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, November 13, 2017

OTP 13 November 2017: Politics, race now touching every sport

Like legions of Giants fans who hate the Los Angeles Dodgers, Le rooted for the Houston Astros to beat them in the World Series. But he changed his mind, swallowed hard and began cheering for the Dodgers after Yuri Gurriel, a Cuban-born Astro, hit a home run against Japanese pitcher Yu Darvish then was caught on camera pulling the corners of his eyes with his fingers in a racist gesture.

“I couldn’t really be OK with them winning any longer,” Le said of the Astros.

With Gurriel’s gesture, yet another major sporting event in the United States came to be viewed through a prism of race, politics or both.

(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: November 13, 2017 at 08:05 AM | 1980 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: astros, dodgers, politics, world series

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 6 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   501. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:05 PM (#5575919)
my grandfathers bought houses for 2-3X annual salary (at ~20), my parents for 4-5X (at ~25), and I'd have needed ~20X salary (at ~25, when I obviously didn't buy a house). Rent and Mortgages as a fraction of income have been steadily rising.

Was your grandfather buying an 800 sq ft ranch without a garage, your parents a 1600 sq ft two-story with a one-car garage, and now you're looking for 2500 sq foot with a 3-car garage and a walkout basement?

Societal expectations in housing have shifted quite a bit over the last 50 years.

   502. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:08 PM (#5575922)
If you're an agent getting commission then maximizing the sale price of each house just isn't a rational calculus. Maximizing your NUMBER of sales is, not the price per sale. You don't want to spend twice as long selling each house for a fraction of your commission more. You'd rather make more commissions.


Sure, but at the same time, agents live off of repeat business. It's much easier to maintain ties with people who have already done a transaction with you than to collect new leads via postcards or floor time or whatever. If you piss off your sellers by coercing them into selling their house for substantially less than it's worth, just for the sake of making a sale, you won't get to cash the checks when they sell their next house, or buy the one after that.
   503. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:09 PM (#5575923)
OK, so it's just that the list price isn't a real offer and everything subsequent is. I still think that's arbitrary. If you want to auction a house off starting at X price, that's fine, go ahead and do that and clearly say so. "This house is listed at X" doesn't say that, at least to ordinary buyers who aren't accustomed to overheated markets.
Of course "this house is listed at X" says that. It's common understanding that when one puts in an offer on a house, it's not like handing money to the cashier at Walmart; rather, one has to wait to see whether one's offer will be accepted. Nobody, upon being told by their real estate agent, "Well, you might have to raise your offer; there's another bidder," would say, "What? How could there be? I already agreed to buy the house."

Note that even after the seller has accepted the buyer's offer, there are usually multiple contingencies allowing the buyer to back out. There's the mortgage contingency, there's inspection, there may be a have-to-sell-the-buyer's-old-house-first contingency. Do you weird people think all of those are unethical?
   504. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:10 PM (#5575924)
Was your grandfather buying an 800 sq ft ranch without a garage, your parents a 1600 sq ft two-story with a one-car garage, and now you're looking for 2500 sq foot with a 3-car garage and a walkout basement?

Societal expectations in housing have shifted quite a bit over the last 50 years.


Not being able to find affordable housing because all the new stock is too large/expensive is another very real issue.
   505. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:11 PM (#5575925)
We can't overestimate the degree to which the imperative to cover for Bill Clinton put in place an atmosphere where women would not want to come forward with allegations. The circus and hypocrisy surrounding that entire sordid episode chilled things in this critical area for years and years.

Bill Clinton had an affair with a 22 year old intern and then publicly lied about it and acted entirely dismissively about a woman who was telling the truth. "Liberals" essentially went to the mattresses for him. When it came time to believe women or believe Bill Clinton, they believed ... Bill Clinton.

Not a good look.


Your ulterior motives are showing.

The whole problem with your whataboutism is that it completely ignores the timelines and details.

I've said multiple times before that I DO tend to believe Juanita Broaddrick -- but Broaddrick didn't go public until Clintons' term was almost up (1999, if memory serves) by which point... welll.... Gore certainly kept his distance from Clinton in 2000.

If you actually and truly care about the Broaddrick allegations - and yes, I do - then I think it's more than just modern liberals that need to take a look in the mirror... it's the folks who didn't really give a #### and insisted on shoving fairly obvious charlatans like Paula Jones down the public consciousness' throat. Go ahead and call David Brock a money-grubbing attention seeker without a conscience - just don't pretend he suddenly turned into that when he recanted and switched sides. Her own legal team begged off her suit because they couldn't in good conscience continue, whereby her 'cause' -- carving out a career as a professional Clinton accuser -- was taken up by folks who wouldn't have had the slightest bit of interest in her if the target wasn't Bill.

That's one of the reasons I do tend to believe Broaddrick - the train was loaded to the gills and packed with willing donors in the mid-90s and frankly, I can certainly understand a woman that was raped and wanting actual justice having zero interest in getting a ride with a bunch of charlatans whose interest in her story extended absolutely, 100%, positively no further than how it could be weaponized. Of course, the deposition is problematic - but I'm perfectly willing to accept that a variety of factors; from coercion to the above (not wanting her own traumatic experience to be so nakedly used) leading to it. In a court of law, I imagine she wouldn't stand a chance. In the court of public opinion, I absolutely tend to believe her.

You Clinton dead-enders are a really odd bunch.... it's not just mere inconsistency -- it's a wild zigzag between bemoaning puffed up rape culture and the like... unless it's Clinton, where you'll gladly substitute any careful consideration of the specifics, parsing which allegations have credibility and which stink to high heaven.

So yeah... it's not a good look.
   506. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:13 PM (#5575926)
In practice, the real reason that buyers don't make offers and then glibly withdraw them after acceptance is because offers almost always include something called "hand money". That's an advance payment on the property that the buyer forfeits if he or she withdraws from the deal without cause (e.g. issues with the title, or the discovery during the inspection of a major defect that the seller refuses to address)
I agree with the substance of what you say, but I've never heard -- and I acknowledge you're not making it up -- the term "hand money" rather than "deposit" (or the longer "earnest money deposit.")

EDIT: I see that Billy Ripken made the same point. I'll ship him a pop, since he's from the midwest.
   507. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:15 PM (#5575927)
I think we're just more earnest here.
   508. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:17 PM (#5575930)
The vast majority of the time, it's not just more money. It's the best offer, which means the most amount of money with the lowest likelihood for the deal to fall through.

Also a fair point, but then why bother with a list price?
To screen out people who aren't realistically likely to be customers, by letting them know the starting point for negotiations. Would be silly, if you're looking for a price north of $800K, to get a lot of offers in the $600K range. That's just a waste of your time and theirs.
   509. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:20 PM (#5575931)
A train sells all tickets for a given ride at a fixed price;

Actually, Amtrak uses dynamic pricing nowadays too, just like the airlines.
Well #### you too, pedant.¹ Fine. A commuter train, then. NJ Transit and the LIRR and Metro North don't use dynamic pricing.


¹Thanks for the info; I mean that non-sarcastically.
   510. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5575933)
What to do with that belief? Contemplating this history is excruciating in part because of the way it has been weaponized against Hillary Clinton. Broaddrick sees her as complicit, interpreting something Hillary once said to her at a political event — “I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill” — as a veiled threat instead of a rote greeting. This seems wildly unlikely; Broaddrick was decades away from going public, and most reporting about the Clinton marriage shows Bill going to great lengths to hide his betrayals. Nevertheless, one of the sick ironies of the 2016 campaign was that it was Hillary who had to pay the political price for Bill’s misdeeds, as they were trotted out to deflect attention from Trump’s well-documented transgressions.


Camille Cosby knew what was going on, according to Lou Ferrigno's current wife who says she was "set up" by Camille back in the day. Hillary knew. Weinstein's wife probably entered into the marriage in exchange for the lifestyle and him pimping/forcing people to buy her clothing line, is my guess.

And now they’re being trotted out again. It’s fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick’s allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society. But we should remember that it’s not simply partisan tribalism that led liberals to doubt her.


Liberals only doubted her because it was politically expedient to do so. Like how some Republicans are not trashing Roy Moore now.

But now that the Clintons are sliding into irrelevancy liberals feel freed to believe Broaddrick.
   511. Shredder Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:25 PM (#5575934)
The agent wants to get paid, but he or she also knows from experience that having an offer now doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get more offers if you turn this one down. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and all that.
The whole commission thing is one of the reasons we went with Redfin when we bought our house (haven't sold one yet). Their agents don't work on commission, shortly after closing, you get a check for half of what the commission would have been. Opinions on their service vary, but may wife needs her occasional obsessions, and for us it went from apartment hunting to wedding planning, to house hunting. Redfin may not be the best if you want them to, ya know, do a lot of work for you. But my wife spent hours every night looking at every home listed on the market in our target areas, so we didn't really need an agent for that. We got the house we wanted in the neighborhood we wanted and got back a nice check at the end of the deal.
   512. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:26 PM (#5575935)
Camille Cosby knew what was going on, according to Lou Ferrigno's current wife who says she was "set up" by Camille back in the day. Hillary knew.
Well, if Lou Ferrigno's wife says that Camille Cosby knew about Bill Cosby, then obviously Hillary knew about Bill Clinton.


I mean, we're back to the #metoo problem where people are conflating catcalling on the street with rape. Clinton is accused of everything from consensual affairs to rape to sexual harassment. Some of those are well-confirmed and some are little more than innuendo. Some are detailed but have serious credibility issues. I think it very plausible that Hillary knew that Clinton was having affairs. Less plausible that she knew about sexual harassment; a lot less plausible that she knew about any rapes.

Liberals only doubted her because
...she swore under oath that it didn't happen. And her claims about Hillary are so fantastical as to call her judgment into question.
   513. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5575936)
Bill Clinton had an affair with a 22 year old intern and then publicly lied about it and acted entirely dismissively about a woman who was telling the truth. "Liberals" essentially went to the mattresses for him. When it came time to believe women or believe Bill Clinton, they believed ... Bill Clinton.

Not a good look.


I wonder when the press will circle back around to Beloved David Letterman, to re-litigate the improper relationships he had with young interns back in the day.

From wiki:

On October 1, 2009, Letterman announced on his show that he had been the victim of a blackmail attempt by someone threatening to reveal that he'd had sex with several of his female employees, and at the same time, he confirmed that he had such relationships.[151]

...

A central figure in the case and one of the women with whom Letterman had had a sexual relationship was his longtime personal assistant Stephanie Birkitt, who often appeared with him on his show. ...

In the days following the initial announcement of the affairs and the arrest, several prominent women, including Kathie Lee Gifford, co-host of NBC's Today Show, and NBC news anchor Ann Curry questioned whether Letterman's affairs with subordinates created an unfair working environment.[158] A spokesman for Worldwide Pants said that the company's sexual harassment policy did not prohibit sexual relationships between managers and employees.[159] According to business news reporter Eve Tahmincioglu, "CBS suppliers are supposed to follow the company's business conduct policies" and the CBS 2008 Business Conduct Statement states that "If a consenting romantic or sexual relationship between a supervisor and a direct or indirect subordinate should develop, CBS requires the supervisor to disclose this information to his or her Company's Human Resources Department...".[160]

On October 3, 2009, a former CBS employee, Holly Hester, announced that she and Letterman had engaged in a year-long "secret" affair in the early 1990s while she was his intern and a student at New York University.[161]

On October 5, 2009, Letterman devoted a segment of his show to a public apology to his wife and staff.[162][163] Three days later, Worldwide Pants announced that Birkitt had been placed on a "paid leave of absence" from the Late Show.[164] On October 15, CBS News announced that the company's Chief Investigative Correspondent, Armen Keteyian, had been assigned to conduct an "in-depth investigation" into Letterman.[165]
   514. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5575937)
All of this talk about house negotiations, I just want to point out that in suburban Detroit houses are often going for more than the listed price in the "starter home" ($100-200k) range. A co-worker got $5k over his asking price a few months ago.
   515. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5575938)
If you actually and truly care about the Broaddrick allegations - and yes, I do - then I think it's more than just modern liberals that need to take a look in the mirror... it's the folks who didn't really give a #### and insisted on shoving fairly obvious charlatans like Paula Jones down the public consciousness' throat.


LOL. Yeah, it's all righties' fault a bunch of "liberals" defended a predator.
   516. Greg K Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:27 PM (#5575939)
Greg K
Every month there are new "why the housing market will crash" and "why the toronto market won't crash" articles in the usual suspects. in my neighborhood houses are snapped up in record time still and I live in a less than fashionable area on the scarborough/toronto border. Still plenty of speculative buying going on in the condo market as well.

Thanks!

Sifting through google it does seem like there is a continuous stream of articles on the Toronto "crash" and "recovery" since the summer. I wonder how fashionable my old neighbourhood is? It's certainly had a pretty persistent run of always having at least a couple massive new houses under construction at any given time.
   517. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:29 PM (#5575941)
I agree with the substance of what you say, but I've never heard -- and I acknowledge you're not making it up -- the term "hand money" rather than "deposit" (or the longer "earnest money deposit.")


Yeah, regionalisms are funny. I know they say "earnest money" at some of our offices in Michigan, but it's always been "hand money" here.
   518. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:32 PM (#5575942)
To add to #514 - it's because of a shortage of houses in that price range. Go up in price, and the usual negotiations below asking price take place.
   519. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5575943)
All of this talk about house negotiations, I just want to point out that in suburban Detroit houses are often going for more than the listed price in the "starter home" ($100-200k) range. A co-worker got $5k over his asking price a few months ago.
Whereas in urban Detroit, houses are going for anyone willing to pay the delinquent property taxes.
   520. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5575944)
LOL. Yeah, it's all righties' fault a bunch of "liberals" defended a predator.


If you want to be pedantic, I'll gladly amend it to

I think it's more than just modern liberals that need to take a look in the mirror...it's also the folks who didn't really give a #### and insisted on shoving fairly obvious charlatans like Paula Jones down the public consciousness' throat.


But I'll still stand by the original point.
   521. BDC Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:38 PM (#5575946)
Honestly, this liberal was not convinced by Broaddrick because she kept changing her story, and the story seemed out of character for Clinton, who'd had numerous consensual relationships and seemed like a guy that could take no for an answer (as even Paula Jones corroborated).

If there are new revelations on the Broaddrick front, I will happily read about them in the course of my Presidential biography hobby. There was new stuff on Grover Cleveland a few years ago, and I read that too. There were rape allegations about Cleveland, and they seemed out of character for him, too, though he was the furthest thing from a saint (GC was a bit of a Roy Moore as well as a bit of a womanizer).

If it's just "you can't object to Trump or Moore today because you didn't object to Clinton in 1992," who cares. By that token, why are people supporting Trump and Moore today if they did object to Clinton BITD?
   522. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5575949)

I wonder when the press will circle back around to Beloved David Letterman, to re-litigate the improper relationships he had with young interns back in the day.
Have any of the interns complained? If not, then there was nothing improper about them. (I mean, they may have violated company rules, but those rules are just prophylactic rules designed to protect the company from liability.)

EDIT: Er, obviously if he was married at the time, they were improper, but not in a way relevant to this discussion.

EDIT2: Also obviously, the fact that the interns haven't complained does not make the affairs proper; as we've seen, there are often delays between the activity and the complaints. So it's possible that the interns could raise complaints in the future. But until they do, there's nothing to talk about.
   523. Srul Itza Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:46 PM (#5575951)
I wonder how many people actually practice in real estate law, or have litigated real estate cases. I do. I also live in one of the oddest real estate markets. Lots of people wants a piece of paradise, and real estate prices may stagnate for a while, or go down for very short while (or in the rare case of the recent big bust, on the neighbor islands, a LOT), but they always head back up, especially on Oahu. I bought my condo at the lottery price before it was built, and despite a big mortgage, I had around $100,000 in equity the day I moved in, 10 years ago. Now, it is more like $200,000 in equity, and there is nothing very special about it (except location, both globally and locally).

A listing is not an offer. Period. If you don't understand that, too bad for you. Absent illegal discrimination, there is ZERO that is unethical or immoral about an owner getting an offer, and then saying, sorry, I don't want to sell it for that. If you don't understand how the real estate market or the law works, too bad. Your ignorance does not make something unfair.

The bid the buyer makes is an offer. But has anyone seen what such an offer looks like, in most cases? In most cases, there are qualifications, conditions, inspections, etc. The earnest money is normally very low, and fully refundable in the case of any of a dozen different contingencies. That often gives the buyer leverage, which is why people may have to fix something or throw in something to finish the deal, or even lower the price.

Of course, there are rare cases of "take it or leave it, as is" deals, but those are the exception.
   524. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5575952)
and the story seemed out of character for Clinton


Sorry, no sale. It "seemed" no such thing.

"Liberals" went in the tank for him for political reasons. It was obvious then, and is still obvious today. The best course is if they simply admit their errors, and stop trying to blame other people and to pretend he was something other than what he obviously was.
   525. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5575953)
Well, if Lou Ferrigno's wife says that Camille Cosby knew about Bill Cosby, then obviously Hillary knew about Bill Clinton.


Normal people understand that there are patterns in life. It's what separates us from the giraffes.

Not that one unrelated thing has anything to do with the other, but as humans we're always forming a sense for things based on information we increasingly learn. It's what we do.

I think it very plausible that Hillary knew that Clinton was having affairs. Less plausible that she knew about sexual harassment; a lot less plausible that she knew about any rapes.


She knows now about all of those things. And what has she done as a result? Leave him? Criticize him beyond paying lip service? Hear, Believe, and Support Every Survivor of Sexual Assault, as she laughably tweeted out to her army of blind followers two years ago?

Hillary Clinton

@HillaryClinton

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. http://hrc.io/SexualAssault
8:09 PM - Nov 22, 2015


Liberals only doubted her because

...she swore under oath that it didn't happen. And her claims about Hillary are so fantastical as to call her judgment into question.


How many affidavits do you have from women who swear under oath that you didn't rape them?

0? Thought so.
   526. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5575955)
Given the actual power differentials involved -- as opposed to, say, the phony Louis CK-proferred ones of recent vintage -- Jones and Willey and Brodderick and Lewinsky should have been believed virtually without equivocation.
   527. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:55 PM (#5575957)
I'm enjoying this real estate thread sidebar. I'm glad Srul posted that on Hawaii, as local/state customs very much influence some of these matters. The process as well, is always evolving. Buying a home pre-Dodd Frank, and buying a home now, quite a different process. The home I live in now was bought in a short sale. That's a freaking treat of a process.

We're building a custom home right now, which means I'm combing through a giant stack of bids. The amount of microdecision making necessary to build this home is challenging, but to have friends and family who have either recently built, or friends working in these trades, has been extremely beneficial. Nothing like looking at bids on concrete....electrical...HVAC...stuff you couldn't plausibly shop for intelligently on your own. Builder has also been great in sifting this as well.
   528. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5575959)
So, contrary to the progressives' preening self-congratulations, the reason the "environment" seems so much better for women to tell their stories is explained predominantly by the fact that Donald Trump -- modern liberal enemy -- and not Bill Clinton -- modern liberal hero -- is president.
   529. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 14, 2017 at 12:59 PM (#5575961)
A commuter train, then. NJ Transit and the LIRR and Metro North don't use dynamic pricing.


They do to a certain extent. They charge more for peak during commuting hours. Less for weekends. They also give discounts for monthly buyers.
   530. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:00 PM (#5575962)
Honestly, this liberal was not convinced by Broaddrick because she kept changing her story, and the story seemed out of character for Clinton, who'd had numerous consensual relationships and seemed like a guy that could take no for an answer (as even Paula Jones corroborated).

If there are new revelations on the Broaddrick front, I will happily read about them in the course of my Presidential biography hobby. There was new stuff on Grover Cleveland a few years ago, and I read that too. There were rape allegations about Cleveland, and they seemed out of character for him, too, though he was the furthest thing from a saint (GC was a bit of a Roy Moore as well as a bit of a womanizer).

If it's just "you can't object to Trump or Moore today because you didn't object to Clinton in 1992," who cares. By that token, why are people supporting Trump and Moore today if they did object to Clinton BITD?


Is there daylight between convinced and believed?

Like I said, I think there's certainly enough contrary evidence that in a hypothetical where I was on a jury -- it would be awfully hard for me to get beyond the 'reasonable doubt' standard.

I presume it's entirely logical to "believe" the accuser (at least in part; i.e., the specifics of the rape allegation), but not find the belief compelling enough to get by the reasonable doubt standard when all evidence is taken as a whole.

Assuming my Law & Order expertise holds fast regarding the difference in standards between a criminal and civil trial -- I suppose one way of putting it would be that on a criminal jury, I'd probably vote to acquit but on a civil jury, I'd probably vote in favor of the plaintiff.
   531. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:01 PM (#5575963)
But now that the Clintons are sliding into irrelevancy liberals feel freed to believe Broaddrick.


If Hillary had been elected, they wouldn't.
   532. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:02 PM (#5575964)
#96:
Drudge Report's top headline: TRUMP JUMPS TO 46% APPROVAL
Beyond the fact that Drudge used to run weekly headlines like "Obama Slumps to 51%," the site has an entirely explicable tic in which it only banners Rasmussen approval numbers.
The last 20 Trump approvals (non-Rasmussen division): 38, 40, 35, 38, 36, 38, 43, 36, 39, 38, 34, 38, 38, 41, 35, 42, 38, 38, 41, 35
The last 10 Rasmussen polls: 46, 46, 45, 45, 43, 48, 44, 47, 49, 46



And guess who lo-o-o-oved that headline?
One of the most accurate polls last time around. But #FakeNews likes to say we’re in the 30’s. They are wrong. Some people think numbers could be in the 50's. Together, WE will MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!


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

#513:
I wonder when the press will circle back around to Beloved David Letterman, to re-litigate the improper relationships he had with young interns back in the day.

From wiki:
On October 3, 2009, a former CBS employee, Holly Hester, announced that she and Letterman had engaged in a year-long "secret" affair in the early 1990s while she was his intern and a student at New York University.



Holly Hester must be really smart, to get into New York University at the age of 14.


cont:
A central figure in the case and one of the women with whom Letterman had had a sexual relationship was his longtime personal assistant Stephanie Birkitt, who often appeared with him on his show. ...


As a 14-year-old longtime assistant, Stephanie Birkitt must be really skilled, to have been hired at age 7 or thereabouts.

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

Good news, everybody. Jeff Sessions now recalls being in a meeting with Donald Trump and his aides where campaign connections with Russia were discussed. However, he has "no clear recollection" of anything that was said at that meeting.

And after that meeting, Sessions had "no further" knowledge of the kinds of Russian contacts which he had no knowledge of until he did. He also has no memory of being told by Carter Page about his upcoming trip to meet contacts in Russia, though he does not dispute Page's testimony.

Despite that lack of clear recollection, Sessions thinks he knows what Sessions did, or wanted to: "I believe that I wanted to make clear to him [Papadoupolis] that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government, or any other foreign government, for that matter." The one thing Sessions is dead certain of is "I will not accept, and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie."
   533. zenbitz Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:04 PM (#5575965)
If Moore was running for Senate in 1996, would he even the pass that Bill Clinton did? Bill is a scum bag and I am sorry I voted for him (even once, I did not vote for him in '96). I don't really see how his personal behavior reflects on HRC. I mean, I was never a fan of Tipper Gore but I don't think that's enough to vote against her husband (obviously there are many somewhat legitimate reasons to not like Al Gore, just as there are many reasons to not prefer HRC-- basically that you disagree with her politics.

   534. PepTech Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:04 PM (#5575967)
I have a theory that Hillary Clinton ran over Ray's beloved labrador when he (Ray) was six or seven years old; the memory was repressed (H50 was on at the time). It would neatly explain a few different axis... ;)
   535. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5575968)
So, contrary to the progressives' preening self-congratulations, the reason the "environment" seems so much better for women to tell their stories is explained predominantly by the fact that Donald Trump -- modern liberal enemy -- and not Bill Clinton -- modern liberal hero -- is president.


That's a pretty ridiculous statement -- Bill Clinton is no "modern liberal hero" in any way, shape or form. He was, at best - "modern liberal better than the alternatives".

If you're going to tag him as some kind of modern liberal hero - given your copious definitions of modern liberalism involving rampant SJWism, you should probably point out where and when Bill was ever at the forefront of any of that. I guess DOMA, DADT, and the like are back down the rabbit hole once they become inconvenient to current post.
   536. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:08 PM (#5575970)
I have a theory that Hillary Clinton ran over Ray's beloved labrador when he (Ray) was six or seven years old; the memory was repressed (H50 was on at the time). It would neatly explain a few different axis... ;)


I suppose such intense trauma might also explain the antipathy towards pets....
   537. BrianBrianson Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:09 PM (#5575971)
my grandfathers bought houses for 2-3X annual salary (at ~20), my parents for 4-5X (at ~25), and I'd have needed ~20X salary (at ~25, when I obviously didn't buy a house). Rent and Mortgages as a fraction of income have been steadily rising.

Was your grandfather buying an 800 sq ft ranch without a garage, your parents a 1600 sq ft two-story with a one-car garage, and now you're looking for 2500 sq foot with a 3-car garage and a walkout basement?

Societal expectations in housing have shifted quite a bit over the last 50 years.


Those numbers would pretty much hold if we considered the same physical house my grandfather bought in all three cases, although my parents did buy a bigger house much farther out into the suburbs.
   538. BDC Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:10 PM (#5575972)
Yes, like zenbitz I stopped voting for Clinton (and Gore too) after 1992, and as zonk says, it was because of their neoliberalism, so often indistinguishable from Reaganism. The sex stuff … it didn't endear me to the guy. But in 1992, unless I'm using convenient liberal amnesia, it was mostly Gennifer Flowers and "I have caused pain in my marriage," which hell, they could have got me on too. Well, not with Gennifer Flowers in particular.

I kind of doubt that a Bill Clinton type could win a Democratic nomination in 2020 if Clinton/Trump/Moore-like allegations surfaced during the primary season. If that means that Democrats have become less tolerant of sexual creeps while Republicans have (clearly) embraced them, over the years, I don't see the issue. I see lots of issues, rather, but not really ones of liberal hypocrisy.
   539. Hysterical & Useless Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:11 PM (#5575973)
Well #### you too, pedant.¹ Fine. A commuter train, then. NJ Transit and the LIRR and Metro North don't use dynamic pricing.


¹Thanks for the info; I mean that non-sarcastically.


Thank you, David. I consider I've arrived in the Big Leagues, now that you've called me pedant. :-)
   540. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:13 PM (#5575976)
I wonder when the press will circle back around to Beloved David Letterman, to re-litigate the improper relationships he had with young interns back in the day.

That's probably not even the most likely show business situation to be re-evaluated. 38-year old BBTF fave Jerry Seinfeld openly dating a 17-year old high school student would seem to be ripe for re-examination. At the time, nothing more than a bit of snickering admiration for Jerry.
   541. Srul Itza Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:18 PM (#5575978)
Shorter DMN response to Letterman hypothetical:

As soon as one or more of the interns gives an interview.
   542. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:20 PM (#5575979)
That's probably not even the most likely show business situation to be re-evaluated. 38-year old BBTF fave Jerry Seinfeld dating a 17-year old high school student would seem to be ripe for re-examination. At the time, nothing more than a bit of snickering admiration for Jerry.


You might want to provide a cite for that... because as much as I did and still do enjoy reruns of his sitcom, everybody I know - not that I know a lot of people who keep current on Hollywood dating, but I do know a lot of lefties - found it quite creepy, and I/we were in our rakish early 20s at the time.

Doesn't make the show any less funny.

But hey, kudos on the effort for slowly dragging yourself towards the Moore defense. Nobody ever doubted you could do it except maybe yourself.

   543. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:24 PM (#5575983)
I kind of doubt that a Bill Clinton type could win a Democratic nomination in 2020 if Clinton/Trump/Moore-like allegations surfaced during the primary season. If that means that Democrats have become less tolerant of sexual creeps while Republicans have (clearly) embraced them, over the years, I don't see the issue. I see lots of issues, rather, but not really ones of liberal hypocrisy.


On one hand, I think you're right.... on the other, John Edwards certainly had a rather substantial lefty cheering section. Something about that southern drawl seems to have siren song qualities for us.

   544. BrianBrianson Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5575984)
Depends, a little - the age of consent across the US varies from 16 to 18, and while legal != perfectly ethical, there's a steep slope here. For a forty year old man, "dating" a 14 year old is not dating a 17 year old is not dating a 22 year old, morals-wise. Like, to zeroeth order, those should be something like "disqualifying", "worth looking into", and "perhaps a yellow flag?"
   545. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:26 PM (#5575985)
#96:
Drudge Report's top headline: TRUMP JUMPS TO 46% APPROVAL

Beyond the fact that Drudge used to run weekly headlines like "Obama Slumps to 51%," the site has an entirely explicable tic in which it only banners Rasmussen approval numbers.
The last 20 Trump approvals (non-Rasmussen division): 38, 40, 35, 38, 36, 38, 43, 36, 39, 38, 34, 38, 38, 41, 35, 42, 38, 38, 41, 35
The last 10 Rasmussen polls: 46, 46, 45, 45, 43, 48, 44, 47, 49, 46


The other thing about Rasmussen is their "Approval index" gives a different picture than the number on the RCP summary page.

For example, today's "Approve/Disapprove" spread is 44-54, or -10%. That's the only Rasmussen number that shows up on the RCP summary page.

But the Rasmussen "Approval index", which indicates the difference between "Strongly approve" (28%) and "Strongly disapprove" (45%), is -17%. I wonder why Trump and Drudge don't like to cite that part of Rasmusssen.
   546. SouthSideRyan Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:28 PM (#5575987)
Wasn't Edwards finished as soon as his stuff came out? Or were there rumors and innuendo all along that I wasn't aware of?
   547. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5575990)
Those numbers would pretty much hold if we considered the same physical house my grandfather bought in all three cases, although my parents did buy a bigger house much farther out into the suburbs.

They don't hold for most of the country. It is unfortunate to live in one of the few irrational markets.
   548. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:32 PM (#5575991)
Wasn't Edwards finished as soon as his stuff came out? Or were there rumors and innuendo all along that I wasn't aware of?


Well, technically he was finished before that --- and in defense of the twang love, his fan club liked his message and his platform.

I'll admit some intrigue with it myself, but the problem was always that it seemed to ring awfully hollow when you put it up against his one-term voting record.
   549. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:35 PM (#5575995)

They do to a certain extent. They charge more for peak during commuting hours. Less for weekends. They also give discounts for monthly buyers.
That's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was two passengers buying the exact same ticket for the exact same ride, but the price being different because of when they bought the ticket. There are posted prices for those commuter trains that everyone pays; there aren't for airlines because they can change from minute to minute or day to day.
   550. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:36 PM (#5575996)
Depends, a little - the age of consent across the US varies from 16 to 18, and while legal != perfectly ethical, there's a steep slope here. For a forty year old man, "dating" a 14 year old is not dating a 17 year old is not dating a 22 year old, morals-wise. Like, to zeroeth order, those should be something like "disqualifying", "worth looking into", and "perhaps a yellow flag?"


Precisely.

Of course, there's also a pretty big difference between in expectations I have regarding the behavior of someone whose music I enjoy or someone on TV whose sitcom I watch and someone who I think belongs on a court, in the oval office, or in a legislature.

I mean, perhaps I missed them -- but I don't recall a whole lot of "How dare you watch the Apprentice!" lefty scolding.... well, at least because of Trump - people shouldn't watch crap like the Apprentice because it's crap.
   551. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:41 PM (#5576002)
Shorter DMN response to Letterman hypothetical:

As soon as one or more of the interns gives an interview.
Well, yes. (A rare instance when the "Shorter" meme is neither snarky nor overly reductionist, but just right.) Though it would also 'help' if Letterman had some sort of current project, to make him relevant. (He doesn't, does he?)
   552. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:41 PM (#5576004)
I'll admit some intrigue with it myself, but the problem was always that it seemed to ring awfully hollow when you put it up against his one-term voting record.


The message was tremendous the messenger ... not so much.
   553. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5576005)
Depends, a little - the age of consent across the US varies from 16 to 18, and while legal != perfectly ethical, there's a steep slope here. For a forty year old man, "dating" a 14 year old is not dating a 17 year old is not dating a 22 year old, morals-wise. Like, to zeroeth order, those should be something like "disqualifying", "worth looking into", and "perhaps a yellow flag?"


If Seinfeld at 38 was dating a 17 year old girl I'd think that people here would have exactly the same problem that they have with Moore doing so.

I know I would.

What's the hair splitting that is going to take place now?

   554. BDC Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:42 PM (#5576007)
Depends, a little - the age of consent across the US varies from 16 to 18, and while legal != perfectly ethical, there's a steep slope here. For a forty year old man, "dating" a 14 year old is not dating a 17 year old is not dating a 22 year old, morals-wise. Like, to zeroeth order, those should be something like "disqualifying", "worth looking into", and "perhaps a yellow flag?"

Why can't you lefties give up your obsession with Strom Thurmond.
   555. PepTech Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5576009)
(He doesn't, does he?)
DMN is so cute when he's naive :) Letterman Netflix
   556. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5576013)
Of course, there's also a pretty big difference between in expectations I have regarding the behavior of someone whose music I enjoy or someone on TV whose sitcom I watch and someone who I think belongs on a court, in the oval office, or in a legislature.
Yes. I really don't understand the orgy of cancellations as a result of all these Hollywood revelations. I mean, I have no problem sending any of these Hollywood types to prison if appropriate, but the idea that I'm required to stop watching their shows/movies/etc. because they misbehaved eludes me.
   557. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5576016)
PepTech, thanks. I did not know that. (Perhaps if I were a Netflix subscriber, I'd have paid more attention.)
   558. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:46 PM (#5576017)
Yes. I really don't understand the orgy of cancellations as a result of all these Hollywood revelations.


Companies feel like it's better for their bottom line.

Surely you understand this.
   559. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5576024)
If Seinfeld at 38 was dating a 17 year old girl I'd think that people here would have exactly the same problem that they have with Moore doing so.

I know I would.

What's the hair splitting that is going to take place now?
Seinfeld isn't running for office. And the big problem people have with Moore doing so is that he also did it with a 14-year old. If Leigh Corfman (or the new one that's Gloria Allred's client whose name I haven't yet learned) weren't in the picture, there would be zero pressure on Moore. It would fall under "creepy thing from a very long time ago," not "child predator."
   560. Hysterical & Useless Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:49 PM (#5576025)
I had no idea Letterman was doing anything now either, Pep. But then I haven't followed him much since he left the live morning gig.
   561. BrianBrianson Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:49 PM (#5576026)
What's the hair splitting that is going to take place now?


Without being able to parse why I'd give the slightest #### what people think of Jerry Seinfeld, "legal" vs. "illegal" is not a particularly fine hair to split.
   562. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:50 PM (#5576028)

Companies feel like it's better for their bottom line.
Thank you Captain Obvious. As the next sentences of my post ought to have made clear, it's why they feel that way that I'm questioning.
   563. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:53 PM (#5576031)
Seinfeld isn't running for office.


That doesn't really justify it. People are raining down on Moore right now -- and rightfully so. But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.

That same scorn should be heaped on Seinfeld for doing so, it seems to me.

Louis CK isn't running for office, and he's been savaged for his behavior.
   564. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:56 PM (#5576034)
What's the hair splitting that is going to take place now?


The monumental and determinative difference between 17 and 14 years old. Anything over about 17.4 is a potential college freshman, whereas 14 is pure jailbait in all times and at all places. If Moore had dated a few college freshmen when he was 32, it would have been a bit skeevy, but not remotely disqualifying.
   565. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:56 PM (#5576035)
If Seinfeld at 38 was dating a 17 year old girl I'd think that people here would have exactly the same problem that they have with Moore doing so.

I know I would.

What's the hair splitting that is going to take place now?


See 556. I'm not sure I understand where you come up with hairsplitting.

I quite liked The Pianist.... and I also would have quite liked Roman Polanski to show up in LA to receive his Best Director Oscar and then been arrested. I suppose it's a coin toss as to whether the cuffs get slapped on BEFORE he walked up on stage or if you give him 5 minutes then slap them on as he walks off-stage -- or maybe not.... Art stands on its own and as much as it was a fine picture, I suppose the only real reason I'd have supported giving him the last moment in the sun might have been if it were predicated on agreement for that in exchange for him entering the jurisdiction.

This is hardly a modern thing -- with very, very few exceptions -- one is far better off staying away from any (honest) biographies of composers, writers, painters, etc.
   566. BrianBrianson Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:58 PM (#5576036)
But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.


99% of the reasons is that he sought out (and possibly tried to force) relationships with 14 year olds. If he'd dated one 17 year old in his 30s, a few people would object, but it'd have negligible traction. I doubt a major news outlet would even cover it.
   567. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5576037)
Yes. I really don't understand the orgy of cancellations as a result of all these Hollywood revelations.


Of course, given that they're absurd.

A culture this rickety is bound to overreact, and overreact it has. No sane purpose is served by disappearing Louis CK or Kevin Spacey. Roman Polanski has been making movies for decades after his sexual crimes against jailbait and such movies have been exhibited without serious controversy.
   568. Greg K Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5576038)
Not to mention the President of France, who met his wife when one of them was a 39 year-old teacher and the other a 15-year old student.

And yet no scandal has sunk his political career!
   569. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5576039)
Louis CK isn't running for office, and he's been savaged for his behavior.
...which behavior was entirely different than the Seinfeld or Hypothetical Noncriminal Moore behavior of dating a 17-year old.

Don't know why it's so hard for you to process the notion that there are two factors: (a) what is the person's role, and (b) what is the person's alleged conduct?


That doesn't really justify it. People are raining down on Moore right now -- and rightfully so. But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.
No. That is none of the reasons. The reason is that Moore "sought out relationships" with 14-year olds. The 17-year old thing by itself would be your proverbial nothingburger. (Sure, some left-wing groups would try to make it an issue, but it would get no traction.)

EDIT: Coke to BB. We even used the same words, but I didn't read his post first.
   570. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:00 PM (#5576040)
Of course, there's also a pretty big difference between in expectations I have regarding the behavior of someone whose music I enjoy or someone on TV whose sitcom I watch and someone who I think belongs on a court, in the oval office, or in a legislature.

Yes. I really don't understand the orgy of cancellations as a result of all these Hollywood revelations. I mean, I have no problem sending any of these Hollywood types to prison if appropriate, but the idea that I'm required to stop watching their shows/movies/etc. because they misbehaved eludes me.

I can't see myself boycotting a movie because of the presence of a loathsome actor, but I imagine the rationale would be "I don't want to give them my money", or just some general revulsion at the sight of a sexual predator on the screen, particularly in a sympathetic role.

Now whether I'd want to see them employed in future movies is another thing altogether.
   571. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:01 PM (#5576041)
Mature people and cultures can easily separate art and artists.

Weak and troubled ones can't.
   572. BDC Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:03 PM (#5576044)
99% of the reasons is that he sought out (and possibly tried to force) relationships with 14 year olds. If he'd dated one 17 year old in his 30s, a few people would object, but it'd have negligible traction

That seems to me the contrast to Jerry Seinfeld. Seinfeld had one relationship, which lasted several years, when he was around 40 and the young woman, Shoshanna Lonstein, was in her late-teens/early-20s. While this seemed like something out of a Woody Allen movie, or perhaps a Woody Allen life, it was all fairly open as well as fairly monogamous, and I do not remember any stories of Jerry cruising the malls of Long Island looking for cheerleaders. Maybe some stories will surface, in which case I will turn off the TV when the next re-run comes on, or whatever y'all want me to do.

Coke to David
   573. Hot Wheeling American Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5576046)
The status of Brett Talley's nomination has become a bit of a cause celebre among those outside-the-maintstream rightys here at the think factory. Perhaps this is the sort of experience some Talley holdouts wanted to see:

Before He Was Tapped By Donald Trump, Controversial Judicial Nominee Brett J. Talley Investigated Paranormal Activity

He also has a fervent interest in investigating and writing about paranormal activities.

On his questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee, a copy of which was provided to The Daily Beast, Talley says that he was part of The Tuscaloosa Paranormal Research Group from 2009-2010. The group, according to its website, searches for the truth “of the paranormal existence” in addition to helping “those who may be living with paranormal activity that can be disruptive and/or traumatic.”

David Higdon, the group’s founder and later a co-author with Talley told The Daily Beast that he couldn’t remember specific cases they may have worked on together.

“Mainly we may go into a house between maybe 7 at night and 6 in the morning and stay up all night long and see if we can see what’s going on,” Higdon told The Daily Beast in a phone interview, when asked about the paranormal group’s work generally. “If we go into a private house, we mainly try and debunk what’s going on.”

Higdon said that 85-90 percent of the time, they don’t discover any kind of paranormal activity.

“If you watch those TV shows, it seems like every five ten minutes, something is peeking up,” Higdon explained. “It’s not like it is on TV. You sit in the dark and mostly wish something does happen.”

By how much would a house's asking price be increased if Talley once practiced the art of ghost hunting inside?
   574. PepTech Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5576047)
The reason is that Moore "sought out relationships" with 14-year olds.
And the only reason people are particularly mentioning the Moore 17 year olds (plural) is that they lend credence to the tale of the 14 year old. Makes it a pattern as opposed to a one-off.

That being said, 38 on 17 pretty darn skeevy. And was at the time. Although I seem to recall it going on for awhile (years?), and (looking it up) apparently she was 18 when they actually started dating...
   575. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5576048)
And you have to love how all these scandals pretend grown women have essentially zero agency.

While all the while insisting on their ur-feminist credentials.
   576. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:05 PM (#5576049)
I can't see myself boycotting a movie because of the presence of a loathsome actor, but I imagine the rationale would be "I don't want to give them my money", or just some general revulsion at the sight of a sexual predator on the screen, particularly in a sympathetic role.
When I see Mel Gibson flicks, I don't think "Horrid antisemite I can't watch this."
   577. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:06 PM (#5576051)
That doesn't really justify it. People are raining down on Moore right now -- and rightfully so. But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.

No. That is none of the reasons.


Oh. I thought that was one of the reasons.

I knew there were other reasons (e.g., 14 years old) but I thought there were also girls that were 17 years old that were part of this.

Though granted I haven't been following closely.
   578. BDC Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5576052)
When I see Mel Gibson flicks, I don't think "Horrid antisemite I can't watch this."

Well, sure, there are too many other reasons not to watch them.
   579. dlf Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5576053)
People are raining down on Moore right now -- and rightfully so. But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.

99% of the reasons is that he sought out (and possibly tried to force) relationships with 14 year olds. If he'd dated one 17 year old in his 30s, a few people would object, but it'd have negligible traction.


I've been heaping scorn on Moore for two decades. (I actually attended parts of the initial federal trial where Judge Thompson ordered the removal of the granite monument many years back.) That he creeped out with 17/18 year old's in the 1980s as a 30-something is waaaay down on my list. I find judicial officers who show contempt for the law to be beneath my contempt. I find candidates who wish to impose a religious test on office to be abhorrent. I find a politician who supports making consensual homosexual conduct between adults illegal to be unfit for polite society, let alone elected office. I find an adult undressing, then fondling a 14 year old to be beyond disgusting.

I haven't kept up with the details of Seinfeld or Weinstein or Louis CK or whomever's allegations. But until there is credible evidence that they molested a minor, I'm happy to join the camp of folks who dislike that conduct but find it comparatively less offensive that the far, far, far beyond the pale conduct of Roy Moore. The world isn't a simple yes:no on:off black:white ... it has many gradations between amazing, okay, and atrocious. Roy Moore fits well to the horrendous end of that scale. If one can't acknowledge differences between levels of 'bad' conduct, then one is either intentionally and willfully blind or just supremely stupid. In either case, it's not worth the time to debate that.
   580. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5576054)
Although I seem to recall it going on for awhile (years?), and (looking it up) apparently she was 18 when they actually started dating...


There is literally zero reason for a reassessment of the Seinfeld consensual and apparently monogamous relationship of 20+ years ago.

Or for something like Manhattan, a leading light of a much stronger and more sane Peak culture.

Much as some would like it to be otherwise, 2017 culture is in no position whatever to judge 1979 or 1995 culture. Sorry. The idea that people like the perpetual-sugar-high harpies on Twitter and the Gawker platforms are better judges of mores and sensibilities and proprieties than people like the deliberative film critics of 1979 is just batshit insane. No serious person could think otherwise. The self-appointed judges of today are a cultural blight of a very high order.

One can only stand by and hope that the present cultural moment will pass, as surely it will, without too much residual damage. Hopefully soon.
   581. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5576055)
That doesn't really justify it. People are raining down on Moore right now -- and rightfully so. But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.


And 16 yos and 14 yos (and presumably, it's not much of a leap to include 15 yos).

FWIW, much as the bar tends to be high -- I think I would also submit that May-December romances sometimes are real romances. I know nothing about Seinfeld's dating habits beyond what wikipedia tells me -- but the calculus for Jerry also changes if he was cruising the local malls for HS dates before landing on Soshana/whatever. The calculus for watching his eponymous sitcom doesn't really change for me either way.
   582. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5576056)
I've been heaping scorn on Moore for two decades. (I actually attended parts of the initial federal trial where Judge Thompson ordered the removal of the granite monument many years back.) That he creeped out with 17/18 year old's in the 1980s as a 30-something is waaaay down on my list. I find judicial officers who show contempt for the law to be beneath my contempt. I find candidates who wish to impose a religious test on office to be abhorrent. I find a politician who supports making consensual homosexual conduct between adults illegal to be unfit for polite society, let alone elected office. I find an adult undressing, then fondling a 14 year old to be beyond disgusting.
Shorter dlf: Moore is odious both personally and professionally.
   583. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:11 PM (#5576057)
"I will not accept, and reject accusations that I have ever lied under oath. That is a lie."


Does that second sentence refer to the one preceding it?
   584. PepTech Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:12 PM (#5576058)
But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.

No. That is none of the reasons.

Oh...granted I haven't been following closely.
Just a suggestion, if you haven't been following closely, either confirm before posting, or maybe avoid the definitive voice. ;)
   585. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:13 PM (#5576059)
But one of the reasons is that he sought out relationships with 17 year olds.


A guy in his 30s chasing after a 17-year-old is creepy. A guy in his 30s who's giving a presentation for the kids in a school chasing after one of the 17-year-olds attending that class/assembly is even creepier, due to the inherent power imbalance. Not quite as bad as an actual teacher doing so, but not far from it, either.
   586. Blanks for Nothing, Larvell Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:15 PM (#5576060)
A guy in his 30s who's giving a presentation for the kids in a school chasing after one of the 17-year-olds attending that class/assembly is even creepier, due to the inherent power imbalance.


Drink!

"Power imbalance," LOL.

Maybe you can mansplain to us some more about how meek and weak women are -- especially coming from your position of maximum virility and ... POWER!! ... which positively oozes through the screen in your every utterance.

Pretty please?
   587. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:18 PM (#5576063)
When I see Mel Gibson flicks,


I think, "hey, it's Bjorn Pork!"
   588. BDC Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:19 PM (#5576064)
"Power imbalance," LOL.

Maybe you can mansplain to us some more about how meek and weak women are.


Or as Humbert Humbert puts it, "I am going to tell you something very strange: it was she who seduced me."
   589. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:20 PM (#5576065)
I can't see myself boycotting a movie because of the presence of a loathsome actor, but I imagine the rationale would be "I don't want to give them my money", or just some general revulsion at the sight of a sexual predator on the screen, particularly in a sympathetic role.

When I see Mel Gibson flicks, I don't think "Horrid antisemite I can't watch this."


I'm pretty sure the only Gibson movie I've seen is The Year of Living Dangerously, but I never thought about not watching it because he was in it.
   590. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:22 PM (#5576067)
I think it very plausible that Hillary knew that Clinton was having affairs. Less plausible that she knew about sexual harassment; a lot less plausible that she knew about any rapes.

She knows now about all of those things. And what has she done as a result? Leave him? Criticize him beyond paying lip service? Hear, Believe, and Support Every Survivor of Sexual Assault, as she laughably tweeted out to her army of blind followers two years ago?
She knows what about all of those things?

Wikipedia confirms my memory that there have been many allegations of affairs, which (except to the extent that Clinton perjures himself about them) aren't relevant and are a private matter between Hillary and Bill. There was one allegation of sexual harassment -- Paula Jones. The alleged conduct was not nice, but was a single incident that was on the pretty mild end of things. (And as a legal matter, was incredibly flimsy.) There were two accusations of assault (one of which rose to the level of rape), neither of which are particularly credible. Kathleen Willey was so uncredible that Ken Starr didn't believe her and wouldn't pursue her claims. Multiple people said that anything between them was consensual. Broaddrick, as I've said, denied under oath that anything that happened.

Hillary had plenty of justification to leave Bill, but the notion that she knew he was a rapist and therefore had a moral obligation to do is false.
   591. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:23 PM (#5576070)
"Power imbalance," LOL.

Maybe you can mansplain to us some more about how meek and weak women are -- especially coming from your position of maximum virility and ... POWER!! ... which positively oozes through the screen in your every utterance.
What women? We're talking about girls. (And a district attorney.)
   592. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:23 PM (#5576071)
When I see Mel Gibson flicks, I don't think "Horrid antisemite I can't watch this."


Funny; I do. I can't unsee that about him. But I watch anyway.
   593. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5576072)
I'm pretty sure the only Gibson movie I've seen is The Year of Living Dangerously, but I never thought about not watching it because he was in it.


Gallipoli
   594. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5576073)
I do not remember any stories of Jerry cruising the malls of Long Island looking for cheerleaders.

And by contrast, here's what multiple witnesses have said about Moore's cruising habits back in his hometown. Apologies if this was posted earlier, but it's worth repeating it if it was:
-- More than a dozen people told the New Yorker’s Charles Bethea that Moore was banned from his hometown mall for attempting to pick up teenage girls: “[T]wo officers I spoke to this weekend, both of whom asked to remain unnamed, told me that they have long heard stories about Moore and the mall. ‘The general knowledge at the time when I moved here was that this guy is a lawyer cruising the mall for high-school dates,’ one of the officers said. The legal age of consent in Alabama is sixteen, so it would not be illegal there for a man in his early thirties to date a girl who was, say, a senior in high school. But these officers, along with the other people I spoke to, said that Moore’s presence at the mall was regarded as a problem. ‘I was told by a girl who worked at the mall that he’d been run off from there, from a number of stores. Maybe not legally banned, but run off,’ one officer told me. He also said, ‘I heard from one girl who had to tell the manager of a store at the mall to get Moore to leave her alone.’ The second officer went further. ‘A friend of mine told me he was banned from there,’ he said.”
   595. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:28 PM (#5576077)
I'm pretty sure the only Gibson movie I've seen is The Year of Living Dangerously, but I never thought about not watching it because he was in it.

Gallipoli


Okay, so make that two of his I've seen, and I'm glad I saw both of them. My detailed memory of actors and actresses after about 1960 is probably limited to about 100 in all, and Gibson's not one of them.
   596. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5576081)
What women? We're talking about girls. (And a district attorney.)


And the entire premise of his is dumb. Power imbalance is not restricted to men having power over women. Power imbalance of men over men, women over men, and women over women is just as problematic as that of men over women.

It is just a transparent effort to distract from the issues at hand.
   597. BrianBrianson Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:34 PM (#5576084)
Actually, I'm a little surprised to look over his filmography and see I've only seen and liked Braveheart, Pocahontas, and Lethal Weapon ... and I'm skeptical I'd still like those last two iffen I saw 'em again.
   598. zack Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5576085)
Almost everything SBB says is unintentionally hilarious, but the idea that he thinks he speaks for and on behalf of women everywhere is the most hilarious.
   599. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5576086)
#540:
38-year old BBTF fave Jerry Seinfeld dating a 17-year old high school student would seem to be ripe for re-examination. At the time, nothing more than a bit of snickering admiration for Jerry.


Lots of snickering, zero admiration as Janis Ian and Howard Stern duet on Ian's biggest hit, circa 1993.



#560:
I had no idea Letterman was doing anything now either, Pep. But then I haven't followed him much since he left the live morning gig.


I was a huge devotee of David Letterman on "Password Plus" and "The Starland Vocal Band Show," but I totally lost track of him after that. He had some kind of TV show or stage play, yes?
   600. Joe Bivens Will Take a Steaming Dump Posted: November 14, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5576088)
When I see Mel Gibson flicks, I don't think "Horrid antisemite I can't watch this."


I do. Did you know that he called Winona Ryder an "oven dodger" to her face? Google Mel Gibson Winona Ryder, it's the first ten things that pop up.
Page 6 of 20 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1395 - 8:13pm, Nov 18)
Last: don't ask 57i66135; he wants to hang them all

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(197 - 7:41pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Doubles Machine

NewsblogOTP 13 November 2017: Politics, race now touching every sport
(1980 - 7:40pm, Nov 18)
Last: Satan Says

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(181 - 7:36pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogThe Eric Hosmer Dilemma | FanGraphs Baseball
(34 - 6:06pm, Nov 18)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(240 - 5:49pm, Nov 18)
Last: The Honorable Ardo

NewsblogStanton, Altuve capture first MVP Awards | MVP
(51 - 4:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogJim Palmer on Mark Belanger and Omar Vizquel: The Hardball Times
(98 - 4:33pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogFangraphs: Let's Make One Thing Absolutely Clear About Aaron Judge
(22 - 3:42pm, Nov 18)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritMock 2018 Modern Baseball Committee Hall of Fame Ballot
(74 - 3:16pm, Nov 18)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogThe story of Alex Anthopoulos: From tragedy to prodigy to Braves GM
(1 - 8:30am, Nov 18)
Last: bfan

NewsblogBraves will lose prospects, and possibly a lot more, for violating international market rules
(48 - 1:30am, Nov 18)
Last: Armored Trooper VOTTO

NewsblogJudge, Bellinger named BBWAA Rookies of Year | MLB.com
(86 - 9:25pm, Nov 17)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogDerek Jeter addresses Giancarlo Stanton rumors | MLB.com
(24 - 7:38pm, Nov 17)
Last: Khrushin it bro

NewsblogYu Darvish is out to silence his doubters after World Series flop | SI.com
(9 - 7:15pm, Nov 17)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Page rendered in 1.0632 seconds
47 querie(s) executed