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

Monday, March 12, 2018

OTP 12 March 2018: Trevor Bauer thinks Major League Baseball trying to silence him on Twitter

Last February, Bauer made waves on Twitter when he argued over politics with his followers. He tweeted that almost all of the Indians supported Donald Trump and told another user they were “welcome to quit life.”

Bauer has been much calmer as of late and that could be because MLB stepped in. The 27-year-old hasn’t tweeted that much this offseason and when he does it’s been about things like the Olympics and his training.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 12, 2018 at 08:17 AM | 1718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cleveland indians, off topic, politics, twitter

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 16 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 > 
   1501. tshipman Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5639408)
I'm not a baby boomer, but that generation didn't invent the law of supply and demand. I'm not sure why any sane person would want to spend $4000 a month to live in a one bedroom apartment just because it's in a oh-so-hip neighborhood that nobody wanted to go within a mile of 20 or 30 years ago, but the existence of that stupid demand is what broke the 25% rule of thumb.


Ignoring the hyperbole, people choose to live in expensive areas for two main reasons:

1. You make more money living in dense urban areas, and the most dense areas offer the largest opportunity to people. I went to high school in a rural area and now make 3-5X what my classmates who stayed make. In large part, that came from being in the right place at the right time.
2. It's a luxury expense that they choose. Just like anything else that people spend money on, whether it be a nice car, tickets to the ballpark, gambling in a pool room or eating at nice restaurants, living in high COL areas is a luxury item that some people enjoy.

That said, the existence of luxury housing is not what broke the 25% rule of thumb. A generation of selfish baby boomers who insisted on policies that benefited suburbs over cities because black people live in cities did that.

As is usually the case in the housing market, the people with virtually unlimited income are setting the market for everyone else. Whenever you hear talk of new housing going up in cities, it's always about "luxury apartments"**, and never about housing that anyone on a median income could afford using that 25% standard. The truth is that this generation's politicians, whatever their nominal party and whatever their public position, mostly just want low income people to disappear, at least if you judge them by their actions rather than by their words.


This is extra mega dumb. Luxury housing is what gets built because it's the most profitable in a world with height restrictions and expensive environmental roadblocks. Housing in a region is a fixed pool, and it's price is driven by supply and demand.

In the absence of "luxury" housing, rich people simply bid up the price of non-luxury housing.
Raising the quality of the housing stock doesn't drive price up--not building enough housing is what does that.
   1502. PreservedFish Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:07 PM (#5639410)

As is usually the case in the housing market, the people with virtually unlimited income are setting the market for everyone else.


Can we get an economist to rule on this?
   1503. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:29 PM (#5639413)
I’m far from having unlimited income, but I’m fairly well off. I pay about 15% on housing, less than 10% if you take out the principal portion of the mortgage. And that includes over $4,000 per annum on flood and hurricane insurance that most people don’t have.
   1504. Howie Menckel Posted: March 17, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5639419)
one media member appears to have kicked off St. Patrick's Day a little early last night
#notagoodlook

Andrea Mitchell
‏Verified account @mitchellreports

One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days
10:14 PM - 16 Mar 2018
   1505. Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5639424)
California housing costs have many boogeymen.


I'll add:

5. Foreign nationals off-shoring money into the safe haven of desirable US real estate.

There are efforts afoot at the state level to overrule local zoning regulations to allow for greater housing density:


State lawmakers are finally beginning to take the crisis seriously. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown and the California legislature passed a slate of 15 housing bills, which would (among other things) raise almost $1 billion a year to subsidize affordable housing. More housing bills are slated for 2018. Meanwhile, the state transportation agency, CalTrans, is aiming to double transit ridership between 2015 and 2020, in part to encourage urban density.

But those legislative reforms are fighting against an artificially constrained market. The basic problem remains: It is difficult to build housing in California, thanks in part to a thicket of local parking regulations, building requirements, zoning restrictions, and bureaucratic choke points. The state’s (generally whiter, wealthier) residents use these tools to prevent new construction that might house (generally more diverse, poorer) newcomers.

As long as supply is artificially constrained and demand continues growing, affordable housing subsidies will never be able to keep up. As long as localities can’t or won’t build dense housing near train stations and bus stops, transit investments won’t pay off like they could.

Now, there is a solution on the table that goes directly after this root cause. SB 827, a new bill before the California Senate, would require that all areas within a half-mile of a high-frequency transit stop, or within a quarter-mile of a bus or transit corridor, allow heights of at least 45 or 85 feet (depending on distance from transit, width of street, and other characteristics). That’s roughly four to eight stories, far higher than what many local zoning commissions allow.

SB 827 would also waive any minimum parking requirements in those areas and prohibit any design requirement that would have the effect of arbitrarily lowering the square footage allowed on a lot.

The bill’s changes would apply to huge swathes of the state, including the majority of land in several major cities. It would unleash dense development In markets long dominated by powerful anti-housing activists (often called NIMBYs, for Not In My Backyard). It represents a housing revolution.


VOX
   1506. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 17, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5639425)
I'm not a baby boomer, but that generation didn't invent the law of supply and demand. I'm not sure why any sane person would want to spend $4000 a month to live in a one bedroom apartment just because it's in a oh-so-hip neighborhood that nobody wanted to go within a mile of 20 or 30 years ago, but the existence of that stupid demand is what broke the 25% rule of thumb.

Ignoring the hyperbole, people choose to live in expensive areas for two main reasons:

1. You make more money living in dense urban areas, and the most dense areas offer the largest opportunity to people. I went to high school in a rural area and now make 3-5X what my classmates who stayed make. In large part, that came from being in the right place at the right time.


You make more money living near your job, but you don't have to live within walking distance of that job to get those same benefits.

2. It's a luxury expense that they choose. Just like anything else that people spend money on, whether it be a nice car, tickets to the ballpark, gambling in a pool room or eating at nice restaurants, living in high COL areas is a luxury item that some people enjoy.

Nothing there contradicts anything I wrote, other than I think it's crazy to spend more than 25% of your income for the dubious privilege of living in a tiny apartment. But I'm not saying that anyone should be denied that choice.

That said, the existence of luxury housing is not what broke the 25% rule of thumb. A generation of selfish baby boomers who insisted on policies that benefited suburbs over cities because black people live in cities did that.

Talk about mega dumb----the whites who deserted cities from the 50's through the 60's** were the parents of baby boomers, not the baby boomers themselves. Playing generational blame games is always stupid, but it was the Greatest Generation and the Depression Babies who were the ones fleeing to the suburbs during that critical period. The first baby boomers didn't even enter the housing market until white flight was already in full force, and in fact it was the baby boomers who were in the forefront of the return to the cities phenomenon that began in the 80's and 90's.

** Washington went from 70% white in 1950 to less than 30% white by 1970. No major city was immune from this trend.

As is usually the case in the housing market, the people with virtually unlimited income are setting the market for everyone else. Whenever you hear talk of new housing going up in cities, it's always about "luxury apartments"**, and never about housing that anyone on a median income could afford using that 25% standard. The truth is that this generation's politicians, whatever their nominal party and whatever their public position, mostly just want low income people to disappear, at least if you judge them by their actions rather than by their words.

This is extra mega dumb. Luxury housing is what gets built because it's the most profitable in a world with height restrictions and expensive environmental roadblocks. Housing in a region is a fixed pool, and it's price is driven by supply and demand.


And just where in cities like San Francisco are you going to find enough vacant land to accommodate FIRST more luxury housing (which will ALWAYS be a realtor's priority, because of the profit margin), and then AFTER that market has been satiated, have enough land left over to build affordable housing for the bottom 50% or 60% of the income brackets?

In the absence of "luxury" housing, rich people simply bid up the price of non-luxury housing.
Raising the quality of the housing stock doesn't drive price up--not building enough housing is what does that.


Both of those sentiments once again simply describe supply and demand. The "problem" is simply the desire of too many rich people to live in too small an area. Of course it's not really an economic problem at all, but just another way of reiterating supply and demand's inexorable pull.

As for height limits being the villain here, when was the last time you visited Manhattan? They've got skyscrapers there reaching halfway to the moon, and yet the only affordable units are the ones either under rent control or being subsidized by various government programs. Removing those height limitations in San Francisco would only increase the demand; it wouldn't do much if anything to bring about apartments for those living at the median income or below.
   1507. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 17, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5639426)
California housing costs have many boogeymen.

I'll add:

5. Foreign nationals off-shoring money into the safe haven of desirable US real estate.


That's certainly a problem in New York, too.
   1508. tshipman Posted: March 17, 2018 at 05:30 PM (#5639427)
You make more money living near your job, but you don't have to live within walking distance of that job to get those same benefits.


The whole benefit of cities is forming dense networks. If you live in Manhattan or SF or Hong Kong, your neighbors and random strangers are more likely to work at your next job. Living an hour or more away just means that you're not forming those same networks. What's worse, you're working two plus hours more per day without getting paid by having to commute.

Talk about mega dumb----the whites who deserted cities from the 50's through the 60's** were the parents of baby boomers, not the baby boomers themselves. Playing generational blame games is always stupid, but it was the Greatest Generation and the Depression Babies who were the ones fleeing to the suburbs during that critical period. The first baby boomers didn't even enter the housing market until white flight was already in full force, and in fact it was the baby boomers who were in the forefront of the return to the cities phenomenon that began in the 80's and 90's.


Those were the people who moved, but I didn't say that it was the people who moved. I said it was the people who enacted policy. Prop 13 was passed in 1978--30 years after the war.

Both of those sentiments once again simply describe supply and demand. The "problem" is simply the desire of too many rich people to live in too small an area. Of course it's not really an economic problem at all, but just another way of reiterating supply and demand's inexorable pull.


No, the problem is not enough housing for how many people who want to live somewhere. There's no such thing as "too small an area." There's only inadequate policy. There are more people in Manila than there are in SF, in a smaller area, but prices are lower there. If you don't like Manila, you could substitute Tokyo, Queens or Paris.
   1509. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 05:48 PM (#5639429)
If you live in Manhattan or SF or Hong Kong, your neighbors and random strangers are more likely to work at your next job
1.5 million people live in Manhattan. I don't think the odds are very high that anyone you encounter as a result of living there is likely to work at your next job.

People live in Manhattan because they don't want as long a commute and/or because they inexplicably like living in a city, not so they can randomly encounter a future coworker.
   1510. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 17, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5639431)
Talk about mega dumb----the whites who deserted cities from the 50's through the 60's** were the parents of baby boomers, not the baby boomers themselves. Playing generational blame games is always stupid, but it was the Greatest Generation and the Depression Babies who were the ones fleeing to the suburbs during that critical period. The first baby boomers didn't even enter the housing market until white flight was already in full force, and in fact it was the baby boomers who were in the forefront of the return to the cities phenomenon that began in the 80's and 90's.

Those were the people who moved, but I didn't say that it was the people who moved. I said it was the people who enacted policy. Prop 13 was passed in 1978--30 years after the war.


Prop 13 was instigated by the 75 year old Howard Jarvis, who scarcely qualified as a baby boomer. Much more to the point, the entire fabric of government-backed housing discrimination, in the form of redlining and FHA mortgage denials to blacks, went back all the way to the 1920's, and was solidified by every administration from FDR through the first part of JFK's. Prop 13 was specific to California, but housing in big cities on the East Coast are only marginally more affordable than SF and LA, and for that matter so is Seattle.

Both of those sentiments once again simply describe supply and demand. The "problem" is simply the desire of too many rich people to live in too small an area. Of course it's not really an economic problem at all, but just another way of reiterating supply and demand's inexorable pull.

No, the problem is not enough housing for how many people who want to live somewhere. There's no such thing as "too small an area." There's only inadequate policy. There are more people in Manila than there are in SF, in a smaller area, but prices are lower there.


As they'd be lower in San Francisco if San Francisco's income levels were that of Manila's.

If you don't like Manila, you could substitute Tokyo, Queens or Paris.

Why don't you just peruse this list of the world's ten most expensive cities and give us your thoughts. I'll respond tomorrow. (Spoiler alert: No U.S. city is on that list.)

   1511. SteveF Posted: March 17, 2018 at 05:57 PM (#5639434)
From that article:
A weakening dollar meant no American city was among the 10 most expensive despite a rise in the relative cost of living in the U.S. over recent years, the EIU said. The report named New York and Los Angeles as the 13th and 14th costliest, down from ninth and 11th position last year.

This statement makes me question the relevance of this list to the point under discussion.
   1512. Greg K Posted: March 17, 2018 at 06:02 PM (#5639435)
From my limited international experience I'd expect all 10 cities to be in Switzerland. That place is ####### insane.
   1513. tshipman Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:09 PM (#5639441)
Why don't you just peruse this list of the world's ten most expensive cities and give us your thoughts. I'll respond tomorrow. (Spoiler alert: No U.S. city is on that list.)


The survey compares more than 400 individual prices across over 150 products and services, and is the basis of our ranking of the world’s major cities by cost of living.


Which is completely irrelevant to housing policy.
   1514. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:33 PM (#5639449)
“This is 5-alarm fire. We simply just can’t dismiss the election on Tuesday to local events… It’s about these larger issues of this toxic political environment we find ourselves in.”

— Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), on CNN.
   1515. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:39 PM (#5639451)
I see that Ray's friend Jonathan Turley is continuing his hackery. I hadn't noticed, in the past, the guy being this bad, but either he's just taking the Dersh approach of realizing that the only way to get attention is to say pro-Trump things, or he's completely unreliable:
Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley believes Andrew McCabe‘s firing could signal legal trouble ahead for former FBI director James Comey.

Appearing on CNN Saturday morning with host Michael Smerconish, Turley was asked to opine as to whether any potential criminal penalties could result from the McCabe affair and if so, why.

Smerconish’s guest was more than happy to oblige. After briefly discussing McCabe’s potential liability for allegedly misleading investigators, the liberal law professor shifted gears and started discussing how Comey fits into all of the drama and intrigue.

Turley noted, “This could easily spin further out of control. There was one line in the case statement last night that I immediately flagged. Because he said that he had authority to do this and he conferred with the director—the director at the time was James Comey.”
Turley's point is that Comey testified that he didn't approve a leak, while McCabe is saying that Comey did. The problem? McCabe didn't say that. Here's what McCabe actually said: "The OIG investigation has focused on information I chose to share with a reporter through my public affairs officer and a legal counselor. As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter." In other words, Comey said he hadn't approved a leak; McCabe said that Comey was aware of it.
   1516. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:49 PM (#5639454)
Andrea Mitchell, Verified account @mitchellreports

One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days

I don't think Mitchell is correct. McCabe was looking to retire at age 50, which was only possible because he was under the special retirement provisions for Federal Law Enforecement Officers. It's more generous than regular Civil Service retirement, but those folks are also subject to mandatory retirement at age-55. I'm not all that familiar with the details, but I think you have to be in a covered law enforcement position to take advantage of the early retirement age. If McCabe is hired in a non-law enforcement position, I believe he'd have to work until he was eligible under the non-law enforcement standards, age-55 with 30 years of service, or age-60 with 20.
   1517. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5639455)

Well, as I read the tweet Mitchell doesn't say it's correct; she's just passing it on. But in any case, several members of Congress seem to have bought into this theory, whether it's correct or not. I've seen more than one such tweet offering to hire him, and I'm pretty sure that they were from real accounts.
   1518. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2018 at 08:06 PM (#5639457)
None of them are "Clintonites."

Really? The Clintons primary bag man gave McCabe's wife a $700K campaign contribution, an almost unheard of sum for a state legislative race. And amidst the ~ billion texts between Strzok & Page, their passion for Hillary ranks second only to the amorous agent/attorney passion for each other.
   1519. tshipman Posted: March 17, 2018 at 08:24 PM (#5639459)
Really? The Clintons primary bag man gave McCabe's wife a $700K campaign contribution, an almost unheard of sum for a state legislative race. And amidst the ~ billion texts between Strzok & Page, their passion for Hillary ranks second only to the amorous agent/attorney passion for each other.


By this logic, Donald Trump is a Clintonite.
   1520. Shredder Posted: March 17, 2018 at 08:28 PM (#5639460)
Really? The Clintons primary bag man gave McCabe's wife a $700K campaign contribution, an almost unheard of sum for a state legislative race. And amidst the ~ billion texts between Strzok & Page, their passion for Hillary ranks second only to the amorous agent/attorney passion for each other.
Is there literally one word of this post that's actually true and not just horseshit hyperbole? I mean, the "passion for Hillary" part, even when de-hyperbolized, is just a flat out lie.
   1521. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: March 17, 2018 at 08:47 PM (#5639463)
Is there literally one word of this post that's actually true and not just horseshit hyperbole?


As Mom used to say ... consider the source.
   1522. Jason Dean Posted: March 17, 2018 at 08:54 PM (#5639464)
There are more people in Manila than there are in SF, in a smaller area, but prices are lower there.


You can move in tomorrow.
   1523. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 08:58 PM (#5639465)
Really? The Clintons primary bag man gave McCabe's wife a $700K campaign contribution, an almost unheard of sum for a state legislative race.
Nope. And that's even setting aside the multiple degrees of separation you have in that assertion between Clinton and Andrew McCabe. McAuliffe (or, rather, McAuliffe's PAC) did not give all that money to Jessica McCabe's campaign. The PAC gave $467,500 to her campaign. And not only is it not "unheard of," but it's only the third highest total that McAuliffe's PAC gave to candidates in state legislative races in that very election.

(The $700k figure -- it was actually only $675k; to get to $700k requires rounding -- comes from aggregating McAuliffe's PAC's contributions with the state party's.) Incidentally, one of the two who got more than McCabe from McAuliffe's PAC is Daniel Gecker -- who was the lawyer who represented Kathleen Willey against Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

And amidst the ~ billion texts between Strzok & Page, their passion for Hillary ranks second only to the amorous agent/attorney passion for each other.
Also nope. While they despise Trump as all right-thinking people do, they repeatedly expressed disdain for Hillary.
   1524. bunyon Posted: March 17, 2018 at 09:09 PM (#5639467)
Is the 25% rule on take home or gross?

If the latter, we're at about 5%. People with huge, expensive houses are nuts.
   1525. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 17, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5639468)
The $700k figure -- it was actually only $675k; to get to $700k requires rounding -- comes from aggregating McAuliffe's PAC's contributions with the state party's.

C'mon, McAuliffe dictated how the state party distributed its funds.
   1526. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 17, 2018 at 09:49 PM (#5639472)

C'mon, McAuliffe dictated how the state party distributed its funds.
Even if it was true that the governor could unilaterally decide how the party could allocate campaign expenditures, it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't $700K and that the combined total wasn't even the most that McAuliffe arranged to spend on a Virginia state legislative race in 2015.
   1527. Lassus Posted: March 17, 2018 at 10:03 PM (#5639475)
I submitted a baseball article sometime Friday early afternoon that still isn't up. Grrrrrr.


   1528. BDC Posted: March 17, 2018 at 11:37 PM (#5639489)
À propos of the dark matter discussion the other day, from The Rise of Yeast by Nicholas Money (Oxford 2018):

The largest molecular cloud close to the center of the Milky Way, called Sagittarius B2, contains enough alcohol for 10 [to the 28th power] bottles of vodka, which, incidentally, would weigh five times as much as all of the planets in the Solar System.
   1529. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:31 AM (#5639497)
Why don't you just peruse this list of the world's ten most expensive cities and give us your thoughts. I'll respond tomorrow. (Spoiler alert: No U.S. city is on that list.)
The survey compares more than 400 individual prices across over 150 products and services, and is the basis of our ranking of the world’s major cities by cost of living.

Which is completely irrelevant to housing policy.

I'm not sure why it's "completely" irrelevant, since housing makes up such a large percentage of a city's overall cost.

Your point is nevertheless well taken, so here's Global Property Guide's list of inner cities with the world's most expensive housing.

But in any event, you still haven't given a reason why a city with limited land space and a constant demand for housing by high income people, will be able to supply affordable housing for median and below median income people simply by easing up on zoning policies and getting rid of NIMBY inspired restrictions. Without government subsidies, no developer in his right mind (meaning one who wants to maximize his profits) is going to build houses or condos priced towards the bottom half of the population when the demand** (and profit) is so much higher at the upper ends. Face it, the reason you're seeing these cities become more and more unaffordable by the minute is because too many rich people and near-rich people want to live there, and when they do, it gradually forces out those below them.

Now if you want to start a program where the government confiscates and bulldozes low rise developments and gives out rent vouchers to hundreds of thousands of low and middle income people who will then move into the high rise developments that take their place, and sets strict income limits on those who can move into these new units, then I guess you can you can make San Francisco and other cities like it as relatively affordable as they once were.*** But unless you do that, supply and demand is just going to keep squeezing out the middle and working classes from all of these cities until the last of those neighborhoods is just a distant memory. I don't know San Francisco from first hand experience, but I've sure as hell seen it happen in Washington. 30 or 40 years ago you could barely ever see a white face east of 16th Street in Northwest DC, but it sure ain't like that today, and there's no apparent end to the trend in sight. Houses in areas like Shaw and Columbia Heights that were going begging at low five figure prices are routinely selling for a million or more today.

** Well, in one sense the demand may actually be higher at the lower ends of the population, but from an economic POV much of that demand is irrelevant, since in reality it amounts to little more than a wish, with little money to back it up. There's a basic conflict between what working and middle class people in high end cities want and need, and what developers are willing to provide. Just look at the Washington Post's Real Estate section if you have any doubt about this----you will never see articles on adverts aimed at the lower half of the population. You're about as likely to see two dollar Bud Lights being offered in the luxury boxes at Nats Park.

*** Assuming such a scheme would be approved by the government and not voided by the courts, both rather dubious assumptions.
   1530. tshipman Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:52 AM (#5639503)
But in any event, you still haven't given a reason why a city with limited land space and a constant demand for housing by high income people, will be able to supply affordable housing for median and below median income people simply by easing up on zoning policies and getting rid of NIMBY inspired restrictions.


Well, the big reason is that other places have figured this out.

Madrid, Tokyo, Singapore: they're all more dense and cheaper despite being just as rich.

Face it, the reason you're seeing these cities become more and more unaffordable by the minute is because too many rich people and near-rich people want to live there, and when they do, it gradually forces out those below them.


This is silly. I've literally lived this. We went five years without building housing, from 2008 to 2013. In that time, rent prices went from 2600 for a 2 bedroom to 4099.

It wasn't "rich people and near-rich people". It was the lack of housing starts. It's really that simple.
   1531. greenback slays lewks Posted: March 18, 2018 at 01:59 AM (#5639507)
It's weird when your twitter feed has "Jordan Poole has an overdose of swag" comments sandwiching a story like this on Harvey Weinstein:
According to Bock, Osgood believed that Vance and his office were actively working to discredit Battilana. So the chief and his team decided to take an extraordinary step. “We decided we’re going to hide the victim,” Bock says. “From the DA.”

On April 2, under the direction of Osgood, the SVD put Battilana in a hotel, registering her under a false name. For the next five nights, she was kept safe from Vance’s investigators, first at the Franklin Hotel, then at the Bentley. A 22-year-old woman had come forward to accuse one of the most powerful men in Hollywood of sexual abuse, and the police decided she needed protection — not only from her alleged assailant, but from the elected official responsible for prosecuting him.

The link really is more of a profile of the guy running the Special Victims Division, but Cy Vance and friends do not look good.
   1532. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 04:28 AM (#5639509)

Just as Trump fired Comey for investigating him, and then pretended he hadn't for a whole day until his lack of self control got the better of him and he tweeted that he did it to stop the Russia investigation, Trump fired McCabe for investigating him, and then pretended he hadn't for a whole day before his lack of self control got the better of him and he tweeted that he did it for revenge over the Russia investigation.
   1533. -- Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:29 AM (#5639511)
TDS left valorizes another FBI senior guy who violated his professional obligations and lied.

Film at 11.
   1534. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:31 AM (#5639514)
Face it, the reason you're seeing these cities become more and more unaffordable by the minute is because too many rich people and near-rich people want to live there, and when they do, it gradually forces out those below them.

This is silly. I've literally lived this. We went five years without building housing, from 2008 to 2013. In that time, rent prices went from 2600 for a 2 bedroom to 4099.

It wasn't "rich people and near-rich people". It was the lack of housing starts. It's really that simple.


We're really talking past each other here, starting with the fact that we've got different ideas of what constitutes "affordable". That $2600 rent of 2008 would be a bit over $3000 in 2018 dollars, and using the 25% standard that you find so quaint, it would take an income of $144,000 to afford that apartment. How many new apartments would it have taken to drive that average rental cost down to the point where a median or below median income person could've afforded it, especially one with a child or two?

You want to know how to drive housing prices down a hell of a lot faster than by freeing developers to construct a few hundred more high income high rises? Try what Washington and other cities did in the 50's and 60's, and scare much of the white middle and working class out of town with horror stories about lowlife blacks moving in. Demand** plunged once whites left entire neighborhoods in droves, and so did housing costs. And when whites stopped being scared of their shadows and decided that living in DC was cool, housing prices soared. It's really that simple.

** Again, "demand" taking available income in as a factor. Then as always, whites had much more money to spend on housing than blacks.





   1535. BrianBrianson Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:36 AM (#5639515)
If there was even one First Nations idea that crossed over into mainstream Canadian culture, it would be the first. Do you really think so little of us, that you can't even speak to one thing and say, "That's one thing the First Nations got right." Not one.


What kind of ideas is he talking about? Like, we eat corn, peppers, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, and turkeys. We get about in canoe and kayaks. We smoke tobacco. Every national park employs a half dozen guys to knock down the inukshuks white people are building. I'm from (Mohawk for Trees in the Water) in (Huron for Great Water), a part of (Iroquois for settlement). The Europeans were taught to make Maple Syrup by the First Nations. Canadian cultures derives a ton of stuff from the First Nations.
   1536. BrianBrianson Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:51 AM (#5639516)
If the latter, we're at about 5%. People with huge, expensive houses are nuts.


Yes, yes, everyone here is rich, but the median household income in the US is ~$57k, so you're taking home ~$3300/month. If you spend $165/month for rent, yeah, you're living in a concrete sewer pipe with a rather nice bit of tarp.
   1537. McCoy Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5639520)
Cities having expensive housing is an issue decades in the making and it isn't the fault of "rich" people. For starters you have inefficient renters. Gone are the days of tenement housing where your entire extended family lives in an apartment. Nowadays you have a single renter or possibly double occupancy taking up much of the housing in central areas of the cities. That reduces the supply and increases the demand for housing for that area which has a ripple effect all the way out to the surrounding neighborhoods. You then have a ton of regulations and building restrictions. For instance Andy's beloved DC there are height restrictions, historical restrictions, and parking space restrictions to go along with all of your other environmental and high occupancy restrictions. Not to mention rent control. All of that either increases the cost to build housing or reduces the ability to increase housing stock.

If no matter what you do it is going to cost X per square foot to build why would you build something where your profit is X*.05 per square foot when instead you could build something where your profit is (X+Y)*.2 per square foot?

"Affordable" housing for families requires more space per unit than it does for a single renter. Why sell a 3 bedroom 1500 sq ft unit for $4,000 when you could sell 4 300 st ft units for $9,000? Again it isn't the rich that are the problem. You encounter this problem even in areas with vastly lower rents. The money is in renting to singles not to families.

I've mentioned it before but I would allow cities to build higher, increase parking rates, increase the cost of having a vehicle in the city, give tax incentives for family housing, and by doing that you'll get a heavily dense central area that will allow outlying neighborhoods to supply building family oriented units.
   1538. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5639522)
In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, the late, great Francis Crick argued that the soul is an illusion perpetuated, like Tinkerbell, only by our belief in it. Crick opened his book with this manifesto: "'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."


   1539. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 10:32 AM (#5639524)
Cities having expensive housing is an issue decades in the making and it isn't the fault of "rich" people.

Just to be clear, I wasn't assigning any moral blame to high income renters as a class. It's just that in some cities there are so many of them, along with not-so-rich people who stretch their budgets to insane limits in order to stay in the city.

Gone are the days of tenement housing where your entire extended family lives in an apartment. Nowadays you have a single renter or possibly double occupancy taking up much of the housing in central areas of the cities. That reduces the supply and increases the demand for housing for that area which has a ripple effect all the way out to the surrounding neighborhoods.

True up to a point, but not always, especially for recently arrived immigrants (especially illegal ones) from south of the border. It's not like they're living like the Lower East Side slum dwellers immortalized by Jacob Riis, but they often still pack themselves in pretty thick, much to the displeasure of some of their neighbors.

You then have a ton of regulations and building restrictions. For instance Andy's beloved DC there are height restrictions, historical restrictions, and parking space restrictions to go along with all of your other environmental and high occupancy restrictions. Not to mention rent control. All of that either increases the cost to build housing or reduces the ability to increase housing stock.

True, but those height restrictions have always been with us, and rent control was far, far more extensive in Washington when rents were ridiculously cheap by today's standards. Fixed increase rent control in DC ends when the original tenant moves out, and the turnover in tenants is always freeing up units from fixed controls, with each new arrival loosening the controls even more.

One minor example of how this plays out: A 2BR rent controlled apartment on Mintwood Place in Adams-Morgan set me and my ex-GF back $200 a month in 1975. In spite of a few sharp spikes caused by "capital improvements", when my wife and I left in 1991 the rent was still only $546. By early 2001 that same unit was going for $2000, and now it's around $3500.

If no matter what you do it is going to cost X per square foot to build why would you build something where your profit is X*.05 per square foot when instead you could build something where your profit is (X+Y)*.2 per square foot?

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

"Affordable" housing for families requires more space per unit than it does for a single renter. Why sell a 3 bedroom 1500 sq ft unit for $4,000 when you could sell 4 300 st ft units for $9,000? Again it isn't the rich that are the problem. You encounter this problem even in areas with vastly lower rents. The money is in renting to singles not to families.

Bingo. But in cities like DC and San Francisco the existence of large numbers of "rich" people---singles especially---will pretty much guarantee that little or no truly affordable housing will ever get built in the inner cities. The main reason rents were relatively low before gentrification set in was that there weren't enough "rich" (white) people interested in living in the inner city who would drive up the rents via increased demand. But now there are.

I've mentioned it before but I would allow cities to build higher, increase parking rates, increase the cost of having a vehicle in the city, give tax incentives for family housing, and by doing that you'll get a heavily dense central area that will allow outlying neighborhoods to supply building family oriented units.

I like the idea of tax incentives for family housing, the stripping of DC's historical height limitations involves a tradeoff, and DC is already making the automobile into a de facto pariah. But just about the only thing that will keep rents down in Washington would be a big slowdown in the economy or some unforeseen cultural trend that makes cities seem less hip than they are today. These things can go in cycles, and hell, even short shorts are now back on the basketball court.
   1540. Omineca Greg Posted: March 18, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5639528)
For what is considered a free marketer's paradise, Singapore has a highly subsidised housing market under the aegis of the Housing and Development Board.

I accidentally wandered into their office one morning (trying to find dim sum, natch). The waiting room to see an agent is huge, like a concert hall, and in the front, there's about 60 agents at desks helping clients. The "Now Serving ###" sign, as in "Bring up your ticket and find the desk with the light, it's your turn", has 3 digits, and not 2 like every other time I've seen that technique used.

The issue is that as such a small country, if citizens are priced out of the market, there's nowhere for them to go. I can't speak to its policies or its effectiveness, but the large majority of the people are using the Board's services in some way, either as owners or renters.

The dim sum? I found it.
   1541. Jason Dean Posted: March 18, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5639531)
the late, great Francis Crick...


"...no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."
   1542. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:11 PM (#5639534)
One minor example of how this plays out: A 2BR rent controlled apartment on Mintwood Place in Adams-Morgan set me and my ex-GF back $200 a month in 1975. In spite of a few sharp spikes caused by "capital improvements", when my wife and I left in 1991 the rent was still only $546. By early 2001 that same unit was going for $2000, and now it's around $3500.

During that time period, the Adams-Morgan neighborhood went from being a bit shabby, run down area to one of the most highly sought residential locations in DC. It continued to improve even after Andy left. Prices no longer reflect the 1975 conditions - why should they?
   1543. Greg K Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5639535)
Economist: Why 80% of Singaporeans Live in Government-Built Flats

Today there are about 1m HDB [Housing and Development Board] apartments, largely clustered in two dozen new towns that extend in a semicircle around the city's coastal core. Each year the government sells a fresh batch of as-yet-unbuilt flats, predominantly to first-time buyers. They all come with 99-year leases and are sold at lower-than-market prices, though successful applicants must wait three or four years for their blocks to be completed. Alternatively Singaporeans can choose to buy existing HDB apartments directly from their owners, at whatever price buyer and seller can agree. First- and second-time buyers get money through government grants, regardless of whether they buy new or old flats. Quotas ensure that the mix of Chinese, Indians and Malays in each HDB block reflects the ethnic make-up of the country as a whole, a measure designed to preclude the formation of racial enclaves.


There's also a government program that requires to put a portion of your pay-cheque into a collective fund, which can be withdrawn from for the purposes of a HDB down payment.
   1544. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5639536)
One minor example of how this plays out: A 2BR rent controlled apartment on Mintwood Place in Adams-Morgan set me and my ex-GF back $200 a month in 1975. In spite of a few sharp spikes caused by "capital improvements", when my wife and I left in 1991 the rent was still only $546. By early 2001 that same unit was going for $2000, and now it's around $3500.

During that time period, the Adams-Morgan neighborhood went from being a bit shabby, run down area to one of the most highly sought residential locations in DC. It continued to improve even after Andy left. Prices no longer reflect the 1975 conditions - why should they?


Sorry, but the Mintwood Place of 1975 wasn't at all "shabby" or "run down". Then as now it was a terrific place to live, only it was a lot cheaper and the parking was a lot easier. The only difference is that not enough people realized how good it was in order to drive up the housing costs, but for us that was a feature and not a bug.

Out of curiosity, when have you ever lived in Adams-Morgan?
   1545. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5639539)

What kind of ideas is he talking about? Like, we eat corn, peppers, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, and turkeys. We get about in canoe and kayaks. We smoke tobacco. Every national park employs a half dozen guys to knock down the inukshuks white people are building. I'm from (Mohawk for Trees in the Water) in (Huron for Great Water), a part of (Iroquois for settlement). The Europeans were taught to make Maple Syrup by the First Nations. Canadian cultures derives a ton of stuff from the First Nations.
Sounds like cultural appropriation to me.
   1546. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: March 18, 2018 at 01:01 PM (#5639541)
As is usually the case in the housing market, the people with virtually unlimited income are setting the market for everyone else.

Can we get an economist to rule on this?

This economist's take: in many markets, the "people with virtually unlimited income" set the market by using political clout to set zoning restrictions that limit the entry of new housing and then bid up existing inventory (and then often tear down and rebuild a larger, more modern single-family house).

The obvious solution is to tax luxury housing and subsidize construction of multifamily housing units. But good luck getting that scheme approved anywhere, even California.
   1547. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 01:07 PM (#5639543)
The obvious solution is to
eliminate zoning.
   1548. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5639544)
Legalize tent cities and squatting.
   1549. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 01:53 PM (#5639548)
Sorry, but the Mintwood Place of 1975 wasn't at all "shabby" or "run down".

But the Adams-Morgan area certainly was - which is what I said - and that had an effect on even the nicer blocks in the neighborhood. Again, there is no reason for today's Adams-Morgan real estate prices to reflect 1975 conditions that no longer exist.
Out of curiosity, when have you ever lived in Adams-Morgan?

I lived in the adjacent, and far less fashionable, Columbia Heights neighborhood from 1980-87.
   1550. McCoy Posted: March 18, 2018 at 02:38 PM (#5639553)
Bingo. But in cities like DC and San Francisco the existence of large numbers of "rich" people---singles especially---will pretty much guarantee that little or no truly affordable housing will ever get built in the inner cities. The main reason rents were relatively low before gentrification set in was that there weren't enough "rich" (white) people interested in living in the inner city who would drive up the rents via increased demand. But now there are.

That's called supply and demand. There is little affordable housing being built period outside of government assistance. That isn't a builder thumbing their noses at the consumer but catering to the consumer. I now live in the relatively cheap Atlanta area and it is virtually impossible to find a homebuilding company building less than 1,800 sq ft houses and really about 99% of the new housing stock is greater than 2,000 sq ft. It's virtually impossible to find a stand alone brand new home ITP or for about 15 miles OTP for less than $350,000. If you want something for less than $300,000 brand new you're talking Acworth or farther north or something like a rough outer neighborhood like College Park.

Blame it on the Boomers if you want but there is little money to be made building 1600 sq ft homes for 180k.
   1551. Ishmael Posted: March 18, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5639554)
In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, the late, great Francis Crick argued that the soul is an illusion perpetuated, like Tinkerbell, only by our belief in it. Crick opened his book with this manifesto: "'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

"Soul" is a little tendentious here, as I'm sure Crick is aware. The question raised by that quote isn't the soul, it's the hard problem of consciousness. Now, I haven't read that book, and a little googling suggests that Crick might be something of a Dennett style eliminative materialist on that question. So in a sense he is cutting that Gordian knot, too. But, to be clear, the question of the reducibility of the hard problem of consciousness is not really a question about the soul as we use the word today.
   1552. McCoy Posted: March 18, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5639555)
I lived in Adams Morgan. It is still one of the more affordable neighborhoods in DC (I had a $1500 a month 400 sq ft apartment) partly because it is kind of in a no man's land of metro stops and partly because it was really really hard to develop new apartment buildings in the area since it was already pretty well built up before the housing boom. DC's housing boom is based on metro stops and taking old warehouses, companies, and stores and turning them into luxury mixed use housing units. Places like H street, Columbia Heights, 14th street and down by Union station are seeing huge apartment buildings going up because they have metro stops and lots of old unused buildings so the developers could gobble up huge tracts of land. Now doing that cots a ton of money and building a building costs a ton of money. The only way you're going to make money doing that is either the government gives you a ton of incentives to build or you charge a premium. You aren't going to spend large amounts of money just so you can rent out an apartment for 900 dollars a month.

I also add that even when I lived in Adams Morgan it was a shabby little neighborhood. I lived in Adams Morgan from 2012 to 2015. The construction boom was just starting around 2014. By the time I left several apartment buildings were getting close to coming online around Columbia and 18th and I believe the hotel just opened this spring in that area as well. The pocket of Adams Morgan between Columbia and Cleveland Park is a nice quiet and well kept quaint little neighborhood but the commercial part of Adams Morgan was horribly rundown. The same could be said in and around Washington Hilton. Nice quiet streets off the main drags but little to do on the main drag besides drink at shvtty little dive bars.
   1553. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2018 at 03:16 PM (#5639559)
1551

I quote Crick (and many others) simply to show that I'm not conjuring up my views of biology, genetics, materialism, and the relationship to the development and progress of culture out of nothing and on my own. It's logical and consonant with the trajectory of cutting edge scientific thought about the coevolution of genes and culture. They are related, intertwined in fact. There is no realm separate and discrete from materialism and it influences everything. Actually, that's where it starts, where it all progresses from. It's bottom-up, not top-down.
   1554. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5639560)
Bingo. But in cities like DC and San Francisco the existence of large numbers of "rich" people---singles especially---will pretty much guarantee that little or no truly affordable housing will ever get built in the inner cities. The main reason rents were relatively low before gentrification set in was that there weren't enough "rich" (white) people interested in living in the inner city who would drive up the rents via increased demand. But now there are.

That's called supply and demand. There is little affordable housing being built period outside of government assistance. That isn't a builder thumbing their noses at the consumer but catering to the consumer.


Bingo again.

Blame it on the Boomers if you want but there is little money to be made building 1600 sq ft homes for 180k.

You're on a roll.

I lived in Adams Morgan. It is still one of the more affordable neighborhoods in DC (I had a $1500 a month 400 sq ft apartment) partly because it is kind of in a no man's land of metro stops and partly because it was really really hard to develop new apartment buildings in the area since it was already pretty well built up before the housing boom. DC's housing boom is based on metro stops and taking old warehouses, companies, and stores and turning them into luxury mixed use housing units. Places like H street, Columbia Heights, 14th street and down by Union station are seeing huge apartment buildings going up because they have metro stops and lots of old unused buildings so the developers could gobble up huge tracts of land. Now doing that cots a ton of money and building a building costs a ton of money. The only way you're going to make money doing that is either the government gives you a ton of incentives to build or you charge a premium. You aren't going to spend large amounts of money just so you can rent out an apartment for 900 dollars a month.

Excellent point about the importance of the Metro stops. I'd only add that the construction disruption around the U Street station forced nearly every black business on that strip to go under. Ben's Chili Bowl was one of the few survivors, and the late owner there had strong political connections that steered business his way.

I also add that even when I lived in Adams Morgan it was a shabby little neighborhood. I lived in Adams Morgan from 2012 to 2015. The construction boom was just starting around 2014. By the time I left several apartment buildings were getting close to coming online around Columbia and 18th and I believe the hotel just opened this spring in that area as well. The pocket of Adams Morgan between Columbia and Cleveland Park is a nice quiet and well kept quaint little neighborhood but the commercial part of Adams Morgan was horribly rundown. The same could be said in and around Washington Hilton. Nice quiet streets off the main drags but little to do on the main drag besides drink at shvtty little dive bars

It's all relative. I used to walk around Adams-Morgan day and night long before serious gentrification set in, and while it wasn't fancy and there were the occasional rats in the alley to deal with, it wasn't 14th St. or "You" Street, which had a few struggling businesses, a few that were doing well (Ben's), and a thriving open air drug trade. Those areas have changed 100% in basic character over the past 20 or 30 years, whereas with Adams-Morgan the starting point was much higher. It was never as cheap as Shaw or Columbia Heights back then and it's probably not as expensive today. The few people I know who've lived there through the transformation, including a former employee I keep up with (and who now works at that new hotel you mention), just brace themselves for the next developer to come along and buy their building out from under them. This former employee is now living in his third building in just the last 10 years, and none of the moves have been voluntary.
   1555. Greg K Posted: March 18, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5639567)
Actually, that's where it starts, where it all progresses from. It's bottom-up, not top-down.

Or middle-out.
   1556. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5639568)
The obvious solution is to
eliminate zoning.


And leave building codes? What kind of Libertarian are you?
   1557. Ishmael Posted: March 18, 2018 at 04:45 PM (#5639569)
I quote Crick (and many others) simply to show that I'm not conjuring up my views of biology, genetics, materialism, and the relationship to the development and progress of culture out of nothing and on my own. It's logical and consonant with the trajectory of cutting edge scientific thought about the coevolution of genes and culture. They are related, intertwined in fact. There is no realm separate and discrete from materialism and it influences everything. Actually, that's where it starts, where it all progresses from. It's bottom-up, not top-down.

Gotcha.

I suppose I just mean, if the question is: "why do we have qualia?" then saying that it's because of the physical world is either a sort of truism (everyone would agree that your consciousness is causally connected to your brain state) or it's a statement of eliminativism. In either case I don't think the dichotomy is science vs. something else. Science doesn't have a definitive answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
   1558. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:05 PM (#5639572)
This is a God of the Gaps quibble. Science doesn't have the definitive answer to a lot of things. It and reasoning according to evidence are onto the something, and it has been furthering the reaches of knowledge. The opposite hasn't. It just engages in retrograde maneuvers to save its army to fight another day, for what it doesn't know, except there's a G-spot in their psyche that enjoys the massaging and manipulation.
   1559. Jason Dean Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5639580)
everyone would agree that your consciousness is causally connected to your brain state

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”


Late Great Max Planck
   1560. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:31 PM (#5639581)
San Franciscans are basically insane. They are good liberals so they want cheap housing and cool arty neighborhoods, but they also don't want their views and skyline polluted by New construction.

Also, the building inspectors and permit granters are thoroughly corrupt.
   1561. Ishmael Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5639583)
Perros, I would think that even a good Lutheran like Planck would concede that a frontal lobotomy or a traumatic brain injury tends to have some effect on the mind.
   1562. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:37 PM (#5639584)
Clapper, #1464:
Just to recap, Democrats loudly demanded that the DoJ IG investigate the agency's actions during the 2016 campaign, contending that they were unfair to Hillary Clinton. So far, the known casualties of that investigation appear to be McCabe, Strzok & Page - all Clintonites. Heh.



So far. Heh heh.

Just to recap elsewhere: They held a special election in Pennsylvania the other day. You were missed.



Greenback, #1467:
Some reasonable people on Twitter seem to think Sessions was going to be fired if he didn't fire McCabe before Pension Day. So the other irony here is that firing McCabe makes it more likely Mueller pushes further ahead and Trump gets impeached.


What are the odds that Robert Mueller doesn't end up subpoenaing all relevant records and discussions involving the internal buildup to Friday's McCabe firing? No subpoena is necessary, of course, for Trump's December tweet "McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!"
   1563. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:38 PM (#5639585)
Howie M, #1504:
one media member appears to have kicked off St. Patrick's Day a little early last night
#notagoodlook
Andrea Mitchell
One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days

Begorrah! McCabe has been publicly offered a "Fuck you Sessions, fuck you Trump" temp position by Reps. Marc Pocan (D-WI), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL). Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) also seems interested.

Pocan on Twitter:
Andrew call me. I could use a good two-day report on the biggest crime families in Washington, D.C.



Clapper, #1516:
I don't think Mitchell is correct. McCabe was looking to retire at age 50, which was only possible because he was under the special retirement provisions for Federal Law Enforcement Officers. It's more generous than regular Civil Service retirement, but those folks are also subject to mandatory retirement at age-55. I'm not all that familiar with the details, but I think you have to be in a covered law enforcement position to take advantage of the early retirement age. If McCabe is hired in a non-law enforcement position, I believe he'd have to work until he was eligible under the non-law enforcement standards, age-55 with 30 years of service, or age-60 with 20.


Washington Post:
McCabe's team is confident that he had at least 20 years of law enforcement work under his belt — defined as carrying a weapon or supervising people who do — which made him eligible to retire on his 50th birthday on Sunday, with full retirement benefits.

With those 20 years, he would need to just go to work with the federal government for another day or so in any job he pleases, whether that's as a election security analyst for a Wisconsin congressman or a typist for a day, to get full benefits, said the former official who spoke to The Fix. The job doesn't matter so much as the fact that he's working within the federal government with the same retirement benefits until or after his 50th birthday. (Though this former official stressed that it would probably look more ethical if McCabe worked for at least a pay period rather than just one day.)

McCabe['s]...final job at the FBI was an executive perch that likely doesn't count toward his law enforcement job, said the former retirement official.
   1564. Ishmael Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:47 PM (#5639586)
This is a God of the Gaps quibble. Science doesn't have the definitive answer to a lot of things. It and reasoning according to evidence are onto the something

My understanding of that Crick quote (as I haven't read the book) hinges on what he means by "no more than." If we take those words to mean something like: "there is no consciousness as we understand it," then he's saying one sort of thing. If it's just to say that consciousness supervenes on brain states then he's saying another sort of thing. I don't know that either are science-versus-something-else polemical statements in a straightforward sense. But as I haven't read the book, I can't say for sure. Have you read it?
   1565. Jason Dean Posted: March 18, 2018 at 05:51 PM (#5639587)
a frontal lobotomy or a traumatic brain injury tends to have some effect on the mind.


Malleus Maleficarum
   1566. Ishmael Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5639590)
Malleus Maleficarum

I do agree with the thrust of that Planck quote, mind you. Even if we could show that physical phenomena like brains are causally prior to consciousness, your own consciousness would remain inescapably logically prior to whatever you can say about the world.
   1567. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:23 PM (#5639593)
Begorrah!


Yeah. I almost asked Howie what he meant by #notagoodlook, but then said ah ######. He's almost a Dancing Monkey, he treads that line, pretending to be objective, but no, he isn't, IMO.

BTW, Dancing Monkeys, I expect to see quality dancing after tonight's 60 Minutes.
   1568. Lassus Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:29 PM (#5639596)
Also, the building inspectors and permit granters are thoroughly corrupt.

This is not exactly unique to San Francisco.
   1569. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:36 PM (#5639597)
San Franciscans are basically insane. They are good liberals so they want cheap housing and cool arty neighborhoods, but they also don't want their views and skyline polluted by New construction.

Maybe if about 100,000 of them uprooted themselves to Arizona or North Carolina, they could improve the political culture of their destination states while easing the housing crunch of the city they left. It'd be a win-win situation for everyone.
   1570. Greg K Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:38 PM (#5639598)
Oddly enough I'm watching a documentary right now on zoning, land use, and a bunch of hippies freaking some squares out by moving next door in rural Oregon.
   1571. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2018 at 06:45 PM (#5639599)
Maybe if about 100,000 of them uprooted themselves to Arizona or North Carolina, they could improve the political culture of their destination states while easing the housing crunch of the city they left. It'd be a win-win situation for everyone.


You are obviously just joking, but you are more likely to convince David of the values of socialized medicine then to get a San Franciscan to move to AZ or NC.
   1572. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:02 PM (#5639600)
San Franciscans are basically insane.
San Francisco Man Has Spent 4 Years and $1 Million Trying to Get Approval to Turn His Own Laundromat Into an Apartment Building:
To understand how difficult and expensive it is to build housing in San Francisco, observe the case of Robert Tillman. Tillman owns a single-story laundromat in the city's Mission District. Since 2014, he has been attempting to develop his property into a 75-unit apartment building.

The city is in the midst of a housing affordability crisis, with an average one-bedroom apartment going for $3,400 a month. So you might think Tillman's project would sail through the permitting process. Instead, the city's labyrinthine process of reviews, regulations, and appeals has dragged on for four years. The project has cost the self-described "accidental developer" nearly $1 million so far, and he hasn't even broken ground yet.

"It's taken me longer to get to this point than it took for the United States to win World War II," says Tillman, "and my site is the easiest site in the city to build."

In a sane world, it would be easy. No housing is located at the site, so there's no fear that redevelopment will displace any tenants. There are three other coin-operated laundromats within 100 yards of Tillman's property, so there is no real concern about lost neighborhood services. Half of the property is a parking lot, so the city won't be losing an aesthetically pleasing landmark. On top of all that, Tillman's lot is a three-minute walk from the 24th Mission Street BART light rail station, a major plus for a city obsessed with "transit-oriented" development.
It goes on and on, the multiple layers of NIMBYism, random anti-development sentiment, and just general assholery.
   1573. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:17 PM (#5639601)
TAX REFUND UPDATE: Our combined income is about $200k, we had $800 fed taxes due and and get a $1400 refund this year.

So I guess that's $45/month for each of us?

Mostly just pissed that turbo tax wants to charge $45 to pay them from my refund... EDIT: That's the charge for itemizing.
   1574. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:19 PM (#5639602)
oh, the Stormy Daniels interview airs next week. Oh well. That's smart, right Mr. President? Think of the build up! Think of the ratings this will get!

He's shitting his pants. He'll be trying to find a way to stop CBS from airing it. This week could be amusing, or, depending on Trump's desperation and what stunt he pulls next, it could be ugly.
   1575. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:20 PM (#5639603)
Mostly just pissed that turbo tax wants to charge $45 to pay them from my refund...


Why should they do your taxes for free? What are you, some kind of commie?
   1576. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:22 PM (#5639604)
Tillman owns a single-story laundromat in the city's Mission District. Since 2014, he has been attempting to develop his property into a 75-unit apartment building.


Sounds like 1 apartment per each washer/dryer tandem. That's teeny.
   1577. zenbitz Posted: March 18, 2018 at 07:30 PM (#5639606)
@1575 - no it's an *additional* "premium" charge. I thought it was an addon for the privilege of using my refund to pay them (the other) $75... but no, it's for itemized deductions/.


Also they try to upsell you like 5 times. Overall... not that painful.
   1578. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:08 PM (#5639611)
What are the odds that Robert Mueller doesn't end up subpoenaing all relevant records and discussions involving the internal buildup to Friday's McCabe firing?

Is Mueller going to bring charges against Michael Horowitz, the Obama-appointed DoJ Inspector General, and a former career DoJ employee? His investigation reportedly uncovered McCabe's misbehavior & lack of candor. McCabe's firing was reportedly recommended by the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility. And who is the head of OPR? A career official appointed to the position in 2004 by none other than then FBI Director Robert Mueller. Sessions' statement also indicates that McCabe's removal was endorsed by the DoJ's senior career official, who would appear to be Associate Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools.

Unless the IG & OPR are running rogue operations of some kind, it seems highly likely that there was sufficient cause for McCabe's termination. That it may have also brought some degree of pleasure to Donald Trump is irrelevant. Hard to see what Mueller would investigate here; if he doesn't have anything more promising, then he doesn't have much at all.
   1579. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5639612)

Unless the IG & OPR are running rogue operations of some kind, it seems highly likely that there was sufficient cause for McCabe's termination. That it may have also brought some degree of pleasure to Donald Trump is irrelevant. Hard to see what Mueller would investigate here; if he doesn't have anything more promising, then he doesn't have much at all.
Well, the fact that there might be legal justification for firing McCabe doesn't change the fact that this was assuredly not the actual reason Trump fired him.
   1580. Shredder Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5639613)
TAX REFUND UPDATE: Our combined income is about $200k, we had $800 fed taxes due and and get a $1400 refund this year.
This doesn't make any sense. How could have taxes due AND get a refund. They mean the opposite thing. Also Credit Karma does your taxes for free. It's a little more work if you have a complicated return, but not THAT much more work.
   1581. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5639615)
oh, the Stormy Daniels interview airs next week. Oh well.

I'm in Palm Beach County Florida, taking in a dozen of the Nationals spring training games, and on the way to the ballpark I pass the Ultra "gentlemens club" which sports a large sign announcing "Stormy Daniels: Making America Horny Again. April 13-14". I suspect she's appearing in other locales for those here who appear to be intensely interested in her activities.
   1582. DavidFoss Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:22 PM (#5639616)
Unless the IG & OPR are running rogue operations of some kind, it seems highly likely that there was sufficient cause for McCabe's termination. That it may have also brought some degree of pleasure to Donald Trump is irrelevant. Hard to see what Mueller would investigate here; if he doesn't have anything more promising, then he doesn't have much at all.

If the IG/OPR review processes had played themselves out normally and he had been dismissed on -- say -- February 22nd or something than you may have a point. But a 10 PM firing on a Friday when his pension was vesting on Sunday? And the only reason why anyone knows about the pension is because Trump himself tweeted that detail out back in December. It certainly appears that the process was expedited for the sole purpose of getting it done before his projected retirement date. Perhaps you'll claim that he had every right to do this, but some might see this as witness intimidation.
   1583. Shredder Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:43 PM (#5639618)
If the IG/OPR review processes had played themselves out normally and he had been dismissed on -- say -- February 22nd or something than you may have a point. But a 10 PM firing on a Friday when his pension was vesting on Sunday?
You have to understand, Hacker has spent years and years perfecting the art of only selecting evidence that furthers his narrative, and ignoring any facts or circumstances that don't. You may think ignoring elephants in small rooms would be difficult, and you'd be right. But Hacker has spent nearly his entire adult life perfecting that very skill. He's also a liar, but any a-hole can be good at that.
   1584. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:46 PM (#5639620)
If the IG/OPR review processes had played themselves out normally and he had been dismissed on -- say -- February 22nd or something than you may have a point. But a 10 PM firing on a Friday when his pension was vesting on Sunday? And the only reason why anyone knows about the pension is because Trump himself tweeted that detail out back in December. It certainly appears that the process was expedited for the sole purpose of getting it done before his projected retirement date. Perhaps you'll claim that he had every right to do this, but some might see this as witness intimidation.

The IG investigation triggered this action, and McCabe attempted to avoid it by announcing his intent to retire on the first day he would be eligible, and to immediately go on leave until then. Sorry, you can't avoid discipline that way, unless the time period is so short that action is precluded. The IG Report should be released shortly, and those suggesting McCabe deserves a pass can make the case then, but I find it highly unlikely that either the IG or OPR would fabricate a case against McCabe.
   1585. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:56 PM (#5639622)

Julian Sanchez refutes the Trump-had-to-do-it-because-OPR-recommended-it talking point:
The contrast with the other FBI director firing is instructive. OPR released a thorough 161 page report in January ‘93 detailing ethical lapses by William S. Sessions. He then had six months in which to defend himself or resign before finally being dismissed.
   1586. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5639623)
Oops, duplicate post.
   1587. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5639624)
Maybe if about 100,000 of [San Francisco liberals] uprooted themselves to Arizona or North Carolina, they could improve the political culture of their destination states while easing the housing crunch of the city they left. It'd be a win-win situation for everyone.

You are obviously just joking, but you are more likely to convince David of the values of socialized medicine then to get a San Franciscan to move to AZ or NC.


Yes, I was joking, but aside from the admittedly superior topography of San Francisco**, the main difference between the Bay area and the Research Triangle area of North Carolina is the latter's relative affordability. Overall North Carolina went for Trump in 2016, but he lost in Durham County (Durham/Duke) by 79%-19%, in Orange County (Chapel Hill/UNC) by 74%-23%, in Wake County (Raleigh/N.C. State) by 59%-38%, and in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte) by 63%-33%. Those aren't exactly conservative areas, even if the architecture isn't quite as interesting.

** Somewhat negated by the possibility of an earthquake within one's lifetime, which on a percentage basis is roughly equal to bumping into a Trump voter on a BART car.
   1588. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:22 PM (#5639625)
Christ, here's One For The Books. Sounds like this guy was trying to keep Trump off the top of the Post's website:

D.C. lawmaker says recent snowfall caused by ‘Rothschilds controlling the climate’

A D.C. lawmaker responded to a brief snowfall Friday by publishing a video in which he espoused a conspiracy theory that Jewish financiers control the weather.

D.C. Council member Trayon White Sr. (D-Ward 8) posted the video to his official Facebook page at 7:21 a.m. as snow flurries were hitting the nation’s capital. The video, shot through the windshield of a car driving west on Interstate 695 through downtown Washington, shows snowy skies while White narrates.

“Man, it just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation,” he says. “And D.C. keep talking about, ‘We a resilient city.’ And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.”...

But then he had to go and spoil it:
However, about four hours after The Washington Post published this story online Sunday, White sent a statement of apology via text message.

“I work hard everyday to combat racism and prejudices of all kinds. I want to apologize to the Jewish Community and anyone I have offended,” he said. “The Jewish community have been allies with me in my journey to help people. I did not intend to be anti-Semitic, and I see I should not have said that after learning from my colleagues.”

White said his “friends” at Jews United for Justice, a group that advocates for progressive causes and endorsed him in 2016, were “helping me to understand the history of comments made against Jews and I am committed to figuring out ways continue to be allies with them and others.”
   1589. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:33 PM (#5639626)
Clapper, #1578:
Unless the IG & OPR are running rogue operations of some kind, it seems highly likely that there was sufficient cause for McCabe's termination. That it may have also brought some degree of pleasure to Donald Trump is irrelevant. Hard to see what Mueller would investigate here; if he doesn't have anything more promising, then he doesn't have much at all.


My, has it been THAT long since the "it's fully legal for a President to fire an FBI Director" talking point failed to swat away investigative curiosity? Some people like to pretend motive is immaterial to such investigations, or wish it were so.
   1590. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:41 PM (#5639627)
Some people like to pretend motive is immaterial to such investigations, or wish it were so.

And some people pretend that Mueller is actually going to investigate a disciplinary action initiated by his own appointee. Again, unless all the reporting is wrong, if Mueller doesn't have anything better than that, he has nothing.
   1591. jmp Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:46 PM (#5639628)
This doesn't make any sense. How could have taxes due AND get a refund


guessing he means that he is expected to get a refund for tax year 2018 assuming current conditions continue.
   1592. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2018 at 09:55 PM (#5639629)
#1590, abbreviated:

Again... Mueller... has nothing.

Some people... wish it were so.
   1593. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2018 at 10:03 PM (#5639630)
Washington Post: Trump had senior staff sign nondisclosure agreements. They’re supposed to last beyond his presidency.
In the early months of the administration, at the behest of now-President Trump, who was furious over leaks from within the White House, senior White House staff members were asked to, and did, sign nondisclosure agreements vowing not to reveal confidential information and exposing them to damages for any violation. Some balked at first but, pressed by then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and the White House Counsel’s Office, ultimately complied, concluding that the agreements would likely not be enforceable in any event.

...Moreover, said the source, this confidentiality pledge would extend not only after an aide’s White House service but also beyond the Trump presidency. “It’s not meant to be constrained by the four years or eight years he’s president — or the four months or eight months somebody works there. It is meant to survive that.”

This is extraordinary. Every president inveighs against leakers and bemoans the kiss-and-tell books; no president, to my knowledge, has attempted to impose such a pledge. And while White House staffers have various confidentiality obligations — maintaining the secrecy of classified information or attorney-client privilege, for instance — the notion of imposing a side agreement, supposedly enforceable even after the president leaves office, is not only oppressive but constitutionally repugnant.

...“This is crazy,” said attorney Debra Katz, who has represented numerous government whistleblowers and negotiated nondisclosure agreements. “The idea of having some kind of economic penalty is an outrageous effort to limit and chill speech. Once again, this president believes employees owe him a personal duty of loyalty, when their duty of loyalty is to the institution.”

I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,” including “communications . . . with members of the press” and “with employees of federal, state, and local governments.” The $10 million figure, I suspect, was watered down in the final version, because the people to whom I have spoken do not remember that jaw-dropping sum.

It would prohibit revelation of this confidential information in any form — including, get this, “the publication of works of fiction that contain any mention of the operations of the White House, federal agencies, foreign governments, or other entities interacting with the United States Government that is based on confidential information.”

As outlined in the document, this restriction would cover Trump aides not only during their White House service but also “at all times thereafter.”

The document: “I understand that the United States Government or, upon completion of the term(s) of Mr. Donald J. Trump, an authorized representative of Mr. Trump, may seek any remedy available to enforce this Agreement including, but not limited to, application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of information in breach of this Agreement.”

This is so ridiculously excessive, so laughably unconstitutional, that I doubted, when it first came my way, that anything like it was ever implemented — only to do some reporting and learn otherwise.
   1594. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: March 18, 2018 at 10:06 PM (#5639631)
Business Insider: We may now know why Trump and his lawyer made their most brazen calls yet for the Mueller investigation to be shut down
Shortly before President Donald Trump and one of his personal defense attorneys made their most brazen calls yet for the Russia investigation to be shut down, they apparently received a list of questions from the special counsel Robert Mueller.

The development comes as Trump's legal team has been working for months to sidestep or significantly narrow the scope of an interview between Mueller and their client, who has shown a tendency to exaggerate the facts and make misleading statements.

...Trump's tweets this weekend came after Mueller sent the questions as part of his negotiations with Trump's legal team over an interview with the president. Mueller is still seeking an interview, sources told The Times, but sent the list as a starting point that he can later use to ask follow-up questions.

Soon after, Trump embarked on one of his most heated, weekend-long tirades against Mueller, former FBI director James Comey, and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe late Friday night, hours before he was set to retire with full pension benefits.

If that's all Mueller's got, he's got nothing.
   1595. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 18, 2018 at 10:13 PM (#5639633)
I haven’t been able to lay hands on the final agreement, but I do have a copy of a draft, and it is a doozy. It would expose violators to penalties of $10 million, payable to the federal government, for each and any unauthorized revelation of “confidential” information, defined as “all nonpublic information I learn of or gain access to in the course of my official duties in the service of the United States Government on White House staff,”

Is there anyone who's not at least mildly surprised that the $10 million penalty wasn't to be made payable to Donald J. Trump?
   1596. greenback slays lewks Posted: March 18, 2018 at 10:52 PM (#5639637)
Austin sure does have a lot of bombs going off.
   1597. Omineca Greg Posted: March 18, 2018 at 11:01 PM (#5639640)
Canadian cultures derives a ton of stuff from the First Nations.

No, you're right, sorry, I should have paraphrased him more accurately. In the context of the conversation, he was talking specifically about administrative ideas. Land management, conflict resolution, justice system. Economics. And even then you can still find things, like the consensus legislature of the NWT.

On the other hand saying to a First Nations person here, "No, no. I like your ideas. I eat squash and turkey! And I kayak every once in awhile.", would not go over well. At best, it would be nonsensical, at worst...I don't want to think about the worst.

But it is interesting to think about. A lot of the place names in Northern BC have First Nations names, is that taking something meaningful from First Nations Culture? I think yes, in that saying the name over and over again, reminds me that other people were here, other than explorers. But I could imagine going the other way. "Kitwanga, you say? So you want a pat on the back for using the name we already had?"
   1598. Morty Causa Posted: March 18, 2018 at 11:15 PM (#5639643)
Such was his feeling of universal benevolence that he embraced with his goodwill even the repellent-looking young man who had risen from the desk. Percy Pilbeam's eyes were too small and too close together and he marcelled his hair in a manner distressing to right-thinking people, but today he had to be lumped in with the rest of the species as a man and a brother, so Hugo bestowed a dazzling smile upon him. He still thought Pilbeam should not have been wearing pimples with a red tie. One or the other if he liked. But not both. Nevertheless he smiled upon him.
Summer Lightning (aka Fish Preferred) by PG Wodehouse
   1599. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 18, 2018 at 11:46 PM (#5639645)
I so love this line in this fact-checking article:

There are so many things incorrect in this single tweet that it’s hard to know where to begin.
   1600. zenbitz Posted: March 19, 2018 at 12:06 AM (#5639647)
This doesn't make any sense. How could have taxes due AND get a refund. They mean the opposite thing. Also Credit Karma does your taxes for free. It's a little more work if you have a complicated return, but not THAT much more work.


Sorry LAST year had $800 due.

Edit oh wait new tax laws don't apply to this return. Math is hard! I guess it was the 2nd mortgage.
Page 16 of 18 pages ‹ First  < 14 15 16 17 18 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Guts
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 October 15: The shift in focus from sport to politics
(1391 - 5:57am, Oct 20)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogMLB must fix glaring problem that ruined an all-time classic
(56 - 5:28am, Oct 20)
Last: manchestermets

NewsblogLEAGUE CHAMPION SERIES OMNICHATTER! for the 2018 Playoffs!
(2440 - 1:34am, Oct 20)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(762 - 1:29am, Oct 20)
Last: Booey

NewsblogCatch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (October 2018)
(535 - 12:07am, Oct 20)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

NewsblogMLB playoffs 2018: Brewers used a fake starter, Dodgers used Clayton Kershaw - SBNation.com
(73 - 10:02pm, Oct 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogBryce Harper’s Future in the League
(15 - 9:48pm, Oct 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogDerek Jeter gets his wish: The Marlins home run sculpture is outta there
(40 - 9:37pm, Oct 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogMore questions after Astros get free pass on dugout spying
(25 - 7:38pm, Oct 19)
Last: manchestermets

NewsblogAlex Cora has some words for a vocal critic of David Price | Boston.com
(20 - 5:28pm, Oct 19)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(172 - 5:28pm, Oct 19)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

Sox TherapyAmerican League Champions!!!!
(29 - 3:40pm, Oct 19)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogTexas Rangers Asking Taxpayers To Cover 60% Of Bribes Related To New Stadium
(2 - 2:47pm, Oct 19)
Last: Jim Furtado

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-17-2018
(34 - 1:38pm, Oct 19)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Dodgers voting thread
(29 - 11:43am, Oct 19)
Last: SoSH U at work

Page rendered in 1.6207 seconds
67 querie(s) executed