. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: March 15, 2013 at 01:01 PM (#4388959)
I'm sorry. Did you say fullonrapist?
   911. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 15, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4388963)

I'm sorry. Did you say fullonrapist?


Africans, dyslexics, children, that sort of thing.
   912. I am going to be Frank Posted: March 15, 2013 at 01:26 PM (#4388970)
I share a name with a Nobel Prize winner. Now its not his real name (he is Chinese and picked an "American" name), but its basically impossible to find me online via a search engine. Since I'm of Chinese descent its guaranteed to have several hundred (or thousands) of my name throughout the world since there really aren't that many unique Chinese last names.
   913. Der-K: Hipster doofus Posted: March 15, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4388971)
Dan'll have the milk steak, boiled over hard, and your finest jelly beans (raw).
   914. Publius Publicola Posted: March 15, 2013 at 04:55 PM (#4389066)
Back to Pope Francis:

Vatican Defends Pope’s Conduct in 1970s Crackdown

“The accusations belong to the use of a historical-social analysis of facts for many years by the anticlerical left to attack the church and must be rejected decisively.”

...The debate has simmered in Argentina, with journalists there publishing articles and books that appear to contradict Cardinal Bergoglio’s account of his actions. These accounts draw not only on documents from the period, but also on statements by priests and lay workers who clashed with Cardinal Bergoglio.


Sounds like the same language they used against Galilleo. Yes, it's the facts that are wrong. The Church is always right so we all must reject these facts.

Color me unimpressed with the new guy. Another closet fascist. Hide your children.
   915. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 15, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4389097)
True, but you might, just might, get a Pope who is open to Priests being allowed to marry and have consensual sex (since there is no biblical support for the Church's ban on priestly matrimony)

Small correction. The Church may at some point allow more married men to be ordained (they already do in the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches, and in the Latin Church for Protestant ministers who convert).

They will not allow a man who is already ordained to marry. Holy Orders is an impediment to marriage. Even permanent deacons (who are almost all marry) can not marry again if their wife pre-deceases them.
   916. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: March 15, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4389102)
use of a historical-social analysis of facts

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
   917. Canker Soriano Posted: March 15, 2013 at 06:17 PM (#4389104)
Here's one of my favorite coincidences. When I first met my wife, she and I were on the same page of the DC telephone directory, which in 1988 was probably a lot bigger than it is today.

I still have the torn-out page from the phone book where I was first listed as an adult with his own phone number. It felt like such a big deal at the time, my name in there with a whole sea of people. Plus I was the only one with my last name, so that was even better. Now 6-year-olds have their own cell phones, and none of them will grow up knowing what a phone book is.

And I think a big ol' no-prize should go to the first BTFer to name his son (or daughter) Generalissimo Analprobe Fullonrapist.
   918. cardsfanboy Posted: March 15, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4389127)
howmanyofme.com


Pretty cool. My name is way too common(most common first name, 26th most common last name) there are 9,924 of me. Actually seems low to me. But the saddest part is that none of them has been famous. :( Ok, there was one guy, who shares my first, middle and last name and is famous for being the Tylenol killer.
   919. cardsfanboy Posted: March 15, 2013 at 06:57 PM (#4389129)
True, but you might, just might, get a Pope who is open to Priests being allowed to marry and have consensual sex (since there is no biblical support for the Church's ban on priestly matrimony)

Plus the Church's ban on contraceptives might be open to revision because frankly it's just so irrational- most Priests don't "get" it either, and it gets questioned WITHIN the church constantly - so basically it's never going away as an issue (within the church).

Abortion/gay rights? Basically off thet table for now and the foreseeable future


I'm not in the religion but since they have a broad influence on the world, I would hope whoever was pope would reinforce the notion that being gay is not a sin to being a target of violence, that god accepts all his children etc. I don't expect the Catholic church to allow gay marriage, but I fully expect religions to teach them to be accepting of a persons orientation, (even while saying it's a choice)

As to the other points, I agree, I would love to see the church be more progressive on their actions with their leaders, as pointed out they have in the past led in other actions, why should they be stuck being behind the times, instead of being ahead of the times when it comes to social issues.
   920. Morty Causa Posted: March 15, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4389185)
"He has made some sharp remarks about the vanity, self-infatuation, careerism, and pursuit of promotions in the Roman Curia. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he apparently preferred to be called Father Jorge, and was known for his preoccupation with the city’s poorest, reportedly washing and kissing the feet of patients suffering from AIDS."


From this article in Slate, which has some nice links.

One of the considerations which isn't spoken of or written about wrt priests marrying, and presumably having families, is the cost of all that. Of course, other sects and religions support their ministers, but other religion don't have the trappings that the Catholic Church has. But there is a component to this that kind of tracks what Harry Truman said about the Democratic party becoming more like the Republican party: voters are likely to choose the genuine article rather than the imitation. The Catholic Church is distinctive among religions in some ways--becoming more like them may not be a winning strategy on the whole as compared to the present state of affairs, even giving full value to the downside of that.
   921. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 15, 2013 at 08:57 PM (#4389208)
I still have the torn-out page from the phone book where I was first listed as an adult with his own phone number. It felt like such a big deal at the time, my name in there with a whole sea of people. Plus I was the only one with my last name, so that was even better. Now 6-year-olds have their own cell phones, and none of them will grow up knowing what a phone book is.

I have a copy of the Manhattan Yellow Pages from the year (1950) before my parents moved from New York to DC. It's exactly 1900 pages thick, and for some reason it was known as "The Red Book", probably due to its red cover. No cellphone stores, but six pages of cellophane dealers.
   922. Tripon Posted: March 15, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4389210)

One of the considerations which isn't spoken of or written about wrt priests marrying, and presumably having families, is the cost of all that. Of course, other sects and religions support their ministers, but other religion don't have the trappings that the Catholic Church has. But there is a component to this that kind of tracks what Harry Truman said about the Democratic party becoming more like the Republican party: voters are likely to choose the genuine article rather than the imitation. The Catholic Church is distinctive among religions in some ways--becoming more like them may not be a winning strategy on the whole as compared to the present state of affairs, even giving full value to the downside of that.


Its a practical matter, they need to recruit more men (and women) into the priesthood, and that's not going to happen until you remove a major barrier such as not allowing marriage. Besides, the church already allows priests who are already married to attend to the flock, if they came from another Christian sect, or they took the rites after they were married. So its not the concept of marriage they take issue with.
   923. Morty Causa Posted: March 15, 2013 at 09:22 PM (#4389227)
No, you're right. The church doesn't take issue with marriage across the board. It's the concept of marriage as it applies to its native own that it takes issue with. True, those who convert can be married, but how many is that? It's a concession to reality, especially since the CC is evangelical. It wants converts--especially as to Protestants and Jews. There's an air of the holy woo-woo about priests that doesn't apply to ministers of other sects or religions. Not in the same way and to the same extent. The bond with God, the commitment they make, is supposed to preclude worldly concerns. They are not supposed to have time for all that. The movie The Exorcist wouldn't have been the same if the exorcist would have been a fundamentalist preacher wearing a seersucker sport jacket, electric blue slacks with a wide white patent leather belt, and two-tone shoes. The "I saw Jesus and he was a-eating a ham sandwich" affront to elevated gravitas. The Catholic priest has something (is supposed to, anyway) of the air of a shaman, a witch doctor, as well doing all that other stuff. If he has a family, maybe his mystique might suffer.
   924. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: March 15, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4389247)
I once quasi-dated a girl who had the same last name as my first name (though spelled differently). Had naming conventions upon marriage been reversed, and had we actually got married, that would have been interesting. I would have been like noted New York chiropractor Dr. Bobby Bobby.


former Eagles RB Anthony Toney.

In college I was trying to hook up a distance runner named Stella Klassen with a linebacker named Randy Stella. That would've been one of the best names.
   925. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 15, 2013 at 10:04 PM (#4389255)
So Rob Portman decided to support gay rights as his son comes out. Is it just me or does the GOP only decide to show liberal values when close family or friends are involved? They only like gays when they know one, support research into X when a family memeber has X and so on.


The right has long had an empathy problem. It's evident in much of the rhetoric, which is routinely some form of "I want".
   926. tshipman Posted: March 15, 2013 at 10:40 PM (#4389295)
In college I was trying to hook up a distance runner named Stella Klassen with a linebacker named Randy Stella. That would've been one of the best names.


She'd be Stanley Kowalsky's dream girl!
   927. Steve Treder Posted: March 15, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4389333)
The Catholic priest has something (is supposed to, anyway) of the air of a shaman, a witch doctor, as well doing all that other stuff. If he has a family, maybe his mystique might suffer.

Yeah, well. (1) Let it f@cking suffer, and (2) the notion that it's a good thing to dazzle the ignorant masses with this shaman, witch doctor BS, is disgusting, so (3) let it f@cking suffer.
   928. Tripon Posted: March 16, 2013 at 01:10 AM (#4389352)
Its a weird analogy, since shamans, witch doctors, and other mystics aren't forbidden from boning like Catholic priests currently are.
   929. greenback likes millwall Posted: March 16, 2013 at 02:37 AM (#4389363)
Some days Twitter is gold. Other days I get a thousand dying rats shrieking about CPAC.
   930. Greg K Posted: March 16, 2013 at 09:08 AM (#4389383)
In college I was trying to hook up a distance runner named Stella Klassen with a linebacker named Randy Stella. That would've been one of the best names.

Is she related to long-distance speed-skater and 6-time Olympic medalist Cindy Klassen?
   931. Publius Publicola Posted: March 16, 2013 at 09:22 AM (#4389386)
Yeah, well. (1) Let it f@cking suffer, and (2) the notion that it's a good thing to dazzle the ignorant masses with this shaman, witch doctor BS, is disgusting, so (3) let it f@cking suffer.


I heard a funny joke on the radio. When the billowing black smoke changed to white smoke, one observer asked another "What does the white smoke mean?". And the second observer squinted and answered "Bring more boys.".
   932. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: March 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4389428)
No, Stella Klassen was from a small town in Nebraska, Randy Stella was from Omaha. Two completely different people, it would've never worked.
   933. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 16, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4389515)
The Catholic priest has something (is supposed to, anyway) of the air of a shaman, a witch doctor, as well doing all that other stuff. If he has a family, maybe his mystique might suffer.

Yeah, well. (1) Let it f@cking suffer, and (2) the notion that it's a good thing to dazzle the ignorant masses with this shaman, witch doctor BS, is disgusting, so (3) let it f@cking suffer.


Noted theologian Jack Chick has repeatedly commented on the flamboyant pagan roots of Catholicism. Some commentary is better drawn than others.
   934. BDC Posted: March 16, 2013 at 04:47 PM (#4389562)
I'm about as lapsed as one can possibly get, but I gotta protest a little: at least in the United States in the 21st century, Roman Catholicism is generally about as funky as the United Methodist Church or the Southern Baptist Convention or non-insane Lutherans or the higher reaches of Episcopalianism; or Orthodox Judaism. Yes, there are often funny clothes involved, and the weird proscription of clerical marriage (and women clergy, too). But seriously, it's for many people just another suburban religion, no more reactionary than most. And there's a substantial gay presence in American Catholicism: check out Dignity, for instance. It may seem a little like the Log Cabin Republicans, but it's been a way, for many decades, for gay Catholics to express their spirtuality and their sexuality.
   935. Publius Publicola Posted: March 16, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4389597)
It may seem a little like the Log Cabin Republicans, but it's been a way, for many decades, for gay Catholics to express their spirtuality and their sexuality.


I think this is a real problem though. The "expression of sexuality" has spilled over far too often into a form of clerical rape, particulary of teenage boys. I don't think this sort of thing is something to be proud of. And that's without yet getting into the pederasty angle, which is nothing short of wicked and perverse.
   936. Gonfalon B. Posted: March 16, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4389610)
I still have the torn-out page from the phone book where I was first listed as an adult with his own phone number. It felt like such a big deal at the time, my name in there with a whole sea of people. Plus I was the only one with my last name, so that was even better.

This was right before the sniper starting shooting the rack of oil cans.
   937. BDC Posted: March 16, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4389614)
The "expression of sexuality" has spilled over far too often into a form of clerical rape, particulary of teenage boys

The Dignity movement I linked to couldn't be further from condoning pedophilic priests. Dignity is an organization of adult, sexually active, often happily paired gay Catholics who want to participate in the Church. Abusive priests (and other abusive Church officials) are 100% opposite: predatory, power-obsessed, in deep denial, closeted inside the closets of closets, convinced that they're Teflon-coated: like Penn State only on a universal-church level. Dignity is just a bunch of normal everyday people who have religious beliefs.
   938. Greg K Posted: March 16, 2013 at 07:45 PM (#4389616)
When I moved into my first apartment, my room-mate and I spent a weekend making sure our place was properly stocked. One thing we needed was a phone book. We couldn't recall if they were just delivered to you, or whether you had to buy them. So we went to a phone shop and asked if we could have a phone book. The guy behind the counter gave us one and we headed home. About five minutes later I noticed this phone book had seen some fairly heavy use, and it dawned on us that we had just stolen that store's phonebook.
   939. BDC Posted: March 16, 2013 at 07:50 PM (#4389618)
I haven't used a phone book in years - despite the fact that the Internet emulates phone books miserably badly (just like restaurant information and song lyrics: one of the things that's inexplicably gotten worse in the Web era). I reckon that I just don't make as many phone calls as I used to, and if I want to buy something I check online, for either the product itself or a specialty store that has its own easy-to-find website.
   940. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 16, 2013 at 08:07 PM (#4389622)
I haven't used a phone book in years - despite the fact that the Internet emulates phone books miserably badly (just like restaurant information and song lyrics: one of the things that's inexplicably gotten worse in the Web era).


All of these things are inexplicable, particularly the hideously user-unfriendly song lyrics websites.

But I simply don't look up phone numbers anymore. Most of the time I'm emailing or texting anyway, and if I'm texting it's because the person already gave me their number. Cell numbers aren't listed in phone books, anyway, and people are using landlines less and less. And when people send emails for business they've got their phone numbers right below with the contact information.
   941. spike Posted: March 16, 2013 at 08:17 PM (#4389627)
And when people send emails for business they've got their phone numbers right below with the contact information.

And it's a confounding, mystifying nuisance when they don't. There's a special place for commercial folks without an email signature/contact info block.
   942. Howie Menckel Posted: March 16, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4389629)
I am the 2nd-most famous person with my very common real name (not close to 'Howie' either), but the more famous version - who was born less than 20 miles from where I was born, btw - saw his star shine ever more brightly earlier this year, so it would be difficult for me to ever catch him.

He's not universally popular, though. I just hope there's never a personal scandal relating to him.

Come to think of it, perhaps he should think the same.
:)
   943. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 18, 2013 at 09:47 AM (#4390402)
Just to re-hijack this thread for a moment, did anyone see this front page NYT story today? If any further proof is needed of the near-criminal insanity of the NRA, look no further than this:

Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns

The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.
   944. zonk Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:09 AM (#4390415)
I haven't used a phone book in years - despite the fact that the Internet emulates phone books miserably badly (just like restaurant information and song lyrics: one of the things that's inexplicably gotten worse in the Web era).



All of these things are inexplicable, particularly the hideously user-unfriendly song lyrics websites.


I don't think it's inexplicable at all --

Phone books were a "service" that the phone companies effectively had no choice but to provide in a paper world -- they certainly tried and wanted to monetize them into a commodity, but in a paper world, no one would have accepted needing to flip through hundreds of pages of ads to get to a phone number. The internet makes that commoditization of the information much easier -- they're not "bad" in the internet world, they're simply presented in a way that presents optimal opportunities to get you to click on or purchase something else.

The song lyric websites are the same way -- with digitization of music, the sites are awful because they can make bank by getting you to buy everything from ring tones to the song itself.
   945. Tripon Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4390416)
The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.


If she had a gun, she could have shot the bad guy and had a good old fashioned gun fight with her kids watching and in harm's way.
   946. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM (#4390421)
Well I assume those kids would have been taught to duck and cover.
   947. Tripon Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:35 AM (#4390431)
edit: double post
   948. BDC Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM (#4390432)
in a paper world, no one would have accepted needing to flip through hundreds of pages of ads to get to a phone number

Actually that describes paper Yellow Pages pretty well. The Yellow Pages were an ingenious and durable concept: a directory comprised of nothing but ads, but arranged in such a highly useful way that people came to depend on them for lots of basic consumer information.

You're certainly right about the economics of "internet yellow pages" and why they're a conspicuous failure. Old-fashioned Yellow Pages were a creature of the old-fashioned phone monopoly, making it vital for a business to buy Yellow Pages space. In the dying years of print phone directories there were tons of competing yellow pages, creating a major paper-recycling problem but also collapsing of its own competition: as people used them less, more and more companies produced them, and fewer businesses thought it worthwhile to take out ads in every one. Still less when every mope with a server can start a Yellow Pages service, and every business can easily set up its own webpage. I imagine the model will continue to evolve. Google emulates yellow pages in interesting ways; say, if you want to stay in a motel near Sioux Falls, and with a couple of clicks you get a map with the equivalent of the old Sioux Falls yellow pages for Motels. (Plus reviews: I got bedbugs! The sheets were stained! Nice if you like a fleabag full of hookers and meth addicts!)

The Internet really does white pages badly: there's no profit in them, and as noted upthread, most people now use cellphones, and don't want to be listed. (Which is part of another fascinating transformation: from phone calls costing only the caller, but scaled to how far one was calling, to them costing both parties, but at flat rates on a national scale. That's changed people's behavior, or rather has allowed behaviors that people really did always demand to flourish.)
   949. GregD Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4390435)
I'm about as lapsed as one can possibly get, but I gotta protest a little: at least in the United States in the 21st century, Roman Catholicism is generally about as funky as the United Methodist Church or the Southern Baptist Convention or non-insane Lutherans or the higher reaches of Episcopalianism; or Orthodox Judaism. Yes, there are often funny clothes involved, and the weird proscription of clerical marriage (and women clergy, too). But seriously, it's for many people just another suburban religion, no more reactionary than most. And there's a substantial gay presence in American Catholicism: check out Dignity, for instance. It may seem a little like the Log Cabin Republicans, but it's been a way, for many decades, for gay Catholics to express their spirtuality and their sexuality.
You are right but there are different things at work here in the category of funky.

If funky means reactionary, American Catholicism is totally mainstream, far less conservative than the SBC not to mention the smaller Church of Christ and some (not all) of the non-sectarian evangelical churches. The church is no more conservative than those churches on social issues and is far less conservative on economic issues. And Catholics, as opposed to the church, are far more moderate than members of those churches.

If funky means a seemingly anachronistic vision of women's roles, again, the church fits within others. Many evangelical denominations (not all) forbid female pastors (though not always evangelists) and obvious Orthodox Judaism takes the segregation of women to a different level.

If you mean rituals and garb and the like, the comparisons change a lot, as the Southern Baptists and most evangelicals are strongly anti-ritual, but the Catholics are much more like churches that in other ways are far, far more liberal not just than the Catholic Church but than America like Episcopalians and ELCA Lutherans.

Celibacy of priests is almost a sui generis category among large-scale religions in the US.

Catholicism is not unusual in its components--other than celibacy you can find like practices in many other churches as you say-- but the aggregate is unusual in the US as it shares many (not all) political positions with evangelicals but rituals and theology with very liberal mainstream churches.
   950. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4390437)
Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns

The National Rifle Association and its allies are challenging states’ efforts to take guns away from domestic violence offenders who have been served with civil protection orders.


Andy, it sounds sensational, but the problem is that restraining orders are relatively easy to obtain - as they should be. But the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. And constitutional rights should be difficult to take away.

I am ok with trying to find a reasonable solution, but if you can't recognize this structural issue, your opinion on the matter isn't objective enough to be taken seriously.

And the article makes the classic mistake of assuming that a guy who has no trouble shoving a gun in a woman's face will somehow find it morally wrong to obtain a gun illegally. Or that he will find it difficult to obtain a gun illegally -- he's a guy who has a stockpile of weapons, right? Will he have no clue how to obtain a gun illegally? No desire? Among other errors.

In typical liberal media bias fashion, the article is written to assume the validity of all the anti-gun and womens' groups arguments, while presenting the opposite arguments as inherently unreasonable. It also presents single data points as representative, which it re-tells as vignettes. But where are the vignettes where the judge didn't take away the guy's weapons while granting a restraining order - and the guy didn't return to attack the woman with the gun? Where are the vignettes where he returned without a gun and tried to strangle her, or hit her, or use a knife, or ram her with his car a la Larry Bird's son, etc.?

This is an issue that needs attention and the NRA's arguments shouldn't be blindly followed -- but neither should the opposing arguments, and that's why the article is a mess.
   951. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4390439)
There's a really good reason why lyric sites suck that you guys are ignoring: they're generally in hot water regarding copyright infringement. It doesn't really make sense to invest a lot of time and money in a really awesome lyrics site. Forman could make an amazing lyrics-reference.com, then get sued into oblivion, taking the sports-reference sites with it. The optimum model for these guys appears to be to put up the lyrics site as cheaply as possible, lard it up with ads for some dough, and try to finish high in the google search results without being any more noticeable than the other bazillion crappy lyrics sites.
   952. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4390444)
I'm not in the religion but since they have a broad influence on the world, I would hope whoever was pope would reinforce the notion that being gay is not a sin to being a target of violence, that god accepts all his children etc.


Point of technical fact: in Catholic teaching, it's not a sin to be gay. It's a sin to have gay sex.
   953. GregD Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM (#4390445)
Andy, it sounds sensational, but the problem is that restraining orders are relatively easy to obtain - as they should be. But the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. And constitutional rights should be difficult to take away.

This is sensible. The bigger fear is that it would make it harder to obtain restraining orders. The more things you attach to restraining orders, the more difficult it is going to be to obtain one, and that's bad all around.

And the article makes the classic mistake of assuming that a guy who has no trouble shoving a gun in a woman's face will somehow find it morally wrong to obtain a gun illegally. Or that he will find it difficult to obtain a gun illegally -- he's a guy who has a stockpile of weapons, right? Will he have no clue how to obtain a gun illegally? No desire? Among other errors.
This, though, is less persuasive. Should we only pass laws if they are guaranteed to be 100% obeyed? Laws don't make behaviors impossible; they make them more difficult. It seems pretty clear to me that in much of the country it is far easier (and cheaper) to buy guns at WalMart or the sporting goods store or pawnshop than to buy an illegal gun. If your first criteria is satisfied (that the right not be taken away haphazardly) then making buying a gun significantly more inconvenient and expensive is valid even if it doesn't make buying a gun impossible.
   954. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4390446)
And there are 15 of me.
   955. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4390447)
Andy, it sounds sensational, but the problem is that restraining orders are relatively easy to obtain - as they should be.

If you read the article as you say you did, you'll see that the problem is that those restraining orders often don't take the guns away from violent aggressors. Your argument rests on the logic that "if guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns", which is a classic half truth, and somehow doesn't seem to apply to other laws.**

But go ahead and try to pretend that this is all "liberal media bias", and have a seance with the late Diane Dye to tell her that her late husband's 2nd amendment rights were rightfully more important than her life.

**"If murder is outlawed, only outlaws will murder" doesn't fly too well, does it?
   956. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM (#4390448)
It seems to have gone unnoticed by the Times writer, and apparently by you, that we are talking about men who are already violating restraining orders. They're violating restraining orders, assaulting, beating, shooting women (and undoubtedly harming women in other ways such as with a knife although you'd barely know that) -- but yes, by all means, let's pretend that taking away the guns would have mattered.

The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people.
   957. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 10:59 AM (#4390449)
And the article makes the classic mistake of assuming that a guy who has no trouble shoving a gun in a woman's face will somehow find it morally wrong to obtain a gun illegally.


Shoving a gun in the woman's face is a crime of opportunity and passion. Take away the opportunity by making it difficult to acquire the gun, you reduce the likelihood dramatically.
   958. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4390450)
The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people.


The problem is people with guns.
   959. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM (#4390451)
We might give serious pause to depriving, on a continuing basis, people of rights (or even privileges) on the basis of a mere temporary protection order. Is that what this article is advocating?

You know what a temporary injunction is in law? Nothing, in the long run. That's the court taking the person asking for it at her word. For it to continue she would have to go to court and get a permanent one--and that means proving a case. Yeah, yeah, I know, in those cases cited at the beginning of the article, we know what happened, but someone asking for a permanent injunction would have to prove her case before something like that happens. You don't just take someone's word for it (except temporarily) based on nothing more than allegations. You can see why that would be so, I would hope.

Asking for a temporary protective order in domestic cases is de rigueur. Yet, how many people follow up and try to get a permanent order? Much less expanding into something like forbidding a person to possess firearms? How many ask for a temporary order and nothing untoward happens to them? All these variables make these things dicey—and unsatisfactory to all parties. You need more than a selection of anecdotes.

(And it is the same thing, more or less, when someone has been charged with a crime but not convicted.)

Too, how do you take away someone's guns with the confidence that all of them have been taken? How do you keep that person—well, everyone can’t be issued their personal policeman. Life is hard and it is messy.
   960. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:03 AM (#4390454)
But go ahead and try to pretend that this is all "liberal media bias", and have a seance with the late Diane Dye to tell her that her late husband's 2nd amendment rights were rightfully more important than her life.


Trotting out a victim in order to use her to score points in a political argument is the worst form of bad argument. Don't try to imply that I bear some responsibility for her murder. She was murdered by her husband who she was seeking divorce from, not by me, and not by the NRA, and no matter what you may say otherwise you haven't the foggiest clue whether taking away his guns would have changed the ultimate outcome. Why would it have? He was hell bent on killing her.
   961. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:05 AM (#4390457)
Shoving a gun in the woman's face is a crime of opportunity and passion. Take away the opportunity by making it difficult to acquire the gun, you reduce the likelihood dramatically.


But you wouldn't take away the opportunity at all, nor the passion. There is no "the" opportunity. There are endless opportunities. One of them is "using his gun." What are you going to do about the other 12 bazillionthousand of them?
   962. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:11 AM (#4390461)
But you wouldn't take away the opportunity at all, nor the passion. There is no "the" opportunity. There are endless opportunities. One of them is "using his gun."


You continue to insist that gun violence is identical in nature to knife violence or physical beatings. This is simply false. There is a world of difference, psychologically, between pulling a trigger in a detached moment of rage, standing feet away from the victim, versus close quarter hand to hand assault. Which is not to say removing the gun from the equation would have made any specific person not commit violence. Clearly, there are people in the world who will cross that threshold regardless of the type of violence. But in the aggregate, removing the gun will reduce the statistical quantity of violence, because there are significant numbers of people in the world who will pull a trigger but would not beat or stab someone.
   963. villageidiom Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:12 AM (#4390462)
use of a historical-social analysis of facts
IIRC, Francis was implicated in events either speculated to have happened, with no supporting evidence, or happened but connect to him based on who he knew rather than what he knew. It's like saying former Bills QB Joe Ferguson is culpable for Nicole Brown Simpson's death, or something like that.

Now, I haven't asked Joe Ferguson for an alibi for mid-June 1994. But I don't really think I need to.

- - - - -

To those upthread who were pondering what alternate denomination to pursue, I will say this. Each year I attend a conference of religious folk active in the administration of their particular church. Mostly it's UCC, Lutheran, a few Episcopalians, an occasional Unitarian, and one family (mine) of Catholics. I was surprised to find out two years ago that the vast majority of attendees - among the most active participants in their churches - are lapsed Catholics. You'll fit in fine, wherever you go; you just need to find something that feels right.

(My own search, around a couple decades ago, eventually brought me right back where I began, with Catholicism.)
   964. villageidiom Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM (#4390465)
The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people.
What, then, is the solution?
   965. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM (#4390467)
Too, how do you take away someone's guns with the confidence that all of them have been taken? How do you keep that person—well, everyone can’t be issued their personal policeman. Life is hard and it is messy.


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

Shoving a gun in the woman's face is a crime of opportunity and passion. Take away the opportunity by making it difficult to acquire the gun, you reduce the likelihood dramatically.


But you wouldn't take away the opportunity at all, nor the passion. There is no "the" opportunity. There are endless opportunities. One of them is "using his gun." What are you going to do about the other 12 bazillionthousand of them?

Both of these arguments are variants of the "if we can't prevent a crime with 100% certainty, let's not even try to make it less likely". And yes, Ray, it's easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or a sledgehammer.

Of course if you think that people who've had to have ####### restraining orders placed against them should still be allowed to possess guns, there's really not much to say in response.
   966. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4390470)
Do you know what a temporary restraining order is--and what's required to get one?

Both of these arguments are variants of the "if we can't prevent a crime with 100% certainty, let's not even try to make it less likely".


That is odious.
   967. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4390473)
The problem is not the guns. The problem is the people.

What, then, is the solution?


There isn't one. Does that shock you? Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.

How do you stop people from drowning? You don't. A percentage of people will drown no matter what you do. Yes, there are efforts that make sense. Put a lifeguard in public pools. Etc. Put gun legislation in place to try to reduce violence. Sure. But at some point, you hit up against reality, the point at which tweaking gun legislation doesn't amount to a hill of beans difference in further reducing gun violence, and when weighed against the fact that bearing arms is a constitutional right and it should be difficult to strip constitutional rights, it makes sense to just stop the silliness, already.

Isn't this what you guys argue with abortion rights, that it should be difficult to take them away, and things like waiting periods and parental notification infringe on them?
   968. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM (#4390474)
Of course if you think that people who've had to have ####### restraining orders placed against them should still be allowed to possess guns, there's really not much to say in response.


Restraining orders are basically granted because the judge takes what the woman says at face value. I think that's fine. But do you want to change that? Because once you start hooking other things to them, judges will be less likely to grant them.
   969. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4390478)
How do you stop people from drowning? You don't. A percentage of people will drown no matter what you do. Yes, there are efforts that make sense. Put a lifeguard in public pools. Etc. Put gun legislation in place to try to reduce violence. Sure. But at some point, you hit up against reality, the point at which tweaking gun legislation doesn't amount to a hill of beans difference in further reducing gun violence, and when weighed against the fact that bearing arms is a constitutional right and it should be difficult to strip constitutional rights, it makes sense to just stop the silliness, already.


This is functionally true. The problem is that we are nowhere near the point where gun control regulation has bumped up against reality. You seem to think regulation is currently stronger than it is.
   970. GregD Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM (#4390479)
How do you stop people from drowning? You don't. A percentage of people will drown no matter what you do. Yes, there are efforts that make sense. Put a lifeguard in public pools. Etc. Put gun legislation in place to try to reduce violence. Sure. But at some point, you hit up against reality, the point at which tweaking gun legislation doesn't amount to a hill of beans difference in further reducing gun violence, and when weighed against the fact that bearing arms is a constitutional right and it should be difficult to strip constitutional rights, it makes sense to just stop the silliness, already.
I am sensitive to the idea that we have to be wary of utopianism, but I don't think this paragraph illustrates that.

Drowning is an interesting example since it involves hard-to-control human behaviors, but the record is extremely clear that 1) you can't take it to zero, but 2) you can cut it dramatically by simple steps. There are plenty of examples from beaches on coasts and islands where inexpensive steps drop drowning dramatically. Detailed signs, floatation devices, publicity all work and cost very little. You can't prove how many people have been saved but you can see stretches that lost 5-10 people a year now fluctuate between 2 and 5.

So water safety illustrates the upside of public safety efforts against guns. Given that gun safety has worked in other nations, there's no reason to think 1) it wouldn't work here and 2) some people would still die by guns no matter what.
   971. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:39 AM (#4390480)
Sam, for what it's worth, I actually don't find you unreasonable on this issue. Andy is and just parrots NRA-is-evil talking points because he has no other argument given his limited knowledge of this issue, but you at least understand that there is a point at which further legislation won't matter. We just disagree as to whether we are at that point now.
   972. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4390482)
Drowning is an interesting example since it involves hard-to-control human behaviors, but the record is extremely clear that 1) you can't take it to zero, but 2) you can cut it dramatically by simple steps. There are plenty of examples from beaches on coasts and islands where inexpensive steps drop drowning dramatically. Detailed signs, floatation devices, publicity all work and cost very little. You can't prove how many people have been saved but you can see stretches that lost 5-10 people a year now fluctuate between 2 and 5.


Going from 0 lifeguards on a stretch of beach to 1 or 2 or 3, or whatever, is reasonable and has real effects. But going to 100 lifeguards on the same stretch of beach would have virtually no further effect on lives saved. That is the point I am trying to make (well, one of them) with respect to gun legislation.
   973. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:43 AM (#4390483)
What, then, is the solution?
in the words of eric cartman:

I believe we all know what needs to be done. But, I think it's best we don't talk out loud about it until we have most of them on the trains heading to the camps
   974. zonk Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:45 AM (#4390484)
There's a really good reason why lyric sites suck that you guys are ignoring: they're generally in hot water regarding copyright infringement. It doesn't really make sense to invest a lot of time and money in a really awesome lyrics site. Forman could make an amazing lyrics-reference.com, then get sued into oblivion, taking the sports-reference sites with it. The optimum model for these guys appears to be to put up the lyrics site as cheaply as possible, lard it up with ads for some dough, and try to finish high in the google search results without being any more noticeable than the other bazillion crappy lyrics sites.


True... though, I'd say it's just another instance of the RIAA continuing to hold its breath until it turns blue, not recognizing that the world has changed.

I mean, ultimately -- what's anyone going to be doing with "just lyrics" -- besides looking up a song they either own or intend to own? The lyrics themselves (without the tab/music) are fairly pointless. Don't get me wrong - I understand that the lyrics truly "are", in the legal sense, just like any other content that people create and want to get paid for... I'm just saying if the RIAA was smart (and big picture, there might not be a dumber group on the planet) - they'd recognize that the publication of song lyrics really ought to be seen as a sort of loss leader.

Let anyone who wants to publish them - but require the inclusion of a link to a legitimate source for sales (be it itunes, amazon, or whatever). Hell, the RIAA itself could probably produce such a site at relatively minimal cost -- make it free, and people would flock to it.

Instead, though, they want to keep pretending that resurrection of their old brick-and-mortar model is only another lawsuit away from happening.... good luck with that.
   975. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:47 AM (#4390486)
Well, it isn't just abortion rights. It's a whole host of things (dare I bring up men's rights? Designer rape laws?). Everything is a calculus involving a cost-benefit weighing of opposing interest. This should go without saying. This is not about just restricting guns and the NRA, loathsome as it is. This is about the pretexts and predicates for legal action. Let's not pretend that if we have a rule that holds us to just taking people at their word (well, certain people's) word for whatever, there will be no abuse. At some point, you do hit a wall. You have to cut your losses. We have rules that apply uniformly (we hope) in an overarching fashion. Like laws against murder. We still don't send people to jail or death chambers, or even try them, based on unsupported allegations--even if it turns out subsequently those allegation had a basis. That's our rule, and there's a definite downside to it. But there's a downside to having the opposite.

I am for much more gun control than we have now, but I'm not naive enough to think that it is a panacea, or that it should be applied unthinkingly. I also realize that guns also solve problems. That's the way it goes. Sorry. Life is tough and people are #######--and bastards. Your predicament is not sui generis--and neither is mine. So, let's not pretend everything has bow before your interests and sensibilities.
   976. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:52 AM (#4390489)
dare I bring up men's rights?


I'm always up for a snicker.
   977. GregD Posted: March 18, 2013 at 11:56 AM (#4390491)
Going from 0 lifeguards on a stretch of beach to 1 or 2 or 3, or whatever, is reasonable and has real effects. But going to 100 lifeguards on the same stretch of beach would have virtually no further effect on lives saved. That is the point I am trying to make (well, one of them) with respect to gun legislation.
I agree with that (and interestingly to my surprise lifeguards aren't always the best bet but other forms can be almost as effective.) I would say that that we're closer to 0 or 1 lifeguards right now than 10 on that scale in terms of gun rights. From talking to public health people, the way they approach drownings is to do serious studies of when, where, at what time of day, to whom, and under what circumstances drownings occur, since there's no one size fits all approach (if people are drowning because they are drunkenly swimming at night, lifeguards are not going to be that helpful.) Then they look at what other places have done to reduce numbers. Then they try stuff and assess it. With federal and state backing and data.

We can't even get the federal public health officials to start that process with guns, much less move on to trying things that have worked other places.
   978. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4390494)
(if people are drowning because they are drunkenly swimming at night, lifeguards are not going to be that helpful.)


Anecdotally, a major cause of drowning appears to be going in to save someone else who is drowning. Which is understandable, although going in to save a dog from drowning is not; I read a story a few weeks ago in which almost an entire family was wiped out because one of them went in to save the dog, and another went in after the initial person, and another went in after the second person... all of them died leaving a sister or something living - and the dog survived, because of course most dogs can swim anyway. The pet cult(ure) in this country is very bizarre.
   979. GregD Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:03 PM (#4390496)
Anecdotally, a major cause of drowning appears to be going in to save someone else who is drowning. Which is understandable, although going in to save a dog from drowning is not; I read a story a few weeks ago in which almost an entire family was wiped out because one of them went in to save the dog, and another went in after the initial person, and another went in after the second person... all of them died leaving a sister or something living - and the dog survived, because of couse most dogs can swim anyway. The pet cult(ure) in this country is very bizarre.
That is a crazy story. Good Lord.

#1 is right, and a reason why some public health people put an increasingly emphasis on these tubes you can post at beaches with big signs saying if you see someone in trouble GRAB THIS TUBE FIRST. There are all kinds of saves on them, and at the least they reduce the tragedy you're talking about where swimmer #2 drowns trying to save swimmer #1.
   980. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4390505)
Here is the story about the family being wiped out, leaving the poor girl alone:

Kuljian’s 16-year-old son, Gregory, ran to save the dog, only to be captured by the surging surf himself. Kuljian, 54, followed, and then his wife, Mary Scott, 57.

On shore, their 18-year-old daughter, Olivia, and Gregory’s girlfriend could only watch.

Both parents’ bodies were later recovered, but the boy — presumed dead — is still missing.

The dog eventually made it back to shore.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/family-drowns-rescue-dog-churning-waves-beach-article-1.1208853#ixzz2NuQCHMz1
   981. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM (#4390506)
How did I know Ray was going to bring up that pet story?

There was another drowning story last week where a poor teenager was trying to save her six-year-old brother. She drowned, the man who went in after HER is missing, but the six-year-old managed to survive unharmed.

People actually manage to have as strong emotions for living animals in their care as they do for children, Ray. That you are unable to experience those same emotions is not a compelling argument for their invalidity.
   982. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4390510)
Hell, Ray can't even understand why a person under a restraining order shouldn't automatically not be allowed to have a gun. There are a lot of things Ray doesn't understand.
   983. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM (#4390512)
I'd go in to save my dog. I'd watch the lot of you die while sipping a cool drink. Priorities.
   984. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4390516)
That you are unable to experience those same emotions is not a compelling argument for their invalidity.

I would like to make clear that I do not feel that anyone is required in the slightest to feel these emotions


I'd go in to save my dog. I'd watch the lot of you die while sipping a cool drink. Priorities.

I can grok this. I also wonder about people and swimming. I was on the swimming team for 15 years as a youth and I admit it is really REALLY hard to imagine myself either a.) jumping in waters where it would be clear I would drown or b.) drowning in waters I chose to jump into. I often wonder how many people are just really really really bad at it. Or just generally bad.
   985. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:35 PM (#4390518)
I'd go in to save my dog. I'd watch the lot of you die while sipping a cool drink. Priorities.

I have to echo Sam here. I'd be much more likely to risk my life to save my pets than a stranger.
   986. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:38 PM (#4390521)
I'd go in after my beloved pet corgi in a New York minute. Of course I'm a trained lifeguard (well, at least I was) and fairly confident I'd be able to avoid my own demise under most aquatic circumstances. There's a bit of science that goes into properly saving a panicked drowner and that shouldn't be underestimated.

[edit - or what Lassus said]
   987. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4390522)
I often wonder how many people are just really really really bad at it. Or just generally bad.


The thing about swimming is you either can, or you can't. There's no middle ground. I'd bet that most drownings (outside of infants) occur in waters with currents, where people really don't understand they're not in an above ground pool. Riptides are brutal forces and I'd wager that the majority of beach swimmers across the nation have no idea what they are.
   988. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:40 PM (#4390523)
Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.

Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.

Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.


QFTx3
   989. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:41 PM (#4390527)
The thing about swimming is you either can, or you can't. There's no middle ground.

Really? I'd have to think the gap in ability to life save between Michael Phelps and your average 50 y.o. beachgoer is pretty huge.
   990. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:43 PM (#4390529)
I have to echo Sam here. I'd be much more likely to risk my life to save my pets than a stranger.

Not even a strange fetus?
   991. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4390536)
Really? I'd have to think the gap in ability to life save between Michael Phelps and your average 50 y.o. beachgoer is pretty huge.


The operative difference between "can swim" and "can swim really well" isn't the key. And Micheal Phelps doesn't swim in the ocean very often, I'd bet.
   992. zonk Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:49 PM (#4390537)
I'd go in to save my dog. I'd watch the lot of you die while sipping a cool drink. Priorities.

I have to echo Sam here. I'd be much more likely to risk my life to save my pets than a stranger.


Hmmm... not me.

I've had pets, lost pets, cried over losing pets - I don't have any currently, I do understand what it means to have a pet that's like "a member of the family".... but I would probably NOT jump off a Lake Michigan pier to save a pet (even my own) if I thought the risk was too high (calm day, knowing the area of the lake well? maybe). I think - or at least, I'd like to think that I would regardless of risk for a stranger. I suppose there are people I "know" (famous or 'known' by me for other reasons) where I might make a more considerate estimation of the risks before diving in, and perhaps even a few cases where the best I could muster would be a promise not to impede rescue by by other means.
   993. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4390539)
And there are 15 of me.


Sam's name is Legion; for they are many.
   994. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4390542)
Not even a strange fetus?

Just because I think children shouldn't be murdered doesn't mean I like children. Hell, I don't think you or Sam should be murdered either ;-)
   995. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM (#4390544)
I'd be much more likely to risk my life to save my pets than a stranger.

I hate to say this, but it's gotta be a (very fast) judgment of the job involved. I'd like to think anyone under 115 pounds I'd be fine. In rough or secluded waters, when you get to full-grown and larger adults I'm going to be a lot more reticent due to chance of failure and my own death.
   996. zonk Posted: March 18, 2013 at 01:02 PM (#4390549)
Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.


Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.


Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.



QFTx3


Strawmen are always easy to smack down... and on occasion, they even manifest themselves in reality (step on down, Mayor Bloomberg).

However - taking something like the NYC Big Gulp ban - while I can absolutely concur with the stupidity of a heavy-handed ban, this would be an area where some amount of 'legislation' I feel I could live with.... Generally speaking, I don't like consumption/sales taxes because they're terribly regressive -- but, rather than an outright ban, this is an area where I wouldn't mind something like a $0.25 tax slapped on a soda over, say, 20 oz.

Go ahead and have your big gulp -- but ingesting 48 ounces of soda on a regular basis isn't good for your health... I absolutely believe people have every right to do plenty of things aren't good for your health, but I also believe in quasi-public health care, and, that has to be paid for somehow. In my perfect world - we wouldn't apply sales taxes to certain beverages, with higher taxes on others.

I think the vast majority of liberals concur with the idea that we're not looking to run lives -- just have the government's fingers on the scale to encourage better behavior wherever suboptimal behavior has a deleterious impact on society as a whole.

   997. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 18, 2013 at 01:11 PM (#4390552)
Some things can't be solved by legislation. Liberals have never understood that.


I've yet to meet a liberal who doesn't understand that.

I also have not met (in person) a conservative (or libertarian) who doesn't understand that some laws/legislation are helpful/necessary (though some online personas seem to come close)

   998. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4390561)
As a genuine liberal myself, I do think that the extra-large soft-drink legislation is overdoing it.
   999. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 18, 2013 at 01:27 PM (#4390565)
As a genuine liberal myself, I do think that the extra-large soft-drink legislation is overdoing it.


Word. A tax on processed sugar/corn syrup on the other hand ...
   1000. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 18, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4390571)
I think the vast majority of liberals concur with the idea that we're not looking to run lives


Of course they do.
Page 10 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(34 - 4:54am, Apr 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(22 - 4:37am, Apr 19)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogMinuteman News Center: Giandurco: This means WAR
(84 - 2:28am, Apr 19)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogMitchell: Now Playing First Base for the Yankees
(55 - 1:57am, Apr 19)
Last: Dan

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(901 - 1:38am, Apr 19)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 18, 2014
(150 - 1:29am, Apr 19)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogNY Daily News: Secret Service Threatened To Shoot Mr. Met
(15 - 1:16am, Apr 19)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOrioles launch D.C. invasion with billboard near Nationals Park
(27 - 12:57am, Apr 19)
Last: Belfry Bob

NewsblogA's, Doolittle agree to 4-year extension
(3 - 12:47am, Apr 19)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(332 - 12:20am, Apr 19)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1680 - 11:44pm, Apr 18)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(330 - 11:28pm, Apr 18)
Last: Select Storage Device

NewsblogEscape from Cuba: Yasiel Puig’s Untold Journey to the Dodgers
(24 - 10:41pm, Apr 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(143 - 10:25pm, Apr 18)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogFletcher: Foes have slowed Trout in one category so far - steals
(7 - 7:22pm, Apr 18)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.2065 seconds
52 querie(s) executed