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

Sunday, January 08, 2017

OTP 9 Jan. 2017: What’s next for sports, politics, and TV in 2017?

Cyclical trends may obscure the connection at times, but you can’t permanently disentangle sport from politics:

“Sport in 2017 will con­tinue to be a resur­gent and resounding plat­form for athlete-​​led social activism,” says Dan Lebowitz, exec­u­tive director of Northeastern’s Center for the Study of Sport in Society. “If his­tory repeats itself, 2017 will be this generation’s 1967, a year in which promi­nent ath­letes held a social jus­tice summit to call out insti­tu­tion­al­ized inequity, con­front it, and cat­a­pult a con­ver­sa­tion that America still needs to hear, embrace, and lead.”

Today we have football’s Colin Kaeper­nick, whose national anthem protest cap­tured the nation’s atten­tion, and col­lege basketball’s Bronson Koenig, who protested the Dakota Access Pipeline and then reflected on his expe­ri­ence for The Players’ Tribune.

(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.)

 

BDC Posted: January 08, 2017 at 09:10 PM | 1952 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: activism, kaepernick, politics, social justice

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 1 of 20 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Guy Heckler's Veto Posted: January 08, 2017 at 11:06 PM (#5379971)
Proactive OTP threads?

Dat Streep speech tho...
   2. Howie Menckel Posted: January 08, 2017 at 11:15 PM (#5379972)
I was curious about that speech - have only seen Twitter reaction.
is it bully pulpit?

I wouldn't watch an awards show anyway, but will any Trump backers who get the podium respond in kind? is it like the Dangerfield line about going to the fights and a hockey game broke out?

or is this the whole point of the spectacle?
   3. Guy Heckler's Veto Posted: January 08, 2017 at 11:53 PM (#5379992)
It wasn't bully pulpit, but just the usual preachy stuff. When she's speaking and they cut to Mel Gibson with his mouth agape and a stewing Vince Vaughn... THAT'S television. Not sure what the thesis of her speech was, but seemed to be points about what America is or isn't, or something. The best was her line about "all you'll have left is football and mixed martial arts, and those are not arts." That's the sort of doubling down on a strawman image that's gonna help R's lots more than it'd ever hurt them.
   4. Cargo Cultist Posted: January 09, 2017 at 02:48 AM (#5380014)
I don't think the Left has a clue about how very many white working middle class Americans they have pissed off by calling them all racist, sexist, homophobic, and deplorable. You never win elections by insulting voters, and voters can have a very long memory.
   5. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 04:34 AM (#5380024)
Poor Hollywood stars. They thought that the age in which the masses cared what they thought about politics wasn't a fleeting moment.
   6. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 07:12 AM (#5380031)
When she's speaking and they cut to Mel Gibson with his mouth agape


You know he was praying that she get raped by a pack of niggers too.
   7. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2017 at 07:49 AM (#5380034)
This is going to destroy the Democrats for a generation with all those real heartland Americans who hate Hollywood celebrity entitlement but watch the Golden Globe Awards.
   8. Theo^J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:06 AM (#5380036)
all you'll have left is football and mixed martial arts, and those are not arts."


After reading the header, I was goinv to make some kneejerk crack about jocks, but how could athletes and actors be any dumber than David Brooks?
   9. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:13 AM (#5380039)
You never win elections by insulting voters

Yeah, conservatives never did this.

I did not watch this, and that Mixed Martial Arts line is unfortunate, I agree.

Of course, making fun of disabled people doesn't seem to bother you guys, so whatever.
   10. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:19 AM (#5380040)
There was one performance this year that stunned me. It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth. It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back. It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can't get it out of my head because it wasn't in a movie. It was real life.

And this instinct to humiliate, when it's modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody's life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.
Wait, was this Streep's way of explaining the kidnaping and vicious attack, aired live on Facebook, of the disabled guy in Chicago?

Good grief.
   11. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:20 AM (#5380041)

I just think you're playing fast and loose with science here. "Above 156" does not mean 157 and 195 are equal in effect.


At 149 degrees it takes two seconds according to the Burn Foundation.
   12. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:21 AM (#5380042)
So in our thread it went from burns to 20% of her body to 17% and now 6% and yet I'm the one that entered into this conversation without knowing the facts? Right.
   13. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:23 AM (#5380043)
Oh god, please no coffee.


Wait, was this Streep's way of explaining the kidnaping and vicious attack, aired live on Facebook, of the disabled guy in Chicago?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but who knows, we're post-truth, so go ahead and say so, it may as well be true if you think it is. Like the left's horrifying reaction to Hentoff's death, boy do you believe how that almost happened but didn't, but boy it could have, so it basically did.
   14. McCoy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:26 AM (#5380044)
Debating what the Right thinks will happen to the Left and what the left thinks and vice versa is better?
   15. Ishmael Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:27 AM (#5380045)
"all you'll have left is football and mixed martial arts, and those are not arts."

Who said it?
“Football is an art more central to our culture than anything the Arts Council deigns to recognize.”

Who said it?
“To say that these men paid their shillings to watch twenty-two hirelings kick a ball is merely to say that a violin is wood and catgut, that Hamlet is so much paper and ink.”

Who (allegedly) said it?
“Amongst all unimportant subjects, football is by far the most important.”


Mind you, these folks were talking about, you know, the really important kind of football.
   16. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:29 AM (#5380046)
Who (allegedly) said it?
Googling: Jason Priestley, apparently.
   17. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:31 AM (#5380047)
Oh god, please no coffee.
That conversation went right through me.
   18. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:31 AM (#5380048)
Debating what the Right thinks will happen to the Left and what the left thinks and vice versa is better?

157 to 230-degree coffee to the face is better at this point.
   19. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:38 AM (#5380051)
I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but who knows, we're post-truth, so go ahead and say so, it may as well be true if you think it is.
Well then, why that particular incident and not one of the hundreds of other objectionable quotes or actions from Trump?
Like the left's horrifying reaction to Hentoff's death, boy do you believe how that almost happened but didn't, but boy it could have, so it basically did.
I still don't understand your FB comment.
   20. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:40 AM (#5380052)
Wait, was this Streep's way of explaining the kidnaping and vicious attack, aired live on Facebook, of the disabled guy in Chicago?


I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but who knows, we're post-truth, so go ahead and say so, it may as well be true if you think it is. Like the left's horrifying reaction to Hentoff's death, boy do you believe how that almost happened but didn't, but boy it could have, so it basically did.

I can almost guarantee that every time Trump opens his mouth and subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge and human decency, we'll be reminded of all those times that Hillary Clinton and / or President Obama called the white working class "racist", or threw them "under the bus". Who cares about facts when you've got a narrative to maintain?
   21. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:45 AM (#5380054)
I still don't understand your FB comment.

I find denouncing the left as the primary focus of (and reason for) your (and Guy's) epitaph for Hentoff to be unseemly. YMMV.


To get back to politics, we do have some Confirmation Hearings coming up. I wonder what the Dems shitty strategy will be in this case. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
   22. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:49 AM (#5380055)
I find denouncing the left as the primary focus of your (and Guy's) epitaph for Hentoff to be unseemly. YMMV.
Um, that still doesn't explain your FB comment. I had simply posted a quote from Hentoff re: Raul Castro.
   23. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:50 AM (#5380056)
You never win elections by insulting voters

Yeah, conservatives never did this.


Well that's different obviously. It isn't the conservatives fault they had an opposing segment of the electorate that hates America and sympathized with the terrorists who hate us and want to kill us because of our freedoms. How can you be nice to people who are objectively pro-Saddam? And before that they were communist sympathizers who wanted to punish success, going back decades.

The important thing is that the hippies learn the right lessons from history. Reagan showed us Jimmy Carter should have offered to trade weapons for the American hostages, and he'd have been hailed as a rock-ribbed hero. President Hector Alonzo Mountain Dew Camacho Trump has already shown us that if you want to protest a war properly, you do it in private to Sean Hannity so you can crowd about it later once the wisdom of your stance as solidified. Learn something, hippies, learn something.
   24. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:52 AM (#5380057)
QFT:
It's so brave of Meryl Streep to publicly express the only acceptable political opinion in her profession. Truly the hero we all deserve.
   25. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:54 AM (#5380058)
I wonder what the Dems shitty strategy will be in this case. No, I'm not being sarcastic.


I am not a huge fan of the typical politics of confirmation hearings. I think the vast majority of presidential appointments within the administration (executive branch) should be approved.

The people elected Trump and the GOP, they should have latitude to appoint who they want to help run the country. Plus I think(hope) there are better things for them to be doing.

However even though I don't care, many people do. So before we discuss strategy, what is the (democratic political) goal (in your opinion) of the confirmation hearings. After all you are truly going to hate the strategy if you are aiming at a different goal. Second to that what is a good strategy for accomplishing your goal given where the Democrats are politically?

Note: Please answer so we can have a discussion that is not Coffee or whatever random Golden Globe nonsense folks are talking about.
   26. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:58 AM (#5380060)
I did not watch this, and that Mixed Martial Arts line is unfortunate, I agree.


There's an artistic aspect to fighting but I'd never thought to consider it a real art. I'd always reserved the concept of "martial arts" to those ineffective systems that layered on the mysticism and were reluctant to improve their techniques following encounters with reality. A modern viewer might be surprised at how much mystical mumbo-jumbo had to be dispelled in those early UFCs, where you'd see men claim they had special meditative breathing techniques that made them immune to chokeholds. Original UFC promoter Art Davie said he'd get applications to participate in these early bare-knuckle events that consisted of a simple videotape showing a naked man doing katas in a freezing river, his body glistening with frost.
   27. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 08:59 AM (#5380061)
I had simply posted a quote from Hentoff re: Raul Castro.

I don't have a great interest in discussing my FB account here, but Raul Castro wasn't anywhere in that quote, so now I'm not sure what you're talking about.
   28. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:07 AM (#5380062)
QFT:
It's so brave of Meryl Streep to publicly express the only acceptable political opinion in her profession. Truly the hero we all deserve.



I just hope this kind of thing doesn't cast a shadow on Donald Trump's presidential honeymoon.
   29. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:09 AM (#5380065)
I don't have a great interest in discussing my FB account here, but Raul Castro wasn't anywhere in that quote, so now I'm not sure what you're talking about.
My bad. It was Ché. Still, what exactly was "kind of gross?"
   30. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:15 AM (#5380067)
whatever random Golden Globe nonsense folks are talking about.

Red carpets are always great fun, though, mostly for how good or awful various dresses are. Jaime Alexander FTW (or one of them) and Katy Perry FTL (or one of many).
   31. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:19 AM (#5380070)
whatever random Golden Globe nonsense folks are talking about.


I think it was something with Pia Zadora, I remember hearing something about it.
   32. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:21 AM (#5380071)
Fiat to invest $1 billion in Michigan, Ohio plants, create 2,000 jobs


fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html

Who'd a thunk that (promising to ) tax something (imports) might get you less of it!
   33. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5380072)
My bad. It was Ché. Still, what exactly was "kind of gross?"

A quote regarding a conversation with Che Guevera and Che t-shirts in America as your go-to regarding Nat Hentoff's work has no personal political focus or animus. OK then.
   34. Greg K Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:22 AM (#5380075)
Red carpets are always great fun, though, mostly for how good or awful various dresses are. Jaime Alexander FTW (or one of them) and Katy Perry FTL (or one of many).

I read that as Jason Alexander and thought "now this I gotta see!"
   35. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:25 AM (#5380077)
I wonder what the Dems shitty strategy will be in this case. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Pretty sure it's going to be the same strategy that was so successful on Nov. 8: call everyone a racist and/or misogynist.
   36. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:27 AM (#5380079)
Here's a reminder of how brave and forward thinking Hollywood is when it comes to people with disabilities:
The roundtable came just four months after the Ruderman Foundation, an internationally recognized organization that advocates for people with disabilities, released its White Paper on Employment of Actors With Disabilities in Television. The study found that despite those with disabilities (visible and nonvisible) representing nearly 20% of the country’s population, about 95% of characters with disabilities on television are played by able-bodied actors. Additionally, they found that a plurality of actors with disabilities worked less than once a year and were repeatedly subjected to negative stigma and preconceived biases by casting agents and producers.

“While the numbers are disheartening, we are showing up more and more on-screen in commercials, movies and television,” Matlin said. “Audiences want to see us and we want to be seen. We deserve 110% to be seen.”
   37. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:29 AM (#5380083)
Pretty sure it's going to be the same strategy that was so successful on Nov. 8: call everyone a racist and/or misogynist.


Out of wild curiosity any cites of all this "call everyone a racist and/or misogynist"?

Or will this be like the Obama quote that was totally anti-American except it really wasn't, and then was totally anti-West, except again it wasn't, and then well ... evil Liberals!
   38. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:30 AM (#5380084)
call everyone a racist and/or misogynist.

You're like the least accurate pedant in existence.

EDIT: No, wait, you ARE the least accurate pedant in existence.
   39. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:31 AM (#5380086)
A quote regarding a conversation with Che Guevera and Che t-shirts in America as your go-to regarding Nat Hentoff's work has no personal political focus or animus. OK then.
"Kind of gross." OK then, indeed.
   40. Ishmael Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:32 AM (#5380089)
“Audiences want to see us and we want to be seen. We deserve 110% to be seen.”

Dyscalculia. Tragic.
   41. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:33 AM (#5380090)
Here's a reminder of how brave and forward thinking Hollywood is when it comes to people with disabilities:


That's a real zinger. "Where are the fat Jedi? How come they couldn't find an actor with ALS to portray Stephen Hawking?"

I'm still mad there were so many goyim cast as Hebrews in Exodus.
   42. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:34 AM (#5380091)
The study found that despite those with disabilities (visible and nonvisible)


I would guess that the nonvisible disability rate in show business must be in the vicinity of 400%.
   43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:38 AM (#5380093)
I would guess that the nonvisible disability rate in show business must be in the vicinity of 400%.

Is being a shallow, arrogant, self-absorbe jerk, with an IQ below 90 considered a dsiability nowdays?

If so, I think you're on the low side with your estimate.
   44. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:38 AM (#5380094)
That's a real zinger. "Where are the fat Jedi? How come they couldn't find an actor with ALS to portray Stephen Hawking?"


I just love the conflation of actors with all of Hollywood. Actors don't generally have much say in casting, and besides "bravery" has nothing to do with anything. Making media (TV, movies, whatever) is a business. It is about making money.

Pretty people who are young and healthy sell, even for playing the part of people who as less pretty and healthy. My favorite is always the casting of some gorgeous actress as the "ugly duckling" and having her wear glasses and have less make up on.

But hey it is not real. Really truly.
   45. simon bedford Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:40 AM (#5380097)
Bm
You forget to add "overalls with paint on them" and "bad ponytail" .
   46. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:41 AM (#5380098)
I wonder what the Dems shitty strategy will be in this case. No, I'm not being sarcastic.

I hope their strategy is to try their best to force full hearings, not just drive-through, one day jobs. And then I hope that for the truly loathsome nominees (Sessions, Price, Perry, Pompeo, Carson) get their past views aired with one followup question after another. Give them the full third degree, and don't let them filibuster with cliches and non-answers.

The point is that these are essentially stealth nominees, meaning not that their views aren't well known within political circles, but that they're virtually unknown among the country as a whole. And the strategy of these hearings should be to have those nominees' views fully exposed to the point where the country knows exactly what it's going to be getting.

And if a single Democrat votes for any of those five** on the ground that they're "nice guys", or "a president should get to choose his cabinet", it'll be to their everlasting shame. Trump has declared war on pretty much everything this country has purported to stand for over the past 50 years, and if those nominees get approved, I want to be sure that the Republicans own that war 100%.

** Not that any of his other nominees are particularly lovely, but these five stand out for either their views or their complete lack of any qualification for the job.
   47. Theo^J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:41 AM (#5380099)
The study found that despite those with disabilities (visible and nonvisible) representing nearly 20% of the country’s population, about 95% of characters with disabilities on television are played by able-bodied actors.


How many disabled actors did they get picked over? How many that were better actors? Plus perhaps they were invisibly disabled.

Does being stupid count?
   48. Theo^J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:43 AM (#5380100)
Cokes all around.
   49. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:43 AM (#5380102)
Donald Trump has tweeted that Meryl Streep is "one of the most over-rated actresses in Hollywood" and that she "lost big" in the election, adding that he did not mock the disabled man's spastic arm movements but merely depicted him "groveling" to Trump.
   50. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:43 AM (#5380103)
EDIT: Blah. No.
   51. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:44 AM (#5380105)
I just love the conflation of actors with all of Hollywood. Actors don't generally have much say in casting, and besides "bravery" has nothing to do with anything. Making media (TV, movies, whatever) is a business. It is about making money.
LOL. I think it's safe to say that top actors have a bit more say about casting than who gets to be our next POTUS.
   52. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:45 AM (#5380106)
LOL. Actors doesn't have much say in national politics either, yet that didn't stop Streep from focusing on Trump.


None of us here have much say in national politics and yet we focus on Trump and Clinton and so on. LOL indeed!

EDIT: I see you edited your initial comment with a slightly less dumb one. Small steps. Still, um, so what? Are you blaming Ms. Streep for a lack of diversity in Hollywood? And that this lack of diversity is a bad thing? Hmmmm....
   53. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:46 AM (#5380107)
Actors don't have much say in national politics either

Equating public opinion with private hiring is pretty weird.
   54. simon bedford Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:47 AM (#5380108)
Actors get to vote in elections if they are citizens right? Pretty sure most of them do not get to "vote" in casting.
   55. Ishmael Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:49 AM (#5380109)
Oh, for all those on tenterhooks, the statements in #15 are from Germaine Greer, JB Priestly and Karol Wojtyla.

So there you have it, Meryl Streep.

However, as I said, they were talking about The Beautiful Game.
   56. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:50 AM (#5380111)
#1807 I've asked those questions in the thread (and an earlier one)

David has provided one very useful response. in #1697. Quoting now:

Well, to start with: there's no such thing as a slam dunk on appeal.

(IOW an appeal is a different beast. Most particularly from what I can understand McDonalds best chance would have been a dismissal before trial. And again from what I can tell the appeals process is relatively unlikely to say it should never have come to trial. The presumption I guess being that the judge knew the relevant precedents and opted to allow it to go forward.)

There's generally a bias in favor of the trial court's rulings, both factual and legal; moreover,

(the appeals process treats the initial verdict with a degree of deference -- RNJ)

there's always a chance that even if you're 100% right on the existing law, that an appellate court makes new law.

(this doesn't strike me as strong reasoning. This one is always lurking any time you go to trial -- RNJ)

And that doesn't just lose you this case, but sets a bad precedent.¹

(which is why they fought in the first place. 20K (the initial ask) is chump change to the corporation but if you get the rep for settling easy you will be deluged. Not that McDonalds doesn't get sued a lot. Which is why I don't find arguments that rest on the incompetence of the McDonalds legal team to be compelling -- RNJ)

And of course appeals themselves cost money, even if successful.

(Yeah but not as much for McDonalds. I'm pretty sure they pay their legal team whether they're in court or in their office. But outside experts, etc. Even for a corporation with a legal team it's not free to appeal. Still the fact that they settled -- supposedly for something close what the judge awarded -- suggests to me very strongly that they didn't like their chances on appeal. Of course the plaintiff has good reason to want to settle too. Their costs are out of pocket. Even if the lawyer is likely working on contingency. --RNJ)

Finally, there is p.r. to consider; at some point, you may want to cut your losses.

(Not sure here. On balance they did pretty well on the p.r. front. -- RNJ)

From what I can see in any case of this nature if you can avoid dismissal there's a non-trivial chance of prevailing at trial. It's just that the probability of dismissal seems quite high.
   57. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:53 AM (#5380113)
EDIT: I see you edited your initial comment with a slightly less dumb one. Small steps. Still, um, so what? Are you blaming Ms. Streep for a lack of diversity in Hollywood? And that this lack of diversity is a bad thing? Hmmmm....
See #24 and #36 again. No, I'm saying if she's going to go off on Trump for a douchey thing he said in November 2015 (not even "this past year") about a disabled reporter, then she should have taken note that disabled actors don't feel like the industry is being fair to them. (EDIT: BECAUSE IT'S HER INDUSTRY AS WELL.)

Sorry that this has been way too difficult for you to comprehend.
   58. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:53 AM (#5380114)
#1809 Your experience is the way I'd hope mediation works. David's is the way I'd feared it does.
   59. zonk Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:53 AM (#5380116)
LOL. Actors don't have much say in national politics either, yet that didn't stop Streep from bloviating about Trump.


The OTP -- yet another powerless quarter that fails to kneel before zod and just keeps on bloviating.

I'm wondering when the last time was that an actor actually had any kind of impact on an election... well, besides Clown Duce winning.

I'd be tempted to say Tom Hanks in 2008, since he was pretty apolitical and generally held up as a sort of American cultural elder statesman - but I think 2008 was happening the way it happened regardless.

How about Tallulah Bankhead for Truman? Was reading an article about her over the weekend and seems to me that she might well have had a measurable impact... close election, she went against her dixiecrat family, and was apparently pretty good at mocking Thomas Dewey.
   60. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:54 AM (#5380117)
The point is that these are essentially stealth nominees, meaning not that their views aren't well known within political circles, but that they're virtually unknown among the country as a whole.
I was trying to snark about this, but couldn't come up with anything because it was so stupidly self-refuting. If their views are well known among people paying attention, then they're essentially the opposite of stealth nominees.

Give them the full third degree, and don't let them filibuster with cliches and non-answers.
My daughter is seven and knows the tooth fairy isn't real, but Andy still believes.
   61. simon bedford Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:54 AM (#5380118)
Ron J
I just wanted David to entertain me further with his on going claims that this case was so easy for Mcdonalds to win ,when it was absolutely obvious they were not going to "win" or appeal and they settled BEFORE final judgement was entered.
Watching him continue to claim they filed and appeal is pretty good comedy, obviously if that had happened it would be a major element of the story as the basis of the appeal would be part of the story. Of course no such thing happened.
   62. gef the talking mongoose Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:55 AM (#5380120)
don't have a great interest in discussing my FB account here, but Raul Castro wasn't anywhere in that quote, so now I'm not sure what you're talking about.

My bad. It was Ché.


Those guys all look alike, amirite?
   63. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 09:57 AM (#5380121)
#1809 Your experience is the way I'd hope mediation works. David's is the way I'd feared it does.
FFS, Ron, that wasn't just from another page but another thread! How about a block quote next time?
   64. gef the talking mongoose Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:00 AM (#5380123)
FFS, Ron, that wasn't just from another page but another thread! How about a block quote next time?


Better yet, drop the coffee crap, period. It's basically been a 3-person circle jerk for hundreds of posts.
   65. simon bedford Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:01 AM (#5380126)
Gef
Dropping the coffee is what started the whole issue!
   66. gef the talking mongoose Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:02 AM (#5380127)
Yes, that occurred to me.
   67. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:02 AM (#5380128)
See #24 and #36 again. No, I'm saying if she's going to go off on Trump for a douchey thing he said in November 2015 (not even "this past year") about a disabled reporter, then she should have taken note that disabled actors don't feel like the industry is being fair to them.

Sorry that this has been way too difficult for you to comprehend.

FWIW, Jason, you do have a bit of a habit of posting a random quote from some source in response to something and just assuming it works as an answer (without explanation) - in this case (just reading through the thread), I actually had missed your point and therefore needed the quoted post. So it wasn't just one person, anyway.
   68. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:03 AM (#5380129)
Better yet, drop the coffee crap, period.
Your comment just went right through me.*

* Hoping for more yuks the second time around.
   69. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:04 AM (#5380130)
See #24 and #36 again. No, I'm saying if she's going to go off on Trump for a douchey thing he said in November 2015 (not even "this past year") about a disabled reporter, then she should have taken note that disabled actors don't feel like the industry is being fair to them. (EDIT: BECAUSE IT'S HER INDUSTRY AS WELL.)


Double down on the dumb.

#24 was ridiculous because (among many other reasons) Ms. Streep giving her opinion on a political matter is ... wait for it ... someone famous giving her opinion. It has nothing to do with bravery or lack there in it has to do with her opinion. And she gets to give her opinion on subject A without talking about her own industry first. Really, I promise.

Do everyone of your opinions include massive disclaimers associated to similar issues in your own personal and professional life? Funny I have never noticed anything like that in your posts. I guess nothing you have ever posted could ever be even slightly related to any of your opinions (Ha ha) or maybe, just maybe, you are being extremely hypocritical and want to establish different rules for liberals than the rules for conservatives.

NOTE: If you could scrounge up an instance of her specifically being disrespectful towards disabled folks or making casting or other decisions regarding them you might have a case. As it is you just have a big pile of fail.
   70. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:05 AM (#5380131)
FWIW, Jason, you do have a bit of a habit of posting a random quote from some source in response to something and just assuming it works as an answer (without explanation) - in this case (just reading through the thread), I actually had missed your point and therefore needed the quoted post. So it wasn't just one person, anyway.
I'll try to do better the next time.
   71. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:11 AM (#5380133)
I'll try to do better the next time.

Yeah, it's no biggie, and as I've said before, I really do appreciate the many links you post here. Even though I don't always/often agree with them, many of them are quite well written and worth reading :)
   72. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:14 AM (#5380136)
Double down on the dumb.
Yawn. The tweet was clever, particularly since many conservative actors in Hollywood suffer worse than mockery. No, they're merely shut out of employment.
   73. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:18 AM (#5380138)
Yeah, it's no biggie, and as I've said before, I really do appreciate the many links you post here. Even though I don't always/often agree with them, many of them are quite well written and worth reading :)
As long as we agree that the true existential threat to us is Ron's stubborn refusal to use block quotes when responding to comments from three weeks ago. :)
   74. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:20 AM (#5380139)
The point is that these are essentially stealth nominees, meaning not that their views aren't well known within political circles, but that they're virtually unknown among the country as a whole.

I was trying to snark about this, but couldn't come up with anything because it was so stupidly self-refuting. If their views are well known among people paying attention, then they're essentially the opposite of stealth nominees.


Your premise seems to be that the number of people who've been paying attention is static. The point of my suggestion is to get more people to pay attention to these nominees' views. I'm funny in that I think that the more people know about the views of prospective cabinet nominees, the better off we'll all be.

Give them the full third degree, and don't let them filibuster with cliches and non-answers.

My daughter is seven and knows the tooth fairy isn't real, but Andy still believes.


It's worked in the past (see Sessions in 1986, see Carswell, see Bork), and while there's no guarantee that it'll derail any of Trump's nominees, what's the alternative?
   75. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:21 AM (#5380140)
The tweet was clever, particularly since many conservative actors in Hollywood suffer worse than mockery. No, they're merely shut out of employment.


I remember the conspiracy theories that those libruls were scuttling the resounding success of An American Carol.
   76. Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:23 AM (#5380141)
As long as we agree that the true existential threat to us is Ron's stubborn refusal to use block quotes when responding to comments from three weeks ago. :)

That is indeed the true scourge of our times.
   77. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:26 AM (#5380144)
Arguing with Simon Bedford regarding the Liebeck coffee case was like arguing with SBB over Jack Morris's HOF candidacy, you know at some point you have to stop, but he just keeps saying something so wrong you have to respond yet again and again and again...
   78. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:28 AM (#5380146)
and does anyone actually watch the Golden Globe Awards?

by that I mean anyone here?
   79. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:29 AM (#5380148)
Well in my defense I had originally composed the post in the old thread. Which would have only been back a page.
   80. Greg K Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:31 AM (#5380150)
and does anyone actually watch the Golden Globe Awards?

I once watched a condensed version that was just Ricky Gervais' quips. But I don't think he's hosted in a while so that was probably some years ago.
   81. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:32 AM (#5380152)
There was one performance this year that stunned me.


Fake news. The incident she refers to happened in 2015, not 2016. (It's worth noting because she used "this year" as her excuse to work it into her preachy speech which was during an annual awards show recognizing 2016.)

It sank its hooks in my heart. Not because it was good. There was nothing good about it. But it was effective and it did its job. It made its intended audience laugh and show their teeth.


People instinctively laugh at "jokes" such as Trump's mocking of the disabled reporter not because they think it's funny to mock disabled people. They laugh because the joke is inappropriate and out of place; that's the "funny" part. I thought people who purport to know everything about everything understood this?

It was that moment when the person asking to sit in the most respected seat in our country imitated a disabled reporter, someone he outranked in privilege, power, and the capacity to fight back.


More fake news. The disabled reporter doesn't lack the capacity to fight back. He has arthrogryposis, not PVS. Streep's comment here, as long as we're going down this road, should be seen as deeply offensive and condescending to disabled people. The reporter can fight back just fine, and, moreover, he has an army of tens of millions of people who fought back for him. As this incident showed, mocking disabled people will likely draw a harsh rebuke from polite society.

It kind of broke my heart when I saw it. I still can't get it out of my head because it wasn't in a movie. It was real life.


Real life is a movie. The left thinks they're fighting Nazis. Other more sane people are in a different movie.
   82. Ron J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:33 AM (#5380153)
#77 Well this has actually been a productive discussion for me. I actually think I've a better understanding of the issues.
   83. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5380156)
Arguing with Simon Bedford regarding the Liebeck coffee case was like arguing with SBB over Jack Morris's HOF candidacy, you know at some point you have to stop, but he just keeps saying something so wrong you have to respond yet again and again and again...
I think you owe half a cup of French Roast to David.
   84. simon bedford Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:36 AM (#5380157)
Ron J
Me too, I realize that this is one of those cases that says a lot about american law , and that could quite easily have gone either way . It says something about the value of PR as well, I believe the only reason Mcdonalds settled as quickly as they did is they "won" the pr battle.
   85. Greg K Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5380158)
People instinctively laugh at "jokes" such as Trump's mocking of the disabled reporter not because they think it's funny to mock disabled people. They laugh because the joke is inappropriate and out of place; that's the funny part. I thought people who purport to know everything about everything understood this?

I think part of the humour here (for those who see it) is the imagined response of the political correct liberal who would presumably be aghast at the performance. Part of the enjoyment is the thought of Meryl Streep making hay out of it 14 months later.
   86. simon bedford Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:37 AM (#5380159)
Not saying anything wrong, You can search til you are blue in the face , Mcdonalds did not file an appeal to a higher court on this case.
   87. zonk Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:38 AM (#5380160)
Real life is a movie. The left thinks they're fighting Nazis. Other more sane people are in a different movie.


Battleship Potemkin, presumably...
   88. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:40 AM (#5380161)
   89. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:47 AM (#5380166)
and does anyone actually watch the Golden Globe Awards?
by that I mean anyone here?


We were bored and having dinner and watched the opening and about 20 minutes. Then we got bored. So, yes, then no, and I regretted it.
   90. Lassus Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:49 AM (#5380167)
Fake news.

I'm starting to wonder if Ray doesn't write this in when he finds typos in legal briefs.
   91. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5380170)
#1809 Your experience is the way I'd hope mediation works. David's is the way I'd feared it does.


A lot of mediations, especially the half day court mandated variety tends to involve a rather disengaged mediator telling you that you should fall split the difference...

Generally speaking when a lot of $ is at stake, and the sides have hired a private mediator, you get more intellectual engagement from the mediator, but you still tend to see that most mediators, will tell you your case isn't as strong as you think it is, and you assume that he's telling the other side that as well.

Years ago I was in a mediation through NY County's commercial mediation program, we thought we had a summary judgment case, judge referred it to mediation before the motion was heard at the plaintiff's request. The plaintiff's attorney admitted to me that he wanted a third party to give his client a reality check (One of the plaintiff's VPs had stolen a large sum of money from plaintiff, my client was a third party financial institution not the VP)... Well it went quite badly, the mediator spent 90% of the time berating me and my client - telling us we had better offer more money because we were going to lose- stating that in FRONT OF THE PLAINTIFF- the plaintiff never lowered it's settlement demand after that... When it was over and the clients left the mediator called me in to berate my client some more and asked how on earth we thought we could get away with it- away with what? It turns out that she was under the mistaken impression that we and not plaintiff had employed the VP who stole from plaintiff...
We won a few months later on summary judgment.
   92. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5380177)
Here's a reminder of how brave and forward thinking Hollywood is when it comes to people with disabilities:

The roundtable came just four months after the Ruderman Foundation, an internationally recognized organization that advocates for people with disabilities, released its White Paper on Employment of Actors With Disabilities in Television. The study found that despite those with disabilities (visible and nonvisible) representing nearly 20% of the country’s population, about 95% of characters with disabilities on television are played by able-bodied actors. Additionally, they found that a plurality of actors with disabilities worked less than once a year and were repeatedly subjected to negative stigma and preconceived biases by casting agents and producers.


I think this is a bit unfair. As Hollywood is All Caring it knows what's best for disabled actors: have their jobs taken by able-bodied actors, who can play disabled better than disabled people can.
   93. Theo^J Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:00 AM (#5380179)
We Like Lists Because We Don't Want to Die

…
Look, ever since the days of Aristotle, we have been trying to define things based on their essence. The definition of man? An animal that acts in a deliberate way. Now, it took naturalists 80 years to come up with a definition of a platypus. They found it endlessly difficult to describe the essence of this animal. It lives underwater and on land; it lays eggs, and yet it's a mammal. So what did that definition look like? It was a list, a list of characteristics.

SPIEGEL: A definition would certainly be possible with a more conventional animal.

Perhaps, but would that make the animal interesting? Think of a tiger, which science describes as a predator. How would a mother describe a tiger to her child? Probably by using a list of characteristics: The tiger is big, a cat, yellow, striped and strong. Only a chemist would refer to water as H2O. But I say that it's liquid and transparent, that we drink it and that we can wash ourselves with it. Now you can finally see what I'm talking about. The list is the mark of a highly advanced, cultivated society because a list allows us to question the essential definitions. The essential definition is primitive compared with the list.
   94. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:06 AM (#5380181)
Your premise seems to be that the number of people who've been paying attention is static. The point of my suggestion is to get more people to pay attention to these nominees' views. I'm funny in that I think that the more people know about the views of prospective cabinet nominees, the better off we'll all be.
My premise is that people whose views are well known are not "stealth nominees." Moreover, 99% of cabinet appointments over the last, say, 70 years would fit in the category of people-whose-views-are-known-to-people-paying-attention-but-not-to-the-general-public. You've got a handful of Secretaries of State (Clinton, Kissinger), and not much else. Do you think lots of people knew more about Kathleen Sebelius, Eric Holder, Tim Geithner, Steven Chu, Ray LaHood, Hilda Solis, or Ken Salazar, just to name some of Obama's many initial cabinet members, than they know about Perry, Sessions, or Carson?

Nobody cares about the views of cabinet members. Cabinet members work for the president.

Moreover, your idea that this is a political strategy to hang these people on Republicans is silly; the less well-known the cabinet members are, the more that their actions will be associated with the president. Hillary Clinton might have taken some flak on foreign policy because she's well known, but the general public knows PPACA as Obamacare, not Sebeliuscare.
   95. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:07 AM (#5380182)
Ron J
Me too, I realize that this is one of those cases that says a lot about american law , and that could quite easily have gone either way . It says something about the value of PR as well, I believe the only reason Mcdonalds settled as quickly as they did is they "won" the pr battle.


Simon, it sounds to me like you started from your conclusion that corporations are evil and thus should be held responsible when any of their customers injures themselves whether the corporation was at fault or not, and worked your way backwards from there, Trumpizing on the facts and the law (and on civil procedure) as you went. You also generally think tort law should be a vehicle for wealth redistribution. Nothing else explains your performance on these pages. I guess another possible explanation could be that you set up a fake account just to troll people here on the topic, but it would have had to be a long con, as you've been posting for a while now.

All of that would be bad enough but chastising people who know the facts and law and procedure better than you do just takes it over the top. Again - very Trumpian, this performance.
   96. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:07 AM (#5380184)
Not saying anything wrong, You can search til you are blue in the face , Mcdonalds did not file an appeal to a higher court on this case.


Went to Westlaw, here's what to has to say regarding the history of the case:


KeyCite Red Flag - Severe Negative Treatment

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc.

District Court of New Mexico, Second Judicial District, Bernalillo County.August 18, 1994Not Reported in P.2d1995 WL 360309 (Approx. 2 pages)

A

Liebeck v. McDonald's Resta...

KeyCite Red Flag for Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc.1. Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc.
1995 WL 360309, N.M. Dist., Aug. 18, 1994

Vacated by ............
D

Liebeck v. Restaurants

2. Liebeck v. Restaurants

1994 WL 16777704, N.M. Dist., Nov. 28, 1994



B

Liebeck v. Restaurants

KeyCite Red Flag for Liebeck v. Restaurants3. Liebeck v. Restaurants
Out of Plan

1994 WL 16777706, N.M. Dist., Sep. 16, 1994

Reconsideration Denied by ............
C

Liebeck v. Restaurants

4. Liebeck v. Restaurants

1994 WL 16777705, N.M. Dist., Nov. 03, 1994

AND Vacated by ............
D

Liebeck v. Restaurants

5. Liebeck v. Restaurants

1994 WL 16777704, N.M. Dist., Nov. 28, 1994


Related References (1)

Liebeck v. McDonald's
6. Liebeck v. McDonald's

1994 WL 16777703, N.M. Dist., Aug. 05, 1994


   97. Greg K Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5380185)
We Like Lists Because We Don't Want to Die

Sounds a bit like James Flynn's stuff on splitters and lumpers (though admittedly I read one article on the topic a long time ago, so I may be way off base.)

Always fun to find more Eco to read...especially since his production has understandably slowed since his death.

EDIT: I will say, Eco seems to find Homer's list of all the Greek ships and soldiers in the Iliad much more interesting than I did. I skipped that #### like it was a Tom Bombadil song.
   98. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5380186)
Not saying anything wrong, You can search til you are blue in the face , Mcdonalds did not file an appeal to a higher court on this case.

Any facts that Simon Bedford learns are only stored in volatile memory, so as soon someone reboots the OTP thread, you have to start back at square one.
   99. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:13 AM (#5380188)
I skipped that #### like it was a Tom Bombadil song.

But bright blue his jacket is and his boots are yellow!
   100. Greg K Posted: January 09, 2017 at 11:15 AM (#5380189)
Thinking more about lists...I suppose Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle, which always makes me think of Eco's historical fiction, is obsessed with lists as well. Leibniz and Waterhouse spend about 3000 pages trying to invent a machine that can categorize everything in the universe into a sortable database of characteristics.
Page 1 of 20 pages  1 2 3 >  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
greenback changed his travels
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 20 Feb. 2017: Baseball in a Time of Politics
(1904 - 6:36pm, Feb 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogAZ Snakepit: If Zach Greinke were a Free Agent today, what would he get ?
(18 - 6:35pm, Feb 26)
Last: Like Flies On Sherbert

NewsblogFull Count » Year after his career-changing meeting, Drew Pomeranz has no interest in returning to bullpen
(4 - 6:26pm, Feb 26)
Last: Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan

NewsblogOT - December 2016 NBA thread
(2555 - 5:41pm, Feb 26)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogRio Ruiz has dropped 30 pounds in 16 months, boosted his stock
(5 - 5:07pm, Feb 26)
Last: DCA

NewsblogMets’ Duda, Who Had Back Trouble in 2016, Is Now Bothered by His Hips - The New York Times
(7 - 4:51pm, Feb 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogHow to Fix Arbitration for Relievers | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 4:48pm, Feb 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: January 2016 Soccer Thread
(285 - 4:24pm, Feb 26)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogWith Each Hit, Rockies’ D.J. LeMahieu Shows Cubs’ Epstein What He Gave Up On - The New York Times
(4 - 4:16pm, Feb 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBehind MLB chemistry: How teams try to sniff out ‘bad guys’ | New York Post
(10 - 3:29pm, Feb 26)
Last: Dock Ellis

Hall of MeritWillie Davis
(40 - 3:18pm, Feb 26)
Last: Dr. Chaleeko

NewsblogAngels figure to run more this season, just like Mike Scioscia likes it - The Orange County Register
(3 - 3:17pm, Feb 26)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogCan Bud Black break the curse of Coors Field for Colorado Rockies pitchers?
(9 - 2:29pm, Feb 26)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogPosnanski | A Baseball Challenge!
(62 - 1:39pm, Feb 26)
Last: Baldrick

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(145 - 12:53pm, Feb 26)
Last: Carl Goetz

Page rendered in 0.8083 seconds
47 querie(s) executed